13

Do you think it's a good idea to add

<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow" />

HTML tag for questions that have a negative score, no answers and are closed? They are not what I'd like to see in my search results, since most of the time they are of no value to me or anyone else.

It would probably make sense to exclude questions closed as duplicate from this criteria.

  • 4
    That's what deletion is for, isn't it? Or, do you mean - even before they are old enough for Roomba? – John Dvorak Sep 25 '14 at 8:47
  • 2
    If questions have no redeeming value worthy of showing up in the search terms, then bring them to community attention to get it deleted or get the privilege to vote to delete yourself. – Unihedron Sep 25 '14 at 8:51
  • 2
    Questions that have a negative score, no answers, are closed and old enough, they get autodeleted – John Dvorak Sep 25 '14 at 8:51
-3

No, I disagree that this should be implemented.

Questions which cannot be redeemed should be dealt with, and not instead be banished from the search engine. Here's why:

  • There is no need to reduce its source of getting views, as views expires close votes, and these questions (negative score, no answers and are closed) are already closed.
  • Closed questions (even at negative score) may or may not be salvageable. If past a sufficient time deemed by the system as worthy of deletion if the thread is abandoned, it will be deleted automatically. The criteria "negative score, no answers and are closed" does not necessarily mean a thread is not worthy of showing up in the search terms - That's what reopening is for, when questions which are put on hold are fixed.
  • Not everyone dislikes seeing these on the search results - You mentioned "They're not what I'd like to see in my Google search results." There is no consensus made relating to that bad questions flooding the search reports are annoying to anyone. My frank judgement is that this "feature" may not be well-received, it should not be implemented to begin with.
  • 13
    Regarding your first bullet point: the purpose of proposal is not to reduce views, but rather to improve search results for people using Google. Regarding your second bullet point: even if the question is "salvageable", most people who are doing a search on Google probably don't want to see it if it is not helpful in its current state. Salvageable is a plausible criteria for deletion, but not necessarily the right criteria for what people want to see in search results on Google. For these reasons, I find the two arguments in your first two bullet points unconvincing. – D.W. Dec 30 '15 at 22:11
  • @D.W.: I find it unconvincing that you're speaking for a general audience with unbacked assumptions. – Unihedron Dec 30 '15 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239981/noindex-and-nofollow-bad-questions
meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-39
122839
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:23CO7FBWKTMJLITWTLBORSF67BQRKZ66
<urn:uuid:afdaccb6-a355-43b1-8181-d1159f9b9033>
2019-09-15T18:24:54Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:5377PNOMDKMLO2TUXW2N4JYLPPQHJTNF
<urn:uuid:502caf6d-ac0c-4ec0-b7b1-55ca82bf27ce>
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/239981/noindex-and-nofollow-bad-questions
response
<urn:uuid:a262576f-ae2f-4ab3-83cc-bf11209122c0>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-47.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/