Using the same links across a large site (no impact it seems on small twenty pages sites) is NOT wise.
How to deal with links?
lol what is "googlebowling"? This a new one to me...
Googlebowling is a way of whacking your competitors out of the the serps by bombing their site with "un-natural" links or sitewide links and the such that Google doesn't like. I've never heard it applied to on-site navigation. Personally, I think Google is smarter than this or they will be in the near future. Using alt tags for text links is, IMO, trying to be "too clever".
Spamming a few hundred blogs will do the job if you would like to get rid of your competitor. Google picks up blog links real fast these days. Some people spam the #$i+ out of blogs.
Of course I would not recommend this.
Note that the alt attribute is not valid in the anchor element -- there's no valid way to use it in a text link.
|Note that the alt attribute is not valid in the anchor element -- there's no valid way to use it in a text link. |
But the title attribute is valid, if used in a text link.
[edited by: OutdoorMan at 12:04 am (utc) on Dec. 30, 2006]
Indeed the idea is to use the TITLE element for the link's ALT text.
Placing one or two REL tag(s) with "nofollow" on each page is also important as it allows the added security that between 1) different TITLE TAGS and 2) CHANGING the NOFOLLOW to different locations on each page you might be able to have massive linking which actually can help greatly - > that is as long as all your pages are AT LEAST a PR4. Failing the PR4 mark (in my view) the crawl rate of your pages and LINK FACTOR on your pages will not count much.
Join me on this thought - feedback here, pls.
I like using the title attribute in anchor tags - it can be a good usability enhancement and help visitors feel comfortable navigating the site.
But the last time I tested this (2005), Google was not using the title attribute in the ranking algorithm. This may have changed recently, but the last time I had the chance to ask a Google engineer about it (2004), I learned that the title attribute was too rarely used for them to wrap it into their scoring.
And please, let's not use the word "alt" in this way. Being imprecise with technical words only makes our conversations and our analysis more difficult. There is no such thing as an "alt tag", only an "alt attribute". If the phrase "alt text" has any clear meaning, it can only be "the value of an alt attribute".
Similarly, there is the "title element" and a "title attribute" -- two very different things, and a title "tag" means oly this: <title>
Finally, I follow what you are saying about one or two rel attributes on each page. In my view, that is a misuse of the attribute, which means "I do not vouch for the target of this link - don't send it any PR".
Ok, from where sit in Europe at four fifty in the morning the GRAMMAR of tags is indeed not perfect and you are right Ted to correct me on these issues.
You say: ..."I follow what you are saying about one or two rel attributes on each page. In my view, that is a misuse of the attribute, which means "I do not vouch for the target of this link - don't send it any PR".
In my view this is not what rel does. Rel actually says DO NOT CRAWL to a robot as it is NOT a GOOGLE-ONLY tag. (Hence it might work on Google in the matter of PR but not on other engines with the same function).
Further: As you well know Ted if you have a PR8 site and have too many real links outbound on it you can risk your position. Hence the idea of the VIRTUAL LINKS in the rel="nofollow" tag.
And if you have 200 PR4 pages this is much more than having several PR8 pages in terms of link power. Hence the need to control the flow into virtual links is, in my view needed and seem, to me okay.
[edited by: alfawolf7 at 3:58 am (utc) on Dec. 30, 2006]
|Placing one or two REL tag(s) with "nofollow" on each page is also important |
Absolute crap! edited because original swear word was filtered.
[edited by: Pirates at 4:00 am (utc) on Dec. 30, 2006]
|Rel actually says DO NOT CRAWL to a robot |
Nah it doesn't "rel" does not prevent crawl it prevents parsing of pagerank on google. On other engines it does nothing at all.
The rel="nofollow" was introduced by the search engines back in 2004 (I believe). Since then we have not had a clear understanding on how exactly each search engine treats them. Some speculate that the rel="nofollow" means that the search engines won't crawl those links. Some say they will crawl them but they won't pass the link on as a vote for the web page it is linking to. Some say the link is completely hidden to search engines.
A #*$! Forums thread shows that confusion in action.
One person said;
I just checked backlinks of one of my sites on yahoo site explorer and noted that the first site being shown in the results is a site which has my link with a "nofollow" attribute.
Does this mean that yahoo doesnt care about rel="nofollow"? Can anybody else check and confirm this from their own sites? And what about MSN?
Others noticed the same thing with Yahoo!
The response that seems to work for him is;
Technically, rel="nofollow" does not mean the search engines won't spider the page. They will follow the link, spider the page and count the link as a backlink. What rel="nofollow" means is "don't trust the link", i.e. don't pass PageRank/TrustRank, etc.
The robots meta tag "nofollow" is different, and really does mean "don't follow links from this page", and has nothing to do with backlinks or PageRank.
Please refrain from calling what I write with invectives.
I do not know more or less than anyone else here. This is not a rat race to be the best or the second best. This is a sharing of ideas.
I can not understand how the person who praises me yesterday now uses invectives today.
I am not taking time away from my work to put up with this sort of attitude. The whole idea is to say "YES", "NO", "MAYBE", or best yet to allow these ideas we are sharing to get us advanced in our ability to rank well.
If I say something you do not agree with it is not "CRAP" it is just something you do not agree with. You are not talking to someone who turned on his computer last tuesday morning.
Sorry. I am surprised at this attitude.
As it turns out in this area you may be right. I am trying to get debate going. These are super-grey areas of discussion.
One final thing, the use of "rel=no follow" says more about you and your site than anyone else's. The only way I would use it is to use the sites reputation to rubish someone online that deserved it.
|I can not understand how the person who praises me yesterday now uses invectives today. |
Mate I think you are a breath of fresh air to the forum. You provide excellent comments every time. But sometimes like all of us you talk #*$!. I'll call you on it and you can call me on it but don't think I don't appreciate your contribution or realise the knowledge you have that is outstanding.
|These are super-grey areas of discussion. |
Not as I understand it. I agree that many people are spreading their confusion around the web, but they are just feeding each other's confusion with imprecise language, and with refusal to read what the search engines actually say -- or even better, by just testing it and seeing what's actually happening. There are always people whose minds are filled with grey, blurred ideas. That does not mean that precise clarity does not exist in those areas, only that some people have not embraced it, or perhaps not even recognized it.
Many of us here look at a lot of search engine data on a weekly basis - and for some very high PR web pages at that. Clear thinking is essential or else our clients will suffer.
I think it's very good for you to test your ideas -- you may well find that you have picked up a lot of half truths and myths and it is important to get rid of that baggage. So definitely bring your ideas to a "reality test" in some way. But don't be surprised if those of us who have been marketing websites for our livelihood for 10 or 12 years don't buy it that all of these are grey areas. Some at least are very well nailed down, no matter who is posting what "theory" on some other forum or blog.
[edited by: tedster at 5:32 am (utc) on Dec. 30, 2006]
Well said Tedster.
The fact is, the "rel=no follow" was instituted to help sites like Wiki and other forums to get rid of spammers. It simply says " I don't know where this link came from, I don't know anything about this site, It could be good it could be bad, I'm not voting for it" ie: don't pass any page rank, don't pass any trust rank. Using it to try and control the flow of page rank between your site was not it's intent.
The same goes for the alt attribute. It makes sense when using it properly. ie:
<a href="page.html" title="red widgets">page 1</a> makes sense
<a href="page.html" title="buy red widgets here">red widgets</a> is redundant and is only there to try and game the search engines which, eventually, they're liable to figure out.
I don't pretend to be half the webmaster that a lot of people on here are but I believe most people on here are more like me, just trying to maintain a site without spending twelve hours a day trying to figure out every little algo shift that Google comes up with which is what you're asking for with stuff like this IMO.
I don't find the posting right now, but when rel-nofollow was introduced by Google I emailed them and asked for a clarification. At that point, I was considering linking to my competition, but don't want them to have an advantage of it. So I asked Google if the nofollow was strictly for "links beyond my control" (like forum/comment/wiki links) or could also used to indicate "don't share my credibility with the site I'm linking to". Several days later I got a reply from Google saying that rel-nofollow in links to my competition in order not to let them profit from my sites authority would be a perfectly reasonable use of the tag.
I posted parts of this email here and it was discussed at length, but as I said, I can't find the posting right now. It probably was in the supporters forum.
This is an interesting thread.
I have been whacked by the Dec 7 blight: and I was convinced that it was because a link was added to my site in a few blogs navigation bars. This was the only tenable explanation.
And now I find this thread to discover it is a known issue. It doesn't make me feel any happier though!