Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 22
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: August 7, 2007 - 3:45 pm
Posted By: Sebastian 334 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://sebastianx.blogspot.com)
Category: Google SEO
Is the lack of a NOPREVIEW directive just an oversight, or will it be part of another announcement?
8 Comments
Comments
Well, they should have included a NOARCHIVE option which would have done the job. But yes, they should provide some option.
Incommodating the Web community piecemeal again - nothing new about that, unfortunately.
Nice catch, anyway.
Just treat those files as regular web pages, why not block them with login/cookie or deny crawlability?
This coin got two sides - the value of links...
Say you've a script delivering PDF contents to various user agents coming from various IPs ... perhaps you need this granularity one day :)
Good points. I'd prefer they remove the "views as ..." if you tell them not to cache the document via 'nocarchive'. If each search engine keeps adding non-standard directives and stuff, it will become a mess very soon.
Well, then my choice would be NOSNIPPET because both the snippet and the HTML version are previews. That would remove the SERP snippet too, probably unwanted. NOARCHIVE applied to a PDF would exactly mean that the PDF is not cached (useless because Google doesn't provide "cached" links for PDFs on the SERPs) but it tells nothing about the HTML version, that's how Google handles it ATM. Cached web formats and transformed non-Web formats are different, so I'd rather live with a little more complexity in favour of a precise crawler directive.
fyi.. you want your content to be archived.. i.e. indexed.. hint hint.. and if you want your PDFs out of the SERPs, put links to them only on one page and nofollow tag it.. also, you won't get any kind of benefit from links within the PDF either.
hmm.. question (until i go figure it out), is there a way to insert meta data in a PDF...??
hmm.. (wanders off to find some answers)
A-PDF INFO Changer seems to work, now for the experiment.