FranticFish - 8:35 pm on Aug 2, 2013 (gmt 0)
Wait a moment. Doesn't 'nofollow' mean 'I don't vouch for this website?'
So why should the publishing site (for it is their link and their decision) 'nofollow' the link?
In the scenario described by MarkD above, a site that only features REAL NEWS has made an EDITORIAL DECISION to feature some content that they think is interesting. The content is genuine, the link is therefore genuine and freely given.
That fact that it is syndicated does not make it abusive.
Surely the more sites that pick up on the release the more interesting it must be. This is a perfectly natural way to measure popularity and sentiment at an expert level, so why the heck should PageRank NOT flow from those sort of links?
If the comments in the interview are to be believed (as opposed to the official published guidance, which focuses on abuse of anchor text) Google is asking expert editors to say that they DO NOT VOUCH for the sources of the news that their readership subscribes to them for! That's just plain cracked.
How about they fix their own flipping algorithm rather than trying to get others to do it for them eh?