[r4vik]

it's totally plausible. and best practice.

If you have a localised blog for multiple regions you will probably have your main blog set up to be indexed and your regional blogs set up to be no-indexed so that Google isn't indexing the same stuff twice.

[h1fra]

Not best practice at all. Multi-language blog posts should be handled via canonical or rel=”alternate” (own google recommendation)

[weird-eye-issue]

No that's not best practice. You think only English should be indexed in Google?

[savolai]

The point as I understood it was that if en-US is indexed, it makes no sense to index en-GB too.

[Karunamon]

Not only does it make no sense, it hurts you from an SEO standpoint since the content is probably identical.

[wut42]

that's why you use rel=canonical and rel=alternate. Read the google recommandations. Nowhere it is said to add noindex. Just the rels.

[sleepychu]

> For starters, this "news" item doesn't appear on the company's international news blog aside other articles, at the time of writing.

From the linked article.

[kindofpenguin]

They likely published it as soon as they could and translations will be a couple of days behind. Other blog posts will be pre-planned and pre-translated. The noindex on non-us versions is probably also related to it not being fully translated. Check in a few days to see if I'm right

[wut42]

In a "few days", well we have the August 2022 precedent!

> In August 2022, Slack reset user passwords after accidentally exposing the password hashes in a separate incident. Unsurprisingly, that particular notice is also marked with a 'noindex' (both the U.S. and international versions).

Here all versions have the noindex. And it's 4 months after.

[nanis]

> BleepingComputer further observed that the "meta" tag containing the "noindex" attribute was itself placed towards the bottom within the page's HTML code, in an elongated line that overflows without breaking.

Placing meta tags at the bottom, out of sight ... an _interesting_ choice given the nature of the news.

[londons_explore]

That might just be a limitation of the CMS

[wut42]

Agree. While I'm pretty sure this is to bury the articles in search, that part is probably just technical reasons (or, even more credible, technical laziness).

[bithaze]

> Check in a few days to see if I'm right

Or, you know, to see if they change it in response to the article or the discussion here.

[voytec]

> it's totally plausible. and best practice.

Best for what (except PR)? It's hostile towards users which in this case involves a lot of corporate ones.