Simple Ways to Reduce the Impact of NOINDEX tag on Indexing of Hubs

1. 53

   janderson99posted 12 years ago

   The forum is full of discussion about how the NOINDEX tag assigned to all hubs during Pending and to hubs that have been Idled can cause delays for indexing by Google. For great Hubs that get Featured immediately after the pending period, or for hubs that get amended after being idled and featured again, this is an unnecessary penalty on authors who write quality hubs.
   
   There are two ways of reducing the inappropriate penalties associated with the NOINDEX tag.
   
   1. Incorporate the QAP process and ‘Pending’ step into the publishing process. That is, don’t publish a hub until it has been approved as meeting quality standards. This means that good quality hubs will never appear on the site with a NOINDEX tag (why should they?). Once published they can be immediately available for Google to crawl and index. In the past hubs were indexed within an hour of being published. The only hubs to get the NOINDEX tag would be those that have inferior quality.. If it is too hard to incorporate the needed changes into the publishing - why not simply impose a 24 hour delay for publishing to allow the QAP process to be completed, elsewhere.
   
   2. Delay adding the NOINDEX Tag to hubs that get idled by 48 Hours. This would allow authors to amend the hubs and not be subject to the risk that Google will de-index the hub before it can be edited. Surely this delay would not affect HP because most hubs would have been ‘featured’ for a month of more before being idled.
   
   => Quality Hubs should never get the NOINDEX tag  - the way it should be

   replyreport
2. 0

   Casimiroposted 12 years ago

   The first of these suggestions doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. If you use QAP then you're going to have a delay in getting the hub out anyway, perhaps more than the 24 hours it takes now to go from pending to featured. What is the "penalty" of sitting in idle for 24 hours? It's not like Google is going to count that against you, because they don't even see it while it's non-indexed.
   
   The second suggestion has some merit. It could be implemented by adding another state, which would be a "pending idle" state that gives the hubber 2 or more days to anticipate the idle state and make some changes. I don't see, though, how you get around the 24 hour idle state. The hub has to be checked.
   
   Perhaps what you are thinking is that some hubbers who have a good quality track record could be given a pass on the idle state. Sort of like special status for frequent travelers with the TSA?

   replyreport
   1. 53

      janderson99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "Google is going to count that against you, because they don't even see it while it's non-indexed."
      
      The point is that while a hub is pending it has the NOINDEX Tag added to it. If the Googlebot sees that tag it does not index the hub and says "bye, bye see you next time" maybe a few days or a few weeks. This can delay the hub being index when it is featured and the NOINDEX tag is removed (days or weeks delay).
      If the hub was not published until it was through QAPthere is no way the bot would see the NOINDEX tag - this would stop any indexing delays.
      The point about the changes is to never have the NOINDEX tag dsplayed on a quality hub!! Surely that is the way it should be!!!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Casimiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize there would be such a long delay between bot visits.

         replyreport
      2. 79

         Blake Flanneryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I really like the idea of delaying publishing until the hub has been reviewed.  Maybe hubbers could choose whether they want a pending hub for 24 hours (Google visits and is told "There's nothing important here) or an unpublished hub for 24 hours (Google only finds your hub and indexes it before people can rip you off). I know I'd choose the unpublished 24 hour review.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Melovyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            janderson99, this idea seems good to me. I would prefer that hubbers with a proven track record of quality hubs didn't have pending at all, but if the pending period is to remain for all hubs, I am also in favour of hubs remaining unpublished while in pending. Since search engines can't see a hub that's in pending there is no benefit at all to it being published before the process is done.

            replyreport