homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.189.156
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 211 message thread spans 8 pages: 211 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >     
Learning About PR Sculpting: internal links with rel=nofollow
tootricky




msg:3798145
 10:32 am on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

< Note: this thread begins with posts that were split out
from another thread: Experiments in keyword rich links to Home [webmasterworld.com] >

Could you say that the introduction of the nofollow attribute has allowed Google to implement more strict borders for over optimisation? Now we can nofollow "home" links without removing them as a user feature and Google has left us no excuse to have over optimised sites!

Nofollow is a blessing and a curse!

[edited by: tedster at 9:27 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

 

whitenight




msg:3798328
 4:58 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I would love to this this test expanded to include variations with the nofollow attribute. To see whether the value of anchor tet is COMPLETELY nullified by it or not

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT
Nofollow is like cooking with salt.
You have to know where to place it and the effects of it.
They have been enough TESTS done that one can SEARCH for that explain its affects,
but ONE HAD BETTER MAKE SURE they know where they are placing it on the page and why.
It can make your dish simply perfect or completely inedible.

Also as important, you'll have to TEST IT on your pages to see how it affects YOUR site.

[edited by: eelixduppy at 9:00 pm (utc) on Dec. 2, 2008]

JS_Harris




msg:3798834
 5:04 am on Dec 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Don't overdo it with keywords as a link to "home". You trigger review filters when you hit page 1 but are too heavy with any keyword. The drops are temporary but may become permanent if a human editor agrees with the flags.

Marcia




msg:3798892
 8:08 am on Dec 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

>nofollow test

On the above referenced ecom site, I had the people use nofollow to the info pages and the shopping cart (the cart link was creating tons of dup errors in the cart}. That's what was done on all the static site pages, BUT the "web coder" reversed that on the cart pages (over 1,500 of them) and left the info and cart links intact and put nofollow on the link to the homepage - the one that said "Home." However, the top logo graphic was still linked normally with the anchor text phrase intact.

The nofollow on the top navbar "Home" links from the cart had no effect in this case, but I wouldn't like to see what could happen if there were no other links back to the homepage at all on over 1,500 shopping cart pages.

[edited by: Marcia at 8:10 am (utc) on Dec. 3, 2008]

whitenight




msg:3798894
 8:14 am on Dec 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

nofollow test

grrr. Any and every nofollow test is COMPLETELY site dependant for internal links.
(if you don't understand why, then you need to RESEARCH why)
So anyone who says "yay" or "nay" to whether rel=nofollow works or not is missing the point and giving false info.

<snip>

Any test that CAIN conducted regarding THIS TEST and rel=nofollow would only apply to HIS SITE.

THIS TEST, however, on its own merit, is "multi-site" valid. And would apply for most sites. (of course, individual sites may experience anomalous results)

[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 10:29 am (utc) on Dec. 3, 2008]
[edit reason] ToS violation [/edit]

Marcia




msg:3798923
 9:08 am on Dec 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Re: rel="nofollow"
but ONE HAD BETTER MAKE SURE they know where they are placing it on the page and why.

I can state the major reason why I use it on sites. FOR SURE.

Given a certain number of inbound links - and most important, the PageRank - of a site's homepage, which is then distributed throughout site pages (notwithstanding links to internal pages), if a site homepage has good, strong PR, then a lot of pages will be indexed, and be in the main index. However, if there aren't too many inbound links and/or the homepage PageRank is low to mediocre, then depending on the number of total pages in the site, a good number may be either excluded from indexing or relegated to the Supplemental Index (or partitions), depending on the aggregate link strength.

In the latter case, I "nofollow" unimportant links to pages such as About Us or Shipping so that whatever link juice there is will be distributed to the desired product pages on the site. And that isn't site dependent; it's a matter of record (published patents) regarding multiple partitions, and observing crawl frequency and index refresh dates; and given a choice of whether to have About Us or Best Widgets have PR passed to them and be indexed in the Main Index with decent PR and rankings, well - it's a hands-down decision.

Granted, it isn't for everyone, and neither are a lot of other possible choices recommended for the "totally wet behind the ears" (which incidentally, doesn't include most folks here); but I do have confidence that most folks know when they're clueless and should proceed with caution, and for those who aren't, they don't need to get slapped around to know whether something is for them or not.

