Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Nice find from Matt Cutts' blog post above (thanks annej):
Anytime you have a user that you’d trust, there’s no need to use nofollow links.
Many sites have highly trusted direct link ads.
Say our small town dentist buys an ad on the small town's newspaper website and the dentist has been working on the newspaper publisher's teeth for years. Plenty of trust there; it's a relevant ad for the local community, and it's useful for the newspaper readers.
Less than a year ago Google's rules didn't require nofollow on the ad. Today they do. What will their rules be next year?
In contrast I see Gooooogle ads to "Lower My Bills" and "Free Teen Chat" all over the web. I see these junk ads on scraper sites, on parked domains, and on MFA sites. Does Google trust these companies? Are these ads good for users? Do they add value to the web?
The hypocrisy from Google is rich in so many different ways. You'd think fixing their algorithm would have been easier than jumping the shark.
[edited by: tedster at 4:13 pm (utc) on April 25, 2007]
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
The absence of an action does not equal an action. The use of nofollow does not equal manipulation because it does not exert an influence upon search results. That is the exact point of the nofollow attribute.
The use of nofollow on a link equals "manipulation" just as much as not linking out in any form or fashion, which is to say not at all.
The absence of an action does not equal an action. The use of nofollow does not equal manipulation because it does not exert an influence upon search results. That is the exact point of the nofollow attribute.
If you are using no follow in order to manipulate the flow of page rank, then you are attempting to manipulate the SERPS.
Placing a no follow attribute is an action, not the abscence of an action. Leaving the link naked is the abscence of an action.
The no follow attribute was created for links placed by a third party that the site owner could not vouch for. It was intended to combat blog and forum spam by disincentivizing the placement of links.
That some immediately began using the tag to hoard PR was simply an early sign of how it could be abused. Google has now given legitimacy to the practice by suggesting that we use the no follow to manipulate PR according to their rules.
Think about it. It does not matter how useful the link might be to the user anymore. If it is a paid link, then we are not only authorized, but expected to use the no follow attribute to control the flow of PR in order to manipulate the SERPS.
Kind of weird when put in the proper perspective, isn't it?
WBF
If you buy links in one place, there MUST be a presumption that you MIGHT buy links in another place. So, if you are marked with the scarlet letter of of link buying in one place, you might be judged as buying links in another place. To pretend otherwise is delusionally irrational, particularly since Matt has specifically asked for examples so they can try to identify paid links that are not tagged with nofollow.To take it a bit further. If you freely link to a site, and then notice that someone else links to them with nofollow, Google may think you are selling links without putting nofollow on them. So it would be in your best interest to add nofollow to any links to other sites that already have other nofollow links pointing at them.
This is fun!
I know what you're saying but I meant "absence of an action" in terms of influencing the serps. The way I see it, it's impossible to manipulate with nofollow because nofollow does not influence search results. The pagerank hoarding argument is lame because the alternative to nofollow is simply to not link at all. Ok, so if I DON'T link to my competitor am I still hoarding pagerank? Not a good argument.
"The no follow attribute was created for links placed by a third party that the site owner could not vouch for."
It's not just links that a site owner is unable to vouch for. It includes links that a site owner is UNWILLING to vouch for. As MC has indicated, there are additional uses for nofollow aside from the original stated purpose.
"That some immediately began using the tag to hoard PR was simply an early sign of how it could be abused."
Withholding the flow of pagerank from a link doesn't necessarily equate with hoarding. The distinction may be a fine one, but no less fine than the distinction between buying links for traffic versus buying links for pagerank. It's difficult to discern intent because the effect is the same.
In much the same way, if I choose to withhold pagerank from a competitor, I'm not doing it because I'm hoarding, even if the practical effect is the same. I'm doing it because I don't want to "powerup" my competitor. And it is my perogative to not have to do so. Yes, I could simply avoid linking at all to my competitor. But why should my options be limited?
This may really be a point in time where we begin to consider "What is a simple link?" and "what is a vote that's been cast?" and what is the difference between the two. From my point of view, there is a discernable difference between the two. A link does not HAVE to be a vote.
And if you configure a link so that it does not cast a vote, I don't think google cares. Obviously, they care about links that influence their results. But your own pagerank? Its yours to do with as you please. And to use an earlier example, if you wanted to "HOARD" your pagerank, you could simply never link out to anyone at all. Heck, why not just stop creating new pages so your existing pages could continue to "HOARD" their pagerank from pages that have yet to be created. The whole hoarding thing is bogus nonsense.
"If you freely link to a site, and then notice that someone else links to them with nofollow, Google may think you are selling links without putting nofollow on them."
Then again, Google may think you sit around the house in your pajamas all day with too much time on your hands, eh?
because nofollow does not influence search results
I'm assuming that google actually treats a no-follow as a 'non vote' though. )
rekitty: So inspite of Google testifying before the Senate that they keep their search results independent of their advertising, you prefer to believe otherwise.
