Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Nice link Mark. News to me, really. But the fact that Schema.org and HTML5 both have author identification methods shows that it may be used by other search engines and/or services. And the followup article to your link there is "Google Authorship May Be Dead, But Author Rank Is Not." http://searchengineland.com/google-authorship-dead-author-rank-202254 But darn, man! All that time wasted getting authorship to work back then. Google's authorship verification process was indeed grueling.

Hi There, I hope all is well in the world and you are enjoying a spectacular day! In this case I would recommend updating our feature request forum at https://seomoz.zendesk.com/entries/23027762-Disavow-upload-for-OSE. Our amazing engineers and developers will peruse through the forums and if there is enough traction we will do what we can to implement it. As an aside I can see why that'd be really useful, but Google doesn't guarantee they pay attention to disavow requests.   Hopefully with a little bit more love this suggestion can be a big step forward for Moz and the community! In the meantime if you have any questions please let me know and I would be more than happy to share my two cents.:) Have an excellent day and may the rankings be ever in your favor.

No problem - what was you reason for going to HTTPs? If it is for a ranking boost you may find this an interesting read - http://blog.searchmetrics.com/us/2014/08/29/https-vs-http-analysis-do-secure-sites-get-higher-rankings/ I moved one site to https and saw no siginificant ranking boost from this change. I have seen people implement this and cause there site to slow down which has had the opposite effect. In my opinion another big clue is the fact that sites like Moz and Search Engine Land haven't gone to https

Hey, sorry about that, ya'll! I, too, misread the question. I think we are all back on track now, though. Thanks to you both for reaching out.

You can check the cache copy, in some cases Google appends the parameter and in some cases it does not. This depends on the authority of the specific URL.

Thanks so much! This is exactly what I wanted to know.

You're welcome

Well, I know Bing says they support it, but how well it works, I don't know. You can read about it here on the Bing blog post, and Tom from Distilled answered a similar question on Moz here. Hopefully these will help a little. -Andy

With this info, I would go with Robots.txt because, as you say, it outweighs any potential loss given the use of the pages and the absence of links. Thanks

Hello Yair, I think you're fine with NOINDEX, FOLLOW robots meta tags on those pages and either rel="nofollow" in the links to them or using javascript instead. Keep in mind that Google is getting pretty good at parsing javascript so they'll still crawl those pages (which means they'll still be using crawl budget), making it necessary to have the noindex tag on those pages. Providing those pages aren't already in Google's index, I would consider adding a robots.txt file disallow, similar to the one below... Disallow: /user//favorites Disallow: /user//posts Disallow: /user//questions Disallow: /user//friends The * is a wildcard that should apply this to every profile. You may or may not have a /user/ folder but I put it in there as an example.

I think you're possibly trying to solve a problem that you don't have! As long as you've got a good information architecture and submitting a dynamically updated sitemap then I don't think you need to worry about this. If you're got a blog, then sharing those on Google+ can be a good way to get them quickly indexed.

Yair, See the infographic on this page regarding rel nofollow tags in links, and when you may want to consider using them. Specifically, see the part about User Generated Content: http://searchengineland.com/infographic-nofollow-tag-172157 However, Google can decide to crawl whatever they want to crawl, whether it is a nofollowed link, links on a page with a nofollow meta tag, or javascript links. If you really want to keep Google out of those portions of the site you should use the robots.txt disallow statement, as I mentioned in your other thread, or use the X-Robots-Tag as described here.