[edited by: tedster at 9:31 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

tootricky




msg:3799172
 3:40 pm on Dec 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Link sculpting using nofollows is a great technique for onsite SEO. I strongly disagree with other posters when they say that basic assumptions can not be learned about nofollows by conducting a test that includes their use. Of course link scuplting changes from site to site, but there are for sure things we can learn about how the affect RANKING (not page rank)

Link scuplting with no follows is one of the major things I change first when optimising a site and on its own without any other onsite changes it can make a huge difference to rankings.


I can state the major reason why I use it on sites. FOR SURE.

Given a certain number of inbound links - and most important, the PageRank - of a site's homepage, which is then distributed throughout site pages (notwithstanding links to internal pages), if a site homepage has good, strong PR, then a lot of pages will be indexed, and be in the main index. However, if there aren't too many inbound links and/or the homepage PageRank is low to mediocre, then depending on the number of total pages in the site, a good number may be either excluded from indexing or relegated to the Supplemental Index (or partitions), depending on the aggregate link strength.

In the latter case, I "nofollow" unimportant links to pages such as About Us or Shipping so that whatever link juice there is will be distributed to the desired product pages on the site. And that isn't site dependent; it's a matter of record (published patents) regarding multiple partitions, and observing crawl frequency and index refresh dates; and given a choice of whether to have About Us or Best Widgets have PR passed to them and be indexed in the Main Index with decent PR and rankings, well - it's a hands-down decision.

Granted, it isn't for everyone, and neither are a lot of other possible choices recommended for the "totally wet behind the ears" (which incidentally, doesn't include most folks here); but I do have confidence that most folks know when they're clueless and should proceed with caution, and for those who aren't, they don't need to get slapped around to know whether something is for them or not.


This is almost identical to how I approach it. About us (unless the content is relevant), contact us, privacy policies, terms and conditions.. etc. all nofollowed. I also nofollow links from the homepage that try to "skip" the natural data structure of the site: So for example that means no linking from the homepage to individual product pages on an eccomerce site without adding a nofollow.

I would also add that unless the anchor text is passing value with keywords I also nofollow. That means all links to "home" and the like get the treatment too.

I have seen rankings for pretty generic keywords rise 1-5 pages after this nofollow treatment on templated sites (1,000 pages or so)

I am working on a site at the moment similar in structure to the one you describe. In my opinion I would be inclined to pass value back from the individual widgets to the location widgets pages using a breadcrumb navigation or something similar with optimised anchor text: This is not only a user feature but good for link juice sculpting too: As well as link juice from the top of the site pyramid, the location pages will also have link juice coming from the bottom; this should increase the relative importance of the location pages compared to the rest of the site.

Just make sure that as much value from your homepage passes to the location pages as possible: Assess which other pages are receiving link juice from the home page and weigh up whether they need to or not: Are they "leaking" your link juice?

[edited by: tedster at 9:35 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

pageoneresults




msg:3801578
 3:13 pm on Dec 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

In the latter case, I "nofollow" unimportant links to pages such as About Us or Shipping so that whatever link juice there is will be distributed to the desired product pages on the site.

But Google still follow the links. And, the destination pages obtain PR. To me, that doesn't seem like it is doing what it was intended to do. I prefer using the robots directive on the destination page and just keep the entire page out of the index.

Link sculpting using nofollows is a great technique for onsite SEO.

I wouldn't be too certain of that. I've followed this whole link sculpting thing and I see many flaws in the concepts. I don't think it really works like many are claiming.

Link scuplting with no follows is one of the major things I change first when optimising a site and on its own without any other onsite changes it can make a huge difference to rankings.

Really? Adding nofollow and doing nothing else will make a huge ranking difference? I'm almost tempted to go out and start adding that little bugger to all sites. But wait, I know better. :)

Why would someone label a link to the home page anything other than Home or Home Page from a primary navigation element?

The New Kiss of Death

<a rel="nofollow" href="/">Home</a>

Ya Google, I don't trust my own freakin' Home Page!

[edited by: tedster at 9:46 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

Marcia




msg:3801620
 5:25 pm on Dec 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

Really? Adding nofollow and doing nothing else will make a huge ranking difference?

