> Hmm.. yes it does.. kinda (apart from the fact that by disallowing
> dupes you end up with a greater chance your 'real' content is
> represented in the serps and hence more widely linked to). Methinks I
> need to write another plugin. This thread is a real eye opener.

> Hmm.. yes it does.. kinda (apart from the fact that by disallowing
> dupes you end up with a greater chance your 'real' content is
> represented in the serps and hence more widely linked to). Methinks I
> need to write another plugin. This thread is a real eye opener.

> doc

> On Oct 10, 5:46 pm, Sam I Am wrote:

> > That's the look I was talking about indeed. Our search.cfm page has
> > this (I am actually beginning to think that by following Matt's advice
> > and disallowing the search page, it confused googlebot so much that
> > our site was penalized, but that aside) if you do a search for
> > site:www.travellerspoint.comsearch.cfm. You'll see what I meant
> > earlier about it being quite a specific query, since other pages on
> > the site that include that file extension somewhere in the body rank
> > for the same thing and it's not until you click on the 'see more
> > results' that you see all the remaining ones still in the index (there
> > aren't that many since I put through a request to have them removed
> > about 6 months ago, but still a few stragglers).

> > > Thinking about that, could the difference between your and my case be that Google possibly sees your site in a similar light as John Chow's?

> > I'd be quite insulted by that if it was the case and that's not
> > anything against John Chow because his blog does make for interesting
> > reading (I only found it BECAUSE of his penalty though, so how is that
> > for twisted :) ). But he does so many things that are in the grey
> > zones of Google's terms, whereas no one has been able to point me to
> > one area on our site yet and I know a few well known SEO's who have
> > looked. We've got another on the case right now and in the not too far
> > future, if none of these professionals can figure it out, we won't
> > really have much choice but to assume Googlebot has lost the plot and
> > therefore take it further. The way I see it, if it can happen to us it
> > can happen to 99.99% of the cases out there and that's a worrying
> > thought for anyone in the development field!! Anyway, I digress
> > (again)...

> > > One thing that I haven't seen mentioned throughout all of this though

> > is that is seems "nofollow", or at least something like it but with a
> > better name, has been needed for some time as there would seem to have
> > been a "hole" without it.

> > Yes, I was just thinking that on the way to work this morning. Kind of
> > blows years of theories out of the water where people have been
> > 'sculpting PageRank' by disallowing pages :) Ouch...

> > Your idea of linking to a disallowed 2nd page via nofollow is of
> > course simpler, but ONLY in the case of the page you are ultimately
> > trying to link to being on your site. For example, since this whole
> > mess started, one thing we've done is link to affiliate programs
> > through a disallowed page (which must be collecting tons of beautiful
> > green pr!) and as you don't control the final destination page, that's
> > the only way to do it if you want to ensure it is doing the same thing
> > across all the search engines. For your own site, your option would be
> > cleaner (if you aren't caring about Yahoo and MSN)... which on a side
> > note, I would. Only catering to one engine isn't the most viable
> > solution in the long run and Yahoo has been making clear improvements
> > across the board. There's lots of talk on webmaster forums about
> > switching, just like there was prior to everyone moving to Google.
> > With a better ad solution in place (man, they are REALLY dropping the
> > ball there) it could seriously start picking up momentum and one
> > benefit they have as a business is multiple income sources. One
> > downturn in ad expenditure or Google marketshare and it's share price
> > is going to plummet, not to mention all these 'free' products will
> > start drying up... but of course I say that as Google hits an all time
> > high in share price! :)

> > It's a wacky world, and only getting wackier....

> > On Oct 10, 7:16 am, dockarl wrote:

> > > Ya mate - they are just robotted out rather than nofollowed (typical
> > > wordpress behavior) although I may write a plugin to change that.

> > > The title and description are not included simply because google
> > > doesn't actually parse the page - they just see a link to it and
> > > assume that it must therefore exist, according to Matt's explanation
> > > in the Erig Enge interview.

> > > Cheers,

> > > doc

> > > On Oct 10, 1:32 pm, cass-hacks wrote:

> > > > > Hi Craig - I think this is what the 'pages that Google infers are
> > > > > there but can't actually check' pages look like:-

> > > > >http://www.google.com.au/search?q=site:www.utheguru.com&hl=en&safe=of...

> > > > Interesting!

> > > > So the indication, at least in this case, is that the <title> is
> > > > ignored, even though the page has one, and there is no description
> > > > snippet, which also likely wouldn't be displayed ever were there one?

> > > > How did they get in Google's index? Do you link to the various feeds
> > > > without a link condom?

> > > > Craig- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -