Bennie - 8:55 am on Oct 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

OMFG.

#1. no follow has no place on the web. It breaks my heart that people defend it and think it even has a place. What a joke, natural links are natural - deal with it. Learn how to use them, at least try and compete.

#2 What effect would a no follow have anyway? Trusted sites get a free pass on no follows anyway (Ahem, wiki). ie. no follow links on 'trusted sites' pass link (trust?) popularity anyway. Search engines have NEVER clearly defined this, forming an opinion without testing is really quite silly.

#3 No matter what my opinion of the DMOZ directory, it's probably better than anything you have built. DMOZ is a trusted resource, like it or lump it. While it has major issues here and there it's still an amazing resource for relevance, especially for a bot.

#4 Implementing half no follow, half natural links where *you* think is relevant is beside the point. A good site contains only quality links. This includes DMOZ people, and always will I suspect.

#5 One could argue (using Google logic), that a good site would not include links to untrusted resources, this would inculde an adsense script imbedded in your page. Google need to be careful here as site owners have no *editorial* control over these ads (banning sites via a filter in my adsense is beside the point and after the fact - unscaleable for many - what about new ads and site targeting).

You are buying into FUD by thinking anything but links are natural and no follow is artificial. Argue all you want, this cannot and never will change.

What does the use of no follow say? Pr hording, untrusted links for your users perhaps? How will the algo deal with that I wonder? Not only now, but in the future? Would you even know what a no follow was if you were a white hat guru master?