It will make a difference in crawls and indexing, which for purposes of this discussion is the point of using it in internal navigation.

But Google still follow the links. And, the destination pages obtain PR.

Nope, not according to Matt Cutts, in numerous quotes and interviews he's done. What Matt says:

1) For Google, nofollow'ed links are completely dropped out of their link graph.

2) Google doesn't even use nofollow'ed links for discovery.

3) The nofollow meta tag does the same thing as rel="nofollow", but at the page level instead of the per link level.

Added:

Matt discusses it in some detail in a video at the Webmaster Central Blog [googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com].

[edited by: Marcia at 6:12 pm (utc) on Dec. 6, 2008]

pageoneresults




msg:3801627
 5:40 pm on Dec 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

1) For Google, nofollow'ed links are completely dropped out of their link graph.

I'd like to see that link graph they are referring to so "I" can confirm that. :)

2) Google doesn't even use nofollow'ed links for discovery.

There are way too many external factors to upset the use of rel="nofollow" at the link level that the above statement is moot.

3) The nofollow meta tag does the same thing as rel="nofollow, but at the page level instead of the per link level.

And that is where it needs to happen, at the destination, not along the way to the destination. If I were a competitor and I wanted to upset your link sculpting routine and I see that you are not using a robots directive for the destination page to prevent it from being indexed, guess what? One link to the destination page from an external resource will upset your entire micro management of internal links.

I'll bet that all of those destination pages that do not contain a noindex directive have visible PR, don't they? So, all you've done with rel="nofollow" is told the SE's that you don't vouch for your own internal links. That seems a bit counter intuitive for me. I'm going to prevent the destination page from being indexed and/or followed, a simple process that doesn't involve upsetting the internal linking structure of one's website.

[edited by: tedster at 9:38 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

rainborick




msg:3801638
 5:50 pm on Dec 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm convinced that rel="nofollow" does prevent the flow of PageRank based on my own efforts in PageRank sculpting. Worked as expected for me with no apparent problems. But I'm not convinced that it prevents the link from being "discovered" or included in the "link graph". I've seen nofollow'ed links appear in the Webmaster Tools link report, so they're in the system at some level. It may be that the system changed since Matt made his comment about that, or the link report gets data at a level that's technically distinct from the "link graph". But they're in there somewhere.

SEOPTI




msg:3801650
 6:17 pm on Dec 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

This really makes no sense to me:

<a rel="nofollow" href="/">Home</a>

Marcia




msg:3803125
 3:05 am on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

There's specific mention made in several published patents of both anchor text and changes, but here we have what Jake found on the topic back in 2004:

[webmasterworld.com...]

doughayman




msg:3803734
 9:07 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

This is all very, very interesting. I have a fairly thin site that had been ranking consistently on Page 1 for many terms, for many years. I do a lot of internal linking, not in an attempt to fool Google, but in an attempt to make my site more user friendly for its users. I recently added some pages that had links back to my home page, and the site dropped to page 6 for the effected anchor text keywords. I too, am going to conduct a test:

1) First, I'm going to rel="nofollow" all these new links back to
my home page;

2) If # 1 doesn't get back in the good graces of Google, I'm going
to remove the links on these pages back to my home page.

If # 1 doesn't work, but # 2 does, will I sacrifice the usability of my website to positively effect rankings ? The big question....

tootricky




msg:3803824
 11:23 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

I feel a few points made by pageonerank needed a response:

But Google still follow the links. And, the destination pages obtain PR. To me, that doesn't seem like it is doing what it was intended to do. I prefer using the robots directive on the destination page and just keep the entire page out of the index.

Google still follows the links but no PR is passed on if the link is nofollowed. That is the whole point of the attribute!

Link sculpting using nofollows is a great technique for onsite SEO.

I wouldn't be too certain of that. I've followed this whole link sculpting thing and I see many flaws in the concepts. I don't think it really works like many are claiming.


It does in my experience as a predominantly onsite SEO.

Link sculpting with no follows is one of the major things I change first when optimising a site and on its own without any other onsite changes it can make a huge difference to rankings.

Really? Adding nofollow and doing nothing else will make a huge ranking difference?

