The Power of the WebProWorld SEO Community

[morestar]

Why would anyone believe what Matt Cutts has to say when he is simply a pawn for the largest Propaganda machine that exists today???

Matt cannot tell the truth on anything related to Google, other than who won a Doodle contest.

Lastly the nofollow tag is meant to tell Google you do not trust a site that you link to.....

.why would a webmaster use a nofollow tag when pointing to your own site pages?? That would be saying you do not trust your own site.

That in and of itself should tell everyone the nofollow tag is simple fodder pushed out by the Propaganda Search Engine....ooops I mean Google...

well...I myself will never use nofollow, however, i can't agree that if you use it on links on your own site it signifies a lack of trust...and if someone uses it on their site on links to other sites, it might mean the user doesn't want to pass PR.

I'm more than sure Google considers "mights" in it's algo more than we think. Take a look at pages with high rankings that have invisible text or text that is hidden or the same color as the background. There must be a "might" in google's thinking like "the developer 'might' have forgotten to apply a color style to the text/p etc.

[kevsta]

interesting discussion but I do agree with Matt C that this kind of "PR sculpting" is very much a second order effect. whilst it may make small differences it's kind of like picking over the scraps on the floor while missing the steak on the table.

[Webnauts]

To clarify my points about noindex in my previous post...

I believe that "noindex" is something of a misnomer. Specifying that a page is noindex does not actually delete everything about the page.

Lets say you have a source page with five links on it. Further, lets say one of those pages is listed as noindex and disallow in robots.txt. When Google crawls that page, and calculates how much pagerank to assign to each page, it does not consider that one of the pages is listed as noindex/disallow. It simply gives each destination url 1/5 of the source page's pagerank.

1. You cannot have noindex and nofollow the same time in the robots.txt.

Andy Beard backs that up with his comment here SEOmoz | Headsmacking Tip #13: Don't Accidentally Block Link Juice with Robots.txt

"Google ranks pages blocked with Robots.txt much lower than they used to just 12 months ago, even if they have tons of authority links.
They will appear in very long tail searches, and site searches.

"However just because they don't appear in search results doesn't mean they aren't sucking juice out of your site.
If you use noindex, don't forget to remove the disallow in robots.txt, otherwise Google won't see the noindex."

It gives 1/5 to the link but not to the noindexed destination page its self. When the bot will arrive to the noindexed page it will go on carrying the PR and pass it to the the pages I link from there. Otherwise, why should dangling/node pages be a problem? If that would not be a problem, then I can also add the nofollow meta tag on the noindex page too, or?

Now, when Google finally resolves the URL for the page that is listed as disallow/noindex, Google does not delete the pagerank for the page. After all, Google has to remember that the URL is blocked so that it will not keep trying to crawl that location. It also doesn't delete pagerank - that pagerank gets used in another calculation. The page is still in the index, it is simply hidden so that it never shows up in a user query - including toolbar.google.com queries and site: and other special searches.

Google does not delete the PR? OK. Then tell me this. How much PR does a page need to have so it will be white and not grey.

I think there is a misconcept here. Disallow and Noindex are two entirely different things. Disallow blocks and noindex does not block. Noindex allows Google to crawl through the page, but it advises Google not to index it.

The noindex page does not stay in the index. It is removed entirely! That is fact.

Back to the quotation Dave posted above:

Eric Enge Can a NoIndex page accumulate PageRank?

Matt Cutts A NoIndex page can accumulate PageRank, because the links are still followed outwards from a NoIndex page.

Eric Enge So, it can accumulate and pass PageRank.

Matt Cutts Right, and it will still accumulate PageRank, but it won’t be showing in our Index. So, I wouldn’t make a NoIndex page that itself is a dead end. You can make a NoIndex page that has links to lots of other pages.
Eric Enge Interviews Google’s Matt Cutts

- Can someone explain me what the word accumulate mean?
- Can someone explain me why I shouldn't have a dead end?

[Webnauts]

interesting discussion but I do agree with Matt C that this kind of "PR sculpting" is very much a second order effect. whilst it may make small differences it's kind of like picking over the scraps on the floor while missing the steak on the table.

