giuliorapetti - 1:22 pm on Sep 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

I quote from

[webmasterworld.com...]

" As explained by Tim Converse (Yahoo!) and Brian White (Google) in one of the 2006 PubCon Las Vegas conferences, the name of that directive is unfortunate and deceptive.

nofollow does not actually mean "do not continue your crawling any further from here" but, rather "do not count the links included in this page as *votes* for the linked pages for the effect of link popularity".

Tim Converse "translated" nofollow in "untrusted/non-endorsed links on this page".

Therefore, the crawlers will surely follow the links included in this page. "

I think a lot of this forum's members were in that session at PubCon, and what everyone said was very clear.

So they have changed their mind for sure.

Also, is not only words that have been said, who are contraddicting this new "wave of thought": there is also Wikipedia:

"What nofollow is not for - The nofollow attribute value is not meant for blocking access to content or preventing content to be indexed by search engines."

:)

I guess this news from Tedster deserve a rewording: not "clarification" about nofollow but "change of meaning"...