Yes :)

I'm almost tempted to go out and start adding that little bugger to all sites. But wait, I know better. :)

Good for you. :)

Why would someone label a link to the home page anything other than Home or Home Page from a primary navigation element?

The New Kiss of Death

<a rel="nofollow" href="/">Home</a>

Ya Google, I don't trust my own freakin' Home Page!

You wouldn't name any nav to the home page anything different: That is the point. But at the same time why would you pass value with anchor text that has nothing to do with what the "homepage" ranks for: Unless you sell real estate don't send value to your homepage with "Home"!

<a href="/" rel="nofollow">Home</a> works very nicely for me ;)

The nofollow attribute is not about trust as such, they are about passing value or not passing it. Pass value through optimised anchor text to the pages that your want to rank and don't pass value to those you aren't bothered about ranking but want indexed or can't optimise for usability reasons (the infamous "Home" button). If you don't want a page indexed at all, then use robots.txt

This is all very, very interesting. I have a fairly thin site that had been ranking consistently on Page 1 for many terms, for many years. I do a lot of internal linking, not in an attempt to fool Google, but in an attempt to make my site more user friendly for its users. I recently added some pages that had links back to my home page, and the site dropped to page 6 for the effected anchor text keywords. I too, am going to conduct a test:

1) First, I'm going to rel="nofollow" all these new links back to
my home page;


Nofollowing the links will stop any value passing and should remove the penalty in my opinion.

[edited by: tootricky at 11:47 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2008]

[edited by: tedster at 9:55 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

tedster




msg:3803831
 11:36 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Nofollows are not about trust

Not any more - but originally they were, hence some confulsion. The new rel="nofollow" attribute was created for one purpose and quickly used for others - even with explicit "blessing" from Googlers. I was one of the hold-outs, exactly because of that original purpose. However, in a few case now I've given it a try since it seems to be blessed by Mountain View.

...a huge ranking difference

Maybe for some sites. I've only seen some little nudges so far, although I did advise one site to add the rel="nofollow" in a case where every page had a major block of 15 "customer service" links. In a case like that, it could make a "huge" difference.

[edited by: tedster at 9:47 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

whitenight




msg:3803928
 2:13 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google still follows the links but no PR is passed on if the link is nofollowed. That is the whole point of the attribute!

Blantantly false.

I wouldn't be too certain of that. I've followed this whole link sculpting thing and I see many flaws in the concepts. I don't think it really works like many are claiming.

Hence my warnings about knowing what you are doing.

Nofollowing the links will stop any value passing and should remove the penalty in my opinion.

IN MY OPINION this is devastating advice without knowing the site.

Is there a solution?
Of course there is. But without seeing the INDIVIDUAL site, anyone who claims rel=nofollow:

* WORKS cause "I did X and it boosted my rankings"
* DOESN'T WORK cause "I did Y and it destroyed my rankings or didn't move them"
* etc.
is making statements THAT OTHER WEBMASTERS MIGHT DECIDE IS FACT (when it is NOT) and make poor decisions for THEIR SITE based on this MISLEADING information.

[edited by: tedster at 9:49 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

tedster




msg:3804015
 5:33 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

PR is passed on if the link is nofollowed. That is the whole point of the attribute!

Blantantly false.

How did you test for real PR increases?

make poor decisions for THEIR SITE

That's a very important warning, whether we are talking about keyword rich Home links, or nofollow PR sculpting or many other topics in SEO. That's why I appreciate the general outline of the test site that CainIV gave.

One important factor that has not been discussed (especially about PR sculpting with nofollow) is the existing link structure of the site. For example, does every page link to every page? Or is it split into a hierachy, where deeper pages in one directory do not cross-link to deeper pages in another directory?

It is essential to know the site you are working with well, and have some appreciation of the risks that might be involved with any step you take. Today, even some changes that seemed "harmless" (e.g. title tweaking) not too long ago are bringing some ranking trouble instead of ranking boosts.

And then there's always that moment when you decide to apply some step that tested well to another site, and one that's more important for revenue. But you still know the results depend on the actual site. So what "worked" on one site might well not work well on this other site. You can only hope you that you understood the important variables first.

[edited by: tedster at 9:51 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

whitenight




msg:3804020
 6:02 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

PR is passed on if the link is nofollowed. That is the whole point of the attribute!