I do not agree Ken. Because what we are discussing here is not really PageRank Sculpting. I would call that bots herding. It is about showing Google what pages you feel are important and which not. And if not important pages have IBLs carrying PR, that they will pass that PR to the important pages. And when or where Matt Cutts talked about what I am talking about here? That is new to me.

[kevsta]

I do not agree Ken. Because what we are discussing here is not really PageRank Sculpting. I would call that bots herding. It is about showing Google what pages you feel are important and which not. And if not important pages have IBLs carrying PR, that they will pass that PR to the important pages. And when or where Matt Cutts talked about what I am talking about here? That is new to me.

"bot herding" for what purpose exactly?

..MC very famously said he wouldnt worry about trying to sculpt PR because it is a second order effect, and better links will be a better solution every time. will find the link to the interview if youve forgotten?

[wige]

Google does not delete the PR? OK. Then tell me this. How much PR does a page need to have so it will be white and not grey.

Well, remember, toolbar pagerank is not the same thing as internal pagerank. Just because a page doesn't have a toolbar pagerank does not mean that the page has no internal pagerank.

Toolbar pagerank information is stored in a seperate server from Google's actual indices. The tbpr database is built periodically, and Google has mentioned in the past certain sites are omittted when the tbpr database is built. I firmly believe that pages marked as noindex are simply left out of the tbpr database, rather than the omission indicating the URLs have been removed from the index of known urls.

There is no way to confirm this absolutely without working at Google, but to me, it seems that the database would be less efficient if Google removed noindex pages from the index instead of hiding them - it would throw off the calculations of pagerank (since in theory pagerank can't be destroyed), it would affect the operation of spiders (since they would in effect keep forgetting that the page is not indexable).

The noindex page does not stay in the index. It is removed entirely! That is fact.

This is theory. How can it be proven? And as noted above, not being in the tbpr database does not prove it.

[kevsta]

A noindex page accumulates and passes PR in the same way an indexed page would.

Dave

this was my understanding of this too

[Webnauts]

"bot herding" for what purpose exactly?

..MC very famously said he wouldnt worry about trying to sculpt PR because it is a second order effect, and better links will be a better solution every time. will find the link to the interview if youve forgotten?

1. Fall weather forecast
2. SMX Video - Matt Cutts Explains How to Get Out of Google’s Supplemental Index

And yes. Please find that link if you can.

Thanks.

[Webnauts]

"bot herding" for what purpose exactly?

For example Bot Herding = Bot Herding

[Webnauts]

Well, remember, toolbar pagerank is not the same thing as internal pagerank.

Just because a page doesn't have a toolbar pagerank does not mean that the page has no internal pagerank.

Toolbar pagerank information is stored in a seperate server from Google's actual indices. The tbpr database is built periodically, and Google has mentioned in the past certain sites are omittted when the tbpr database is built.

That is clear. But if I noindex a page that had PR 6 and becomes grey and the links pointing to that pages exist for lets say a year, should that PR show up some time?

I firmly believe that pages marked as noindex are simply left out of the tbpr database, rather than the omission indicating the URLs have been removed from the index of known urls.

If you are right, then the toolbar values are not just only out-of-date (2-4 months old), but they are faked!!!

This deserves a thread of its own!

There is no way to confirm this absolutely without working at Google, but to me, it seems that the database would be less efficient if Google removed noindex pages from the index instead of hiding them

Google doesn't delete information in general. Deletion for Google means caching or saving into not accessible to the public areas.

- it would throw off the calculations of pagerank (since in theory pagerank can't be destroyed), it would affect the operation of spiders (since they would in effect keep forgetting that the page is not indexable).

To remember those pages do those pages need to have PageRank?

This is theory. How can it be proven? And as noted above, not being in the tbpr database does not prove it.

Well as I said if the noindex page has PageRank and it is not displayed in the toolbar, the toolbar values are fake. If that is they case, the toolbar sucks more than my imagination could perceive since I am working as an SEO professional.