Leosghost - 1:30 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0) [edited by: Leosghost at 1:33 pm (utc) on Jun 3, 2012]
If I understand correctly, you are saying to more clearly define what each site is by segregating content. Is that correct?
That is exactly what I was getting at :)..( I've seen your widget site briefly :)..the "no follows" ought to be OK for Google ..
Personally I think the idea of having to "no follow" such things just for Google, shows that they have truly warped and distorted what the internet is, was, and should be..Was a time ( back in the days of "Netscape" and geo-cities etc ) everyone* linked to what they liked or what they thought was potentially interesting for their visitors or ( heaven** forbid ) to commercial sites ( either their own or others )..joined in "webrings" even.."shared the love" ..Then Google decided to use links as votes, and SEOs decided to game that aspect of Google, Google retaliated, etc etc and we are where we are today ..a totally artificial world worried about "link juice" etc and hording same..and Google refusing to disregard "hostile" links just makes it worse for us and the visitors, but suits Google and their FUD machine and their bottom line perfectly :((
But given that for now Google is the only game in town, if you can't afford to be penalised by them for "following" then you'd best "no follow" links to your own properties..
Visitors, thankfully, will flow through no follows..it is another way to get some within clicking distance of your "buy now " buttons :)
* I still link to what I like or to what I think is useful or interesting to my visitors..
**In internet terms Google have become "God"..we invent "Gods" in our own image..and then reap what we have sown..
Edited for speeling
[edited by: Leosghost at 1:33 pm (utc) on Jun 3, 2012]