Blantantly false.

How did you test for real PR increases?

Just for the record, I spent MUCH time testing and re-testing this, with and against some of the brightest minds in SEO. It cost me much time and money, WHICH IS MY PROFESSION. But since the info is ALREADY out there for anyone who searches, I'll BRIEFLY explain for free...

Simple answer is - rel=nofollow takes the link off the link graph COMPLETELY. It ignores it COMPLETELY. It's far more complicated than that when it comes to link-scuplting, multiple links on the same page with and without rel=nofollow, etc, but it doesn't pass PR, it doesn't even acknowledge the link exists for the purpose of THE ABOVE QUOTES.

In fact, the above quotes are a very simple TEST to conduct.

[edited by: tedster at 9:53 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

tedster




msg:3804027
 6:48 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

One part of what tootricky said tests as true: "no PR is passed on". And one part does not: "Google still follows the links".

I've had many test cases for url discovery through nofollowed links, and every case so far has shown Google to be true to their public statements - they do not follow links that use rel="nofollow".

[edited by: tedster at 9:54 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

pageoneresults




msg:3804052
 7:38 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

I've had many test cases for url discovery through nofollowed links, and every case so far has shown Google to be true to their public statements - they do not follow links that use rel="nofollow".

Okay, all in all that seems fine for onsite management. What if I come along and start linking to those pages from an external source? Mind you, in most of these nofollow implementations, there is nothing at the destination page level to stop it from being indexed and/or obtaining PR.

And by the way, I am one hard-headed schmuck! When it comes to this nofollow baloney, I take no prisoners and I've done jack for testing. Reading the protocols for all of this will pretty much tell you exactly what is supposed to happen. Using nofollow at the link level is a failed implementation if the destination page is not addressed. Plus you just did something that is "not natural" in the process. ;)

Sorry to go off topic, but I feel a few points made by pageonerank needed a response:

That's okay twotwicky. ;)

All this damn malarkey about nofollow this and nofollow that. What a bunch of you know what!

[edited by: tedster at 9:56 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

tootricky




msg:3804097
 9:48 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

My experience has shown me that Google DOES follow nofollow links. If the page is already in the index is does nothing with it, the page is still indexed and the link is still shown in webmastertools. If the page is not in the index it does not show its existance at all.

I have seen too many good results in practice for this nofollow stuff to be baloney for link sculpting.

And whitenight if you are going to quote people please do so correctly. Your quote above misses the negative prefix of the sentance!

[edited by: tedster at 9:59 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

whitenight




msg:3804102
 9:59 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

And whitenight if you are going to quote people please do so correctly. Your quote above misses the negative prefix of the sentance!

Sorry tootricky.
Your statement was inaccurate.
Tedster explained why. He's terribly more patient than I am. ;)

My experience has shown me that Google DOES follow nofollow links.

Here you are, making the same statement.
It's wrong.

I suggest re-reading Tedster's analysis.

[edited by: tedster at 10:02 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

pageoneresults




msg:3804111
 10:14 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Okay, let's say that the rel="nofollow" link is removed completely from the graph. What happens when an external resource links to the destination page? I've asked that a few times now and still no response. ;)

This whole nofollow thing at the link level is a bandaid with the adhesive no longer sticking on one side. < I hate when that happens.

Have you tested using <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> or <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow"> at the page level? I believe that is a much more robust solution and covers all of the bases. I see nothing wrong with allowing PR to flow through the site naturally and be redirected at the page level, not at the link level. This whole micro-management at the link level is flawed.

whitenight




msg:3804116
 10:24 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Okay, let's say that the rel="nofollow" link is removed completely from the graph. What happens when an external resource links to the destination page? I've asked that a few times now and still no response. ;)

lol ok you sucked me in, but I'll still play coy. ;)

Let me answer your question with a question.
Who cares if someone links to the nofollowed page?

If, on purpose, to somehow derail my sculpting (which would take some serious linking). Good. I'll just "re-funnel" that PR (the real PR) back into the site via rel=nofollows.

If, on accident, it doesn't actually CHANGE how Goog follows the PR within the site.

It's a non-issue.

This whole micro-management at the link level is flawed

I say it's TERRIBLY COMPLICATED.

