Legacy REQUEST: Additional options with new "nofollow" setting for forum thread links

[bzcomputers]

REQUEST: Additional options with new "nofollow" setting for forum thread links

The new option appears to be working, I am seeing rel="nofollow" being appended to all the links of forums selected in the admin options.

I do have two additional requests having to do with this same topic.

1) Could you add the admin option to allow us to select "Append "nofollow" to all links to forum threads not viewable by Guests." and base the thread links affected by the forum permissions already set. I have hundreds of sub-forums that do change and this would save time and an extra step each time a new forum with limited read permissions is added.

2) Could you add <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"> to these forum thread heads. This would help greatly with those urls that have already been indexed and are currently throwing errors.

 

[Fillip H.]

1) Could you add the admin option to allow us to select "Append "nofollow" to all links to forum threads not viewable by Guests." and base the thread links affected by the forum permissions already set. I have hundreds of sub-forums that do change and this would save time and an extra step each time a new forum with limited read permissions is added.

This is unfortunately not possible without murdering performance, that's why the setting was added as it was

2) Could you add <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"> to these forum thread heads. This would help greatly with those urls that have already been indexed and are currently throwing errors.

The 403 permissions will prevent a re-index, and adding that meta tag is actively harmful as it applies to ALL links on that page, not just the page itself, according to what I could find.

The only reason why Google tells you about the 403s is because if there didn't use to be any, and suddenly there's an influx of them (such as the period right after the DBSEO update that added 404/403 support), that might mean something's wrong. It's not actually an error in the sense that there's a problem, necessarily. In this case, it's not a problem