Still ok to use
-
This is the flag to prevent google storing a copy of your webpage.
I want to use it for good reasons but in 2013 is it still safe to use. My websites not spammy but it's still very fresh with little to no links.
Each item I sell takes a lot of research to both buy and sell with the correct info. Once it's sold one I may just come across another and want to hold my advantage of having already done my research and my sold price to myself. Competitors will easily find my old page from a long tail search. Some off my old sold pages keep getting hits and high bounce rates from people using it as reasearch and price benchmark. I want to stop this.
So, No archive first, then 301 to category page once sold. Will the two cause a problem in googles eyes?
-
Thank you,
That put my mind at rest.
I was also concerned about the wayback as I have used it many times to find out details of an old page when the google cache doesn't show me what I need. So an extra thank you for that info link as well.
-
I don't see any problem with putting a noarchive on your page. We do it on all of our skill pages, because those pages get their content via AJAX, and as such appear broken when viewing the cached versions. Doing this should not have any effect on your rankings.
301 redirecting pages that are no longer used to another (hopefully) relevant page on your site is a very common tactic and is a best practice, so I wouldn't be worried about that either.
The wayback machine will still archive your content, and your competitors may look it up there. If you want to keep your old pages out of their index, you'll need to disallow their crawler in your robots.txt, and keep it from visiting those pages, or your entire site. There's info on that here.
-
Yes, I agree , it would look artificial, which is what worries me.
What I am trying to achieve is normal and full indexing of an item page and normal coverage so people can find it.
However, once it is sold I want to remove the page as I don't want competitors to come across the page via a keyword search and then request the original cache copy with price and info from the search results.
I assumed pages hang around a while and can be found via cache, so once I remove or 301 the page that needs to make the old page information inaccessible immediately.
-
The behaviour might seem artificial to them. I have seen people use the 'noarchive' tag, but only when they want to speed up the removal (from Google index) process. Plus, I didn't entirely get what you're trying to achieve.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Correct use of schema for online store and physical stores
I have been getting conflicting advice on the best way to implement schema for the following scenario. There is a central e-commerce store that is registered to it's own unique address which is "head office". There are a few physical shops each of which has their own location and address. Each shop has its own landing page within /our-stores/. So each page on the website has the Organisation schema for the central 'organisation', something like: Then on each physical store landing page is something like the following as well as the Organisation schema: Is this correct? If it is should I extend LocalBusiness with store URL and sameAs for GMB listing and maybe Companies House registration? It's also been suggested that we should use LocalBusiness for the head office of the company, then Departmentwith the typeStore. But i'm not sure on that?
Technical SEO | | MickEdwards0 -
Is "Above the Fold Content" still a thing?
Many of our pages have the textual content stuffed at the bottom of the page because the manager doesn't think anybody reads it and it is an eyesore to have at the top: http://www.stevinsontoyotawest.com/schedule-service For some light reading here is Google’s official blog talking about content quality:
Technical SEO | | MEllsworth
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html This references Ads vs Content showing above the fold. However, in our case it has to do with images vs ads and stuffing text at the bottom of pages. Here is a bit of heavier reading. You can do a quick search for "Fold" to see their interpretation.
http://macedynamics.com/research/content-quality-score/ I understand that images are still content, however hardly any of the images have Alt text and they are not even named with keywords so Google really can't distinguish what the page is about through images alone. I'm not about to go through the entire site and add Alt text and rename images because I have much more to do on my plate. So, the questions is: Is stuffing content at the bottom of the page, below all images/inventory/widgets ok to do or should we stick with the eyesore content at the top of the page? Thoughts?0 -
Should I Use Two Domains for Multi Language Sites?
I have an immigration attorney that wants a website in English and another in Spanish. We're going to have some of the website content from the English site translated via a translator to make it true, conversation spanish (automatic translators are good, but not perfect, and we want perfect). So my question is do you think we should use two different domains (englishsite.com, spanishsite.com), a subdomain (spanishsite.englishsite.com) or maybe just a separate section of the regular site (englishsite.com/spanishcontent)? My thought would be either a subdomain or a separate section so that we're not splitting PR.
Technical SEO | | atstickel120 -
Is anyone using Canonicalization for duplicate content
Hi i am trying to find out if anyone is using Canonicalization for duplicate content on a joomla site. I am using joomla 1.5 and trying to find either a module or manually how to sort this out as i have over 300 pages of duplicate content because i am not using this technique any help and advice would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Technical question about site structure using a CMS, redirects, and canonical tag
I have a couple of sites using a particular CMS that creates all of the pages under a content folder, including the home page. So the url is www.example.com/content/default.asp. There is a default.asp in the root directory that redirects to the default page in the content folder using a response.redirect statement and it’s considered a 302 redirect. So all incoming urls, i.e. www.example.com and example.com and www.example.com/ will go to the default.asp which then redirects to www.example.com/ content/default.asp. How does this affect SEO? Should the redirect be a 301? And whether it’s a 301 or a 302, can we have a rel=canonical tag on the page that that is rel=www.example.com? Or does that create some sort of loop? I’ve inherited several sites that use this CMS and need to figure out the best way to handle it.
Technical SEO | | CHutchins1 -
What tool can i use to get the true speed of my site
hi, i am trying to get the true speed of my site. i want to know how fast www.in2town.co.uk is but the tools that i am using are giving me different readings. http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/DkHoNWmZh/www.in2town.co.uk says the speed is 1.03s http://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.in2town.co.uk/i4EMDk34 says my speed is 2.25s and http://www.vertain.com/m.q?req=cstr&reqid=dAv79lt8 says it is 4.36s so as you can see i am confused. I am trying to get the site as fast as possible, but need to know what the correct speed is so i can work on things that need changing to make it faster. can anyone also let me know what speed i should be working for. many thanks
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
I am using SEOmoz pro software and my blog tags are bringing up 404 errors.
After checking they do bring back a 404 page, so i am wondering what to do. Do i remove all the blog tags? We use a Drupal cms system.
Technical SEO | | AITLtd0 -
Your opinion on using the markup from schema.org
I am attending SMXEast and one of the speakers is strongly encouraging to use the markup from schema.org. Does anyone have experience with the markup from schema.org and were you able to track any outcome in the search rankings based on adding this markup?
Technical SEO | | irvingw0