And not for the timid, part-time, non-tester, or those who don't have a thorough knowledge of how PR flows through their site.

(If I sound like a broken record, oh well)
it's pretty EASY to test this with one's "back-up of a back-up" domain to see how the PR flows AFTER they've charted how the PR SHOULD flow first, and THEN testing it on their test site. Then finally on the "real" site.

Sez me =P.

tootricky




msg:3804117
 10:25 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Tedster explained why. He's terribly more patient than I am. ;)

Yes it seems so, and far more polite too ;) ;)

Tedsters results may show that links are not followed, but tests and research I have read (and seen in my own projects) say otherwise. I am open mined about the whole thing, but I am loathe to argue with an eminent SEO like yourself which is why I have prefixed pretty much everything I have said with either "in my opinion" or "in my experience"

It is afterall, all I have to go on. :)

In the end, whether the link is followed is actually an irrelevance, I use it for it's ability to mould Page Rank and in my experience, it works pretty well.

This whole micro-management at the link level is flawed

it is powerful (in my opinion)

whitenight




msg:3804119
 10:32 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

In the end, whether the link is followed is actually an irrelevance, I use it for it's ability to mould Page Rank and in my experience, it works pretty well.

Unfortunately, it does matter. Other people read these threads, in perpetuum via this forum.

Your sculpting wouldn't work IF Google followed "nofollowed" links.
You're making contradictory claims.

This is a dead easy test to conduct.

Take a high page rank, oft crawled page and link to a COMPLETELY NEW PAGE with a rel=nofollow link.
MAKE SURE no one else links to it.
(heck you could even keep it hidden as Goog still wouldn't penalize if they found it) and tell me if Goog has indexed the page over the next 3, 6, 12 months.

If Goog found pages you had nofollowed, its because there was a "regular" link to them SOMEwhere.

Shaddows




msg:3804120
 10:36 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

And whitenight if you are going to quote people please do so correctly. Your quote above misses the negative prefix of the sentance!

Actually, Whitenighht quoted the whole sentence in #:3803928
Ted cut Whitenights quoted quote short in 3804015
Whitenight then quoted Tedsters misquote in 3804020
The disputed part of the sentence was "Google still follows the links ", even thought that was the part dropped from subsequent quotes

P1R, you are thinking strategically where others are thinking tactically. Others are talking about PR flow and ranking/relevancy boost from the 'host page', not about the rank/indexability of the destination page.

While noindex is the way to keep a page out of the index, twotricky in particular wants pages to have a stuctural hierarchy from Gs POV combined with easy and instinctive naviagtion from the users POV. Which is fine when optimising an existing site, but probably reveals an incomplete idea of the site in question during the planning and building phases.

Shaddows




msg:3804131
 10:42 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

If Goog found pages you had nofollowed, its because there was a "regular" link to them SOMEwhere.

Or an actual real person clicked the nofollow link, and had the toolbar installed. Or did it from Chrome.

tootricky




msg:3804141
 10:45 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Shaddows, you are correct that most of my experience is in optimising existing sites: I am an SEO not a designer. Perhaps this is where my lack of experience exists?

Take a high page rank, oft crawled page and link to a COMPLETELY NEW PAGE with a rel=nofollow link.
MAKE SURE no one else links to it.
(heck you could even keep it hidden as Goog still wouldn't penalize if they found it) and tell me if Goog has indexed the page over the next 3, 6, 12 months.

A true example of the test would be to create 2 brand new pages linked together but only the first one linked to from the main site. With your logic, the second new page would be neither crawled nor indexed, is my assumption correct?

Your sculpting wouldn't work IF Google followed "nofollowed" links.
You're making contradictory claims.

I don't see how they are contradictory concepts. Following a link is not the same as following a link AND passing value as far as I am concerned.

Maybe for some sites. I've only seen some little nudges so far, although I did advise one site to add the rel="nofollow" in a case where every page had a major block of 15 "customer service" links. In a case like that, it could make a "huge" difference.

Like I have said, on several sites I have seen large increases in pages indexed and page rankings by just doing onsite link sculpting and I have seen similar results from my colleagues

[edited by: tootricky at 11:16 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

This 211 message thread spans 8 pages: 211 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved