Forum Moderators: open
Thanks a lot
The fact is that actually my internal links are designed for the web site functionality making easy the navigation for the visitor (from each page you can reach every page, so all the pages are interlinked)but "spreading" so unusefully the page rank.
So the idea was to work with the "rel" nofollow attribute to leave intact all the original links for the "user" but to make them invisibles for the SEs and than to create specific new links (hidden to the "user" by attribute style="visibility: hidden")to get a channel to collect page rank for a specific page.
What do you think about?
I'm very grateful to you for an answer.
PS excuse me if my English is bad...
Best regards
I run a forum where the bottom of every page says something like "view in reverse date order".
Means the site has, to a search engine, twice the pages, but they seem to be close to the same content.
The reversed pages are not worth indexing.....It is, in effect, duplicate content. So the link now has a nofollow.
Google has noticed. And we're happy.
Freq---
You refer to the ROBOTS meta tag attribute,I guess:
<meta name="robots" content="index,nofollow">
Isn't it?
or
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow">
(in this case in particular,the spiders don't index the page but follows its internal links)
Well,I'm not looking for a solution involving the entire page but a selective mode to "hide" only certain links;
I mean to use rel="nofollow" attribute to hide ONLY selected links on a page, as the following:
In a hypothetical page www.mydomain.com/index.html
I could have the following internal links to other pages:
<a href="myname.htm">name</a></font></b></td>
<a href="yourname.htm" rel="nofollow">name2</a></font></b></td>
<a href="hisname.htm" rel="nofollow">name3</a></font></b></td>
<a href="hername.htm" rel="nofollow">name4</a></font></b></td>
As you can see, I used nofollow to "hide" only the last three links,while the first remains operating
This work could have the aim to create a specific "path" to channel the page rank to a specific page
Is this use of the rel="nofollow" attribute that I would to experience and about of wich I'd like to have your opinion/suggestion or valid indication if already used successfully.
Thanks
regards
Not trust -- indexability
I assume this thread is about <a rel="nofollow"> and that has nothing to do with indexability. I quote Google's blog:
From now on, when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results.
So let me rephrase: it doesn't make sense to tell Google to not give credits to your own pages. It's like saying: I don't know who added this link and I don't trust that page.
If you were Google and you found a site with all sorts of internal links with the nofollow attribute, what would your guess be?
1. Someone is spamming them with internal links.
2. This site is using rel="nofollow" to manipulate pagerank.
3. I'll just ignore that link.
I don't know. But I don't see why it would be wise to assume answer 1 or 3.
I think that if Google decided to trust the rel="nofollow" attribute,it accept that it is used to "hide" certain links,otherwise Why Google allows its use?
In effect the attribute already works for outbound links and this also would be a way to manipulate the PR...
Moreover manipulating internal links it's not possible to grow up the PR but only concentrate it on a specific page while the PR of entire web site remains unchanged...
So,I don't see why Google wouldn't allow that.
My only doubt is that the nofollow don't works for internal links because the spider could be set to ignore addresses without "www." or "http://" indications such us just internal links.
In fact an internal link could be:
<a href="myname.html">myname<
while an outbound links could be:
<a href="http://myname.com">myname<
this also would be a way to manipulate the PR
That's exactly the reason why Google may think of it as abuse. 'nofollow' on internal links is a sure sign of SEO, that adds no value to visitors whatsoever. It's very easy to recognize and penalize.
The use of the nofollow on outbound links too is a sure sign of SEO but it is allowed...
but it is allowed
What makes you think that?
We don't know for a fact wether Google allows it or penalizes it.
Manipulating pagerank this way looks like a ridiculous risk to me. We'll meet again in your "My page was dropped from the index" thread :-)
Please read below:
(Extracted from Page Rank Explained, at [#*$!.net...]
"Many websites need to contain some outbound links that are nothing to do with PageRank. Unfortunately, all 'normal' outbound links leak PageRank. But there are 'abnormal' ways of linking to other sites that don't result in leaks. PageRank is leaked when Google recognizes a link to another site. The answer is to use links that Google doesn't recognize or count. These include form actions and links contained in javascript code.
Form actions
A form's 'action' attribute does not need to be the url of a form parsing script. It can point to any html page on any site. Try it.
Example:
<form name="myform" action="http://www.domain.com/somepage.html">
<a href="javascript:document.myform.submit()">Click here</a>
To be really sneaky, the action attribute could be in some javascript code rather than in the form tag, and the javascript code could be loaded from a 'js' file stored in a directory that is barred to Google's spider by the robots.txt file.
Javascript
Example: <a href="javascript:goto('wherever')">Click here</a>
Like the form action, it is sneaky to load the javascript code, which contains the urls, from a seperate 'js' file, and sneakier still if the file is stored in a directory that is barred to googlebot by the robots.txt file.
The "rel" attribute
As of 18th January 2005, Google, together with other search engines, is recognising a new attribute to the anchor tag. The attribute is "rel", and it is used as follows:-
<a href="http://www.domain.com/somepage.html" rel="nofollow">link text</a>
The attribute tells Google to ignore the link completely. The link won't help the target page's PageRank, and it won't help its rankings. It is as though the link doesn't exist. With this attribute, there is no longer any need for javascript, forms, or any other method of hiding links from Google.
He calls the form and javascript methods 'sneaky' without explaining why: Google doesn't like such SEO practices that try to manipulate pagerank and may penalize.
And then he simply ignores the fact that the new 'nofollow' attribute may suffer the same fait sooner or later.
I say: applying 'nofollow' to links other than user contributed links is sneaky. And so easily recognizable on internal links.
I for one would love to be able to add the no follow attribute to on-site links. Most of them are all ready dis-allowed in robots.txt but they still show up in the SERPs and it has been said here that PR would be passed or waisted on the pages you have blocked in robots.txt.
