"No Follow" Tag

What is Googles interpretation of this?

[EarWig]

I read in the Pagerank Update thread ( [webmasterworld.com...] ) a posting by kamikazi Optimizer that the latest PR update may have factored in the new "no follow" tag.

For the benefit of users here could some explain how Google is now apparently treating the "no follow" tag?

EW

[Brett_Tabke]

I think the general concensus is that the full G pr update is one update behind the web. Thus nofollow will not come into play until the *next* update.

[zooloo]

If you're asking a basic "what is it?" question, search this forum for nofollow - as one word.

Loads of good information (as usual at WebmasterWorld)

zoo

[doc_z]

It seems that
- PR is not passed
- pages are not shown as backlinks

(For the pages I'm watching) Google followed these links and the pages appeared temporarily in the index. However, now these pages were removed.

[helleborine]

This is a truly wonderful tool to get back at idiot webmasters that p you off, while appearing magnanimous.

;-)

[kamikaze Optimizer]

I am already seeing the tag abused by some blogers. It was meant to be used for comment spam. I have a large resource site that gets linked to for reference. Several commercial blogers, the ones owned/hosted by major publishing companies, use it in their "related stories" links.

Personally, I would prefer they did not link to me at all if they are going to use the no follow tag.

[Nikke]

Personally, I would prefer they did not link to me at all if they are going to use the no follow tag.

Why is that Kamikaze? Aren't you the least interested in the traffic these links bring?

I have been using the nofollow for internal pages that I don't want listed, such as my printer friendly layout. I much rather do it using the nofollow tag than by hiding these links deep in javascript.

[kamikaze Optimizer]

Why is that Kamikaze? Aren't you the least interested in the traffic these links bring?

No, see, they post the full text of my page on their page, so I do not see the traffic. It's is much like what the scrappers do. With Google Ads above and below the text.

I just feel used. It is very un-blog like for them to do this.

I understand your use of the tag - that is legit in my eyes. Does it work? I use the robots.txt for that.

[reseller]

kamikaze Optimizer

<No, see, they post the full text of my page on their page, so I do not see the traffic. It's is much like what the scrappers do. With Google Ads above and below the text.>

Havenīt you given permission to host your text/article on the other websites? and havenīt they added your resource box including a link to your site at the end of your text/article?

Or are we just talking about stealing your text/article?

[kamikaze Optimizer]

reseller:

Sure, they have permission, as they are pulling it from one of our RSS feeds, I am sure.

My point is, they really should not be using the no follow tag. The link to my site is not comment spam. It is not posted as a comment in a public area, it is posted by the blog owner as part of his bloging.

This is not the intended use of the tag as explained by Google: [google.com...]

I know I am barking up a tree, I just don't like what this major bloger is doing.