| 5:46 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They do give credit for <nosrcipt> links. however, if you stuff too many links and abuse it you might have bad results. use is moderately and you'll be fine.
| 10:02 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some members of this forum said Google was not taking into account noscript links..
| 11:13 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
google does count them, i've tested, it does.
I have a domain that only has noscript incoming links with a +ve pr, set up just to test this.
| 6:03 pm on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Do you have good rankings with that domain?
| 2:37 pm on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anybody else has tested this pr transfer of noscript links?
| 3:11 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Noscript definitely passes PR and content is indexed with some weight towards rankings. Result snippets will show noscript content that matches query.
Hope that helps.
| 4:05 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I also thought google would penalise noscript links, which criteria can i follow with noscript links without the risk of being banned? I mean 1 link, 3 links, 20 links...
| 5:20 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I would stick with <noscript> links that also are generated by the <script> section. Others might work, but they are a form of spamming and could cause troubles for you.
| 5:57 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So for example, something like this
would be okay?
| 2:28 pm on Mar 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
imho opinion 1 link would the limit, (even though I thought than even 1 link could be risky)
| 4:55 pm on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
And..., a link in a hidden layer would be considered spam?
| 11:46 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A hidden link in a layer would be considered black hat seo.
| 12:01 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have found different behaviour on different pages.
We use script/noscript on framed pages/page parts to redirect them into their context if needed. When I just checked 2 of those obscure page parts I found that for one of them the <noscript> section had not been indexed at all. The "page" itself is in the index, but the noscript section is not. The page also doesn't show up for the particular words in the anchor text of the link in it.
For another "page" (on another site) the <noscript> tag has been indexed as if it were normal text and the link in it seems to have been indexed properly. Both the original and the target pages can be found when searching for the anchor text.
| 1:12 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a competitor who scraped all of the links from the home page of one of my sites and stuffed them all into a <noscript> section on their home page. As a result they went from nowhere to page one.
I've not reported them as spam or asked them to remove them because half of the links are to pages on my site and I have no idea what effect it is having on my own rank.
I know for a fact that links from this noscript section result in the competitor site ranking very well for a three word term which we previously ranked #5 for. I've removed the link from my page which included this term but it is still in their page in <noscript> The site linked to is #1 for the term and the dodgy <noscript> site is at #8. The word <edited> is one of the three words and it only occurs in the link text in the <noscript> section.
<See Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com]>
[edited by: tedster at 7:32 pm (utc) on Mar. 20, 2006]