| 4:31 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The opposite of benefit.
| 9:09 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It would probably hurt your site more since I don't think it's proper html. You have noindex in the meta robots tag but in the link I think it's just rel="nofollow". It probably wouldn't have any effect if it's not proper html
| 9:34 am on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I mean rel=nofollow
So people won't benefit from link from my site if i place such tag, right?
I mean rank of their site for search engines
| 2:46 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To my understanding, it means the engines know you do not "trust" that link and are not vouching for that site. How they "treat" the links labeled untrusted is something only they know.
| 7:15 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You can know by checking your backlinks and other analysis. I have noticed that Yahoo doesn't listen to the nofollow link whereas I think Google and MSN do. Yahoo also doesn't listen to the meta robots noindex as Matt Cutts pointed out.
| 9:24 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>Yahoo doesn't listen
Just because an engine does or does not show nofollow links in a backlink search doesn't mean that they are or are ignoring the nofollow tag (maybe they simply treat those links differently algorithmically).
| 9:59 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
true, but it is misleading if you put nofollow and then yahoo follows the link and includes it as a backlink or stores the cache of pages that have 'noindex' on them. some services out there like text-link-ads use the backlink count to determine the value of the site and including nofollow links could throw things off. IMO, if it says 'nofollow', why list it at all as a backlink?
| 10:04 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Misleading is the name of the game.
You don't think the SE's are going to let you find all of the loop holes easily do you?
| 10:20 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
so i guess that's why they're caching pages that say 'noindex' on them too, huh?