<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>noindex on 3V.org</title>
    <link>https://3v.org/tags/noindex/</link>
    <description>Recent content in noindex on 3V.org</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://3v.org/tags/noindex/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Robots.txt vs Noindex: Why Blocking Crawlers Does Not Remove Pages From Search</title>
      <link>https://3v.org/robots.txt-vs-noindex-why-blocking-crawlers-does-not-remove-pages-from-search/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://3v.org/robots.txt-vs-noindex-why-blocking-crawlers-does-not-remove-pages-from-search/</guid>
      <description>Two mechanisms control how search engines treat a page, they solve different problems, and confusing them is one of the most consistently damaging mistakes in technical SEO. The distinction moved from a specialist concern to a mainstream news story this week when Anthropic&amp;rsquo;s Claude conversation pages appeared in Google and Bing results despite a robots file instructing crawlers not to access them — the pages reportedly lacked a noindex directive.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