Exactly. I like Google, but I don't trust Google. It's naive to believe such a statements when their actions show differently. You didn't address any of the 5 specific indications of bias I outlined, did you?
There is a long sorted history of companies reaching Google's market power behaving badly. Every recent action by Google shows indications they are far down the same path.
I don't trust Google's search results to not be biased by advertising, just like Google doesn't trust my links to not be biased by advertising. Fair is fair.
Suppose starting tomorrow, 100% of all old and new outgoing links on every site were changed to 'no follow',
or 50%?
or 10%?
even 5%?
would the serps change?
That isn't going to happen, so the question is purely rhetorical.
I know what you're saying but I meant "absence of an action" in terms of influencing the serps. The way I see it, it's impossible to manipulate with nofollow because nofollow does not influence search results. The pagerank hoarding argument is lame because the alternative to nofollow is simply to not link at all. Ok, so if I DON'T link to my competitor am I still hoarding pagerank? Not a good argument.
Oh, come on...
I can put on my site:
"www.webmasterworld.com has a lot of additional information on this subject..."
or, I can put:
"Webmasterworld [webmasterworld.com] has a lot of additional information on this subject..."
or, I can put:
"There is a great discussion about paid links [webmasterworld.com] over on WebmasterWorld..."
On the latter two I can choose to use no follow. Doing so would clearly be an attempt to manipulate the SERPS by controlling the flow of PR.
What do they say in quantum mechanics? The act of taking a measurement effects the results of the measurement. The paradox of Schroeder's cat. Is it the act of opening the box that confers life, or death, on the cat?
"The no follow attribute was created for links placed by a third party that the site owner could not vouch for."It's not just links that a site owner is unable to vouch for. It includes links that a site owner is UNWILLING to vouch for. As MC has indicated, there are additional uses for nofollow aside from the original stated purpose.
Yes, Matt Cutts has expanded the use of no follow. The intent, as agreed upon by Google, Yahoo and MSN was to disincentivize third party link spam. That's all. Anything since then has been an expansion of the original intent.
WBF
A. The serps exist as they are
B. I decide to link to someone using nofollow
C. Because I used nofollow, the serps were not affected.
D. Therefore I have not manipulated the serps.
E. I have held back my own PR
F. But that would have been the case if
G. I had decided not to link at all or
H. I sold advertising and put nofollow on the outbounds.
By your reasoning, every site that sells advertising and uses nofollow as google would like is guilty of manipulating the serps. Would google consider a site that sold nofollow advertising links to be A. in compliance with their paid link advertising policy and also B. guilty of manipulating the serps ALL IN THE SAME SHOT? Wow. What a setup. Those devilish #*$!s.
And, regarding the competitor example, how many people trust their competitors enough to vouch for them with a link that counts as a vote? I know my own competitors and I wouldn't trust that any of them are operating above board. By giving a nofollow to a competitor, am I hoarding or am I simply using nofollow to link to a site I don't trust?
And even if google was interested in why I used a nofollow, how would they discern this? By calling me up and saying "Hey Lf, are you sure you reealllyyy didn't trust that guy you linked to with that nofollow? 'Cause, you know, we was just sitting around in our pajamas with nothing better to do and we thought we should ask. And how's about hurrying up with your answer, 'cause we got about 10 million other people who used nofollow yesterday and we need to get these calls done before dinner time. Sigh. I wish Matt would finish up on that mind reading machine he's been working on."
Adios on this thread. But I'll say these two things. I don't think you should be able to buy your way to the top of the serps while others are slogging it out for hard-earned unpaid links. Secondly, I think you should be able to enjoy the utility of linking out and only casting a vote when you feel its appropriate.
There will be multiple ways you can plainly hurt a competitor if Google ever enacts anything like Matt is suggesting. If one of your competitors liberally links to one of their sister sites, you can flood that sister site with nofollow links so that say 90% of the links pointing at that domain are nofollow.
What is Google going to assume about the other 10%? Well, they AREN'T going to assume those other 10% are definitely for sure not paid links. The degree it would hurt the linking to site remains to be seen, but any algo that is TRYING to determine paid links would have to take into account situations where the vast majority of links to a domain are nofollow, and take a critical second and third look at the ones that are not.
To take it a bit further. If you freely link to a site, and then notice that someone else links to them with nofollow, Google may think you are selling links without putting nofollow on them. So it would be in your best interest to add nofollow to any links to other sites that already have other nofollow links pointing at them.
I second that. Google has created this nofollow Gun which fires in all directions, hope matt wouldn't mind receiving a few bullets. It would be safe if he does not use it anymore. I am sure he doesn't have clear idea about the impact of this proposal.
I think google would even need a time machine to go back to the birth of internet and impliment nofollow. I guess some one would have sold a paid for life time link, on their website ;)
Then again, Google may think you sit around the house in your pajamas all day with too much time on your hands, eh?But their maps pages say they don't offer that resolution in my area yet.;)
[edited by: Powdork at 7:51 am (utc) on April 27, 2007]
