I have recently noticed some of my pages showing up in the Google cache>

even though the page contained a "noindex" META Tag. These are private>pages for inter office use and are not meant for public display.>

Is there another META tag that will prevent Google from caching these>pages?>

Since the pages are not meant for public view, I have just re-named the>

files so anyone that may click them from Google will just get my not>found page.>

My problem is that I really have no way to keep up with pages which>Google has ignored my noindex META. I have now included the noarchive>meta in the hopes the Googlebot might understand that one.>

Any suggestions?>

P.S. I posted this question in the public forum but received no>suggestions so I'm hoping some-one in here may have run in to this>problem. Please pardon my cross post.

I have recently noticed some of my pages showing up in the Google cache>

even though the page contained a "noindex" META Tag. These are private>pages for inter office use and are not meant for public display.>

Is there another META tag that will prevent Google from caching these>pages?>

Since the pages are not meant for public view, I have just re-named the>

files so anyone that may click them from Google will just get my not>found page.>

My problem is that I really have no way to keep up with pages which>Google has ignored my noindex META. I have now included the noarchive>meta in the hopes the Googlebot might understand that one.>

Any suggestions?

On 7 Jun 2006 14:54:58 -0700, "Rik" <rik@rmcaudio.com> wrote:>

Use robots.txt to exclude the files. You can't do this with the old>ones but you can with any new ones you make.>

You know robots.txt?>

Have a read;>

BB

What about password protected files ?> plh> Paul>

Paul wrote:>> On 7 Jun 2006 14:54:58 -0700, "Rik" <rik@rmcaudio.com> wrote:>>

The page that contains the links leading to our private pages is> password protected. That navagation page resides in a folder that is> disallowed through my robots.txt file.>

The private pages in question reside in folders that contain public> pages so I was afraid to disallow anything in those folders using the> robots.txt file for fear of the bot ignoring the folder.> That's why I chose to use the noindex meta on the individual pages.>

Is it common for Google to ignore META tags like the noindex,noarchive> I am currently using? I have seen Google ignore my robots.txt file> before but this is the first time I have seen them ignore the noindex> command.

I notice that Paul (or you) has reduced the distributions

Paul wrote:>> On 7 Jun 2006 14:54:58 -0700, "Rik" <rik@rmcaudio.com> wrote:>>

The page that contains the links leading to our private pages is>password protected. That navagation page resides in a folder that is>disallowed through my robots.txt file.>

The private pages in question reside in folders that contain public>pages so I was afraid to disallow anything in those folders using the>robots.txt file for fear of the bot ignoring the folder.>That's why I chose to use the noindex meta on the individual pages.>

Is it common for Google to ignore META tags like the noindex,noarchive>I­ am currently using? I have seen Google ignore my robots.txt file>before but this is the first time I have seen them ignore the noindex>command.

Only works with good bots though BB.>

password protected is far better.> plh> Paul>

-- >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestric­ted-Secure Usenet > News==----> http://www.newsfeed­s.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ > Newsgroups> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =----

"Paul" <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo­.com> wrote in message > news:ejoe821oq38jo6­oatjs6162ikda8h70jgh­@4ax.com...>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:25:33 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co­.uk>>> wrote:>>

See this http://www.google.c­o.uk/intl/en/webmast­ers/remove.html>

Also, it is a good idea to have a default home page in every subdirectory > (e.g. called index.html) to prevent the server revealing listings of all > files present.>

Best regards, Eric.

Also, it is a good idea to have a default home page in every subdirectory> (e.g. called index.html) to prevent the server revealing listings of all> files present.

You don't need such tricks if the server is properly configured - ie you> can deny directory listings in .htaccess.>

Best,> Borek> --> http://www.chembudd­y.com> http://www.ph-meter­.info/pH-Nernst-equa­tion> http://www.terapia-­kregoslupa.waw.pl

Further to this it is also a good idea to make sure the Google toolbar PR > display is turned off whenever you or your colleagues view your private > documents otherwise you are telling Google the file names.

Borek wrote:>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:17:41 +0200, Eric Johnston <nospam@redyonder.c­o.uk>>> wrote:>>

Thanks for all the suggestions gentlemen. I now have my research cut>out for me and you guys have given me ideas on what to look for.>

I don't allow any of my staff to load the Google toolbar on company>machines. I figured there is no reason to support Google when it comes>to compiling demographics info that they will sell later.>

Thanks again.>Rik

Roy (and Rik),>

It is usually much easier. Do as Rik did and delete (or rename) the> pages (so that they give a 404 not found server response) then go to URL> controller, sign up if you don't have an account, then give the URL(s)> of the pages to remove.>

http://services.goo­gle.com:8882/urlcons­ole/controller?cmd=r­eload&lastcmd=login>­

Within a couple of days Google will delete them from the index (and> cache). This doesn't work for image files though (IME).>

The meta tags should work with the Googlebot, see O'Reilly's site for> details,>

http://hacks.oreill­y.com/pub/h/220>

sometimes people mistype the tags.>

However the basic message is that no private document should be> accessible via a public URL.>

-------------------­---> http://www.abcseo.c­om/

Do you know if it makes a difference whether the tags are>upper or lower case?