Best practice for content which does not need to be indexed "now".

[JorgeV]

Hello-

I have some pages, which are very thin, but will gain content over the time, this is "feature", not a work under construction.

I believe there is no point of having these pages indexed, until they have additional content, however, once a visitor is at the site, it makes sense for him to be able to visit these pages.

So what, would be best?

- noindex these pages, until there is additional content ?

- set these pages into a sub-folder which is disabled at the level of the robots.txt ? and then move the page to a "normal" folder, "later". (the site is PHP driven, so the URL can be switched very easily).

- do nothing, and let robots visit and index these pages anyhow?

[lucy24]

I'd go with a <noindex>. That way the pages will keep getting crawled periodically, and search engines will notice as soon as the <noindex> is removed.

The temporary folder seems like more trouble than it's worth. Just think of the tangle of redirects.

But maybe the underlying question is: Will it harm the site to have these thin-to-emaciation pages indexed--in some theoretical, abstract sense--all along? If no, then don't even bother with the noindex. They won't show up as entry pages anyway, unless some human has a question that can be perfectly answered by the page's single sentence of content.

[brighteryeg]

I agree with no-index, specifically a noindex meta tag as opposed to a robots.txt directive which Google stopped supporting.

[searchengineland.com...]

[lucy24]

robots.txt directive which Google stopped supporting

Good for them. Directives about indexing had no business being in robots.txt in the first place.

From the linked article (information presumably also available from the horse's mouth, if someone cares to look it up):

Google will stop supporting unsupported and unpublished rules

File under: NSS. Except, of course, for the unpublished rules that Google will continue to follow because they feel like it.

[tangor]

I'd let 'em index to heart's content as EACH CHANGE WILL SHOW the page is actively being updated which is a "freshness" signal. You have every intention that users can see it and in future desire robots to see it, why not start off that way?

UPDATED pages are just as valid as any other kind. And if "thin" becomes "thick" you have provided the indexer with a history of "this site maintains their content".

g scared the krap out of webmasters when "thin content" hit the fan of advisories/directives. Confused the heck out of everybody. (And yes, there is such a thing as thin content and g already knows what that is.

UPDATED pages show a "last date modified" and if that keeps changing, the indexer will keep returning ON A REGULAR BASIS.

[RedBar]

I have some pages, which are very thin, but will gain content over the time

How thin is your thin?

Are these pages competing against established pages or are they totally new pages?

Bear in mind "thin" pages can rank extremely well so long as everything from the headers downwards, including images etc, are done correctly and thereby regular updates / improvement are perceived to be "new, better, additional" for wont of an explanation ... the actual description escapes me right now ...

I have never, ever had a problem with launching "thin" pages and then, over time, adding extra content and watch those pages rise in the SERPs.

It is without doubt the best way to learn what does, and does not, work well:-)

[RedBar]

Hehehe ... tangor and me were obviously answering at the same time .. I agree with his observations ... freshness was what I was looking for:-)

[tangor]

And this thread is a perfect example of what a "thin" to "thick", updated, freshed and re-freshed page might look like. The content is constantly changing!

YMMV ...

But if you intend for users to see the page, let the dang bots see it, too!

NOFOLLOW should be used for very special requirements. If you use it routinely one might look like a ... dare I say it? ... SEO idi-- er, gamester!

[tangor]

Sorry ... NOFOLLOW above should be NOINDEX. Sheesh!

[JorgeV]

Thank you for all your valuable answers, and explanations !