The nofollows are automatically created by mediawiki.

I'll try to find a solution for removing them i guess. Thank you for your input.

Hi Adam.

Thank you for the good replies.

The url to the wiki: http://docs.host1.no/wiki

Url to main page: https://host1.no

"Complaints" from the moz.com-engine:

#1: (mediawiki-problem)

Crawl Issue Found: Use of 'nofollow' Tag

49% of site pages are tagged with the nofollow META attribute#2: (mediawiki-problem)

Crawl Issue Found: 404 Errors

8% of site pages served 404 errors during the last crawlExample of sites Moz.com complains about noindex/nofollow on:http://docs.host1.no/w/index.php?title=Cloud1&action=infohttp://docs.host1.no/w/index.php?title=Cloud1&action=historyhttp://docs.host1.no/w/index.php?title=Cloud1&action=editAnd so on.I assume google won't mind this as it's pages that really don't need to be indexed. But it would be nice to get moz' crawler to ignore these errors as they might mask other actual problems by the amount of errors i get. When i get 1000+ errors from this it's hard to find the real problems.

The links within the site (within mediawiki to be specific) is noindex + nofollow. This due to it being information-sites and such in mediawiki.

Not sure what to do with them, but it's fairly annoying that moz lists it as a problem with "1000 internal links having nofollow" if it's not really a problem at all.

We have a website which uses mediawiki for public documentation. The moz crawler keeps nagging us that 50% of our sites have the nofollow-metatag. (And noindex for that matter). This is information pages and such in mediawiki.

From a SEO perspective: Should we remove these tags? I assume they probably do not hurt?

If we shouldn't remove the tags: Is there any way to get moz to ignore these pages so we can get rid of this "noise" in the moz-panel?

I see you got a answer from someone that knows more than me. I recommend that you take Kevin's advice, and apologize for my bad advice.

Disclaimer: I am definitely not a SEO expert, but i cannot see any reason for why you should get penalized for having a few gallery pages on your site. That would just give people another reason for doing "bad" SEO by using shady methods to get their gallery-pages and similar pages with no/minimal text to rank better.

Yes, you can have unoptimized pages. They will naturally not get a very good pagerank, but as far as i know it does not hurt to have some pages with no text as long as you have enough content on the rest of your site.

I would recommend looking around on the internet to find good guides/artciles to read.

If you have a Kindle/other ebook-reader create PDF's of the guides/articles, and import them to your ebook-reader for easy reading when offline. I am not a expert on SEO, but after a couple of decades working with computers my opinion is that books are rarely worth it for topics that forces you too always be up-to-date. (SEO)

The reason for this is most likely the use of a "out-link" with 301 redirect. Not 100% sure, but i would assume this is the reason for it not appearing in backlinks.

Do you have a update on this? Did it work?

1: the "." in front of "*localhost" might break the filter i guess. The same goes for the "." after "4444".

2: Have you tried localhost*  or localhost ?

Well, based on the following post it seems like that is correct:

Quote:

When you look at Google's cache of a page (for instance, by using the cache: operator or clicking the Cached link under a URL in the search results), you can see the date that Googlebot retrieved that page. Previously, the date we listed for the page's cache was the date that we last successfully fetched the content of the page. This meant that even if we visited a page very recently, the cache date might be quite a bit older if the page hadn't changed since the previous visit. This made it difficult for webmasters to use the cache date we display to determine Googlebot's most recent visit. Consider the following example:

1. Googlebot crawls a page on April 12, 2006.
2. Our cached version of that page notes that "This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.example.com/ as retrieved on April 12, 2006 20:02:06 GMT."
3. Periodically, Googlebot checks to see if that page has changed, and each time, receives a Not-Modified response. For instance, on August 27, 2006, Googlebot checks the page, receives a Not-Modified response, and therefore, doesn't download the contents of the page.
4. On August 28, 2006, our cached version of the page still shows the April 12, 2006 date -- the date we last downloaded the page's contents, even though Googlebot last visited the day before.

You can find more information about this here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.no/2006/09/better-details-about-when-googlebot.html