3 ms·
There are no standards here - the world of SEO is a weird place of guesswork and testing what works. I think the Google recommendation [1] is still to use rel=c
by andy_ppp 4y ago
There are no standards here - the world of SEO is a weird place of guesswork and testing what works. I think the Google recommendation [1] is still to use rel=canonical however who knows why this noindex is added to alternative duplicate pages - it might be that the SEO person at Slack knows what they are doing.
I think the accusation of foul play is somewhat overblown given there is a version that does not contain noindex.
[1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/consolidate-duplicate-urls https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/...
- TechBro8615 4y agoForget about all that; you can just check Google to see if the page is indexed. It is. Using this query: site:slack.com inurl:/blog/news/slack-security-update https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aslack.com+inurl%3A%2Fblog%2Fnews%2Fslack-security-update https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aslack.com+inurl%3A%2F...
- richardwhiuk 4y agoThere explicitly is a standard here, which is used by Google, Yahoo and Bing - see appendix A of RFC 6596.
- andy_ppp 4y agoI understand that, but what I’m saying is that SEO itself is often based on what actually works. This noindex of non canonical resources is likely to be that not an attempt to hide things from Google.