Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
"The nofollow tag also started out being promoted as being for 'our own good'. A few years later, it's used very much, perhaps primarily, for the SE's benefit, to the detriment of end users.
In fact based on nothing other than the SE's treatment of nofollow, webmasters and SEO' would be well advised to be very suspicious of another big wooden horse parked at the front door."
I'm using nofollow to prevent PR from flowing to noindex pages, but I haven't checked into the general nofollow situation in a while. Has it gone bad?
"The nofollow tag also started out being promoted as being for 'our own good'. A few years later, it's used very much, perhaps primarily, for the SE's benefit, to the detriment of end users.
I too "used to" advocate not using the
rel="nofollow"I now use it judiciously when setting up site architecture. And, I'm now on a mission to make sure that there is only one link reference per page that is being counted in the overall equation. The one surrounded by the most relevant content which is usually an inline link.
Learning About PR Sculpting: internal links with rel=nofollow
[webmasterworld.com...]
I'd have to say that was one of me all time favorites. Totally changed my views on the use of
rel="nofollow"Prime Example of Usage
Let's say you have a page of content that is somewhat verbose. You've provided a Table of Contents at the top of the page to make it easier for visitors to peruse that page in "sections". I am now using the
rel="nofollow"
I also use it in multi-page articles where I have running links to third-party Web sites and don't want to give the impression that they're paid links.
So far, so good--and why not? Google--and Matt Cutts of Google's antispam team--encourage the use of rel="nofollow" when it's appropriate.
My feelig on nofollow is that it destroys the web. It was meant to disavow your vote for an external site. This is fine.
It developed through legitimate use to become a power-user tool as advocated by P1R. This is also fine (though good site structure takes you most of the way, P1R's journey of discovery on the referenced thread was... insightful)
The problem with nofollow is the 'hoarders'. The people who NF all outbounds. Its death for the internet, and frankly should scare anyone who relies on PR-fueled natural SERPs. Ok, some people overstate PR influence, but there are many, many more who now underestimate it.
Many respected posters here, in the good and right name of disillusioning the PR worshipers, give the impression PR is barely a consideration. I cannot agree. And in the particular matter of nofollow especially, remember all the semantic and contextual information is lost with that PR when THE LINK IS REMOVERD FROM THE GRAPH.
The widespread practice began by UGC blogs for good reason now infects the web, and it is WRONG.
[edited by: Shaddows at 9:59 am (utc) on Feb. 17, 2009]
Of course then everyone piles on and says that the search engines would NEEEVER use it for that, or anything else against your better interests - despite clear evidence of strong tendencies of doing exactly that.
Yes nofollow can be used to your advantage. Yes, nofollow can be used against you.
NF is not manipulative, in and of itself- any more than 301s are manipulative. Its how they are used that causes problems.
Shaping PR and relevancy (through link selection) are fine. Blocking UGC is fine. Blocking votes saying "Look at the MFA scraper site over at rel="nofollow" example.com" is fine.
Turning the 'net' into a group of islands is a disaster.
As someone (Tedster?) noted elsewhere, the SEO/Google relationship is a marriage of hostility and cooperation. Thinking Google is on your side or that they are against you is missing at least half the story. It's a symbiotic relationship, each looking out for their own interests, but each deriving value from the other.
NF is a tool that you can use to help G 'see' you better- and while it will probably move your profile into the SEO camp, chances are that it was there already.
Did you ever test for anchor text Google picks up in cases where you nofollow the first link of multiple to any single target in your source?
No, I haven't. I rely on the Webmaster Community at large to confirm that for me. I've read the various articles on that and I'm not sure what is happening. I rely mainly on gut instinct and protocol. If my gut tells me something isn't right and/or right, I have plenty of "official" documents to fall back on for confirmation. In this case, it is a bit different as the use of nofollow comes with mixed reviews.
I do know that on the few sites I've utilized it on, everything is fine. Traffic is up but I can't say it was due to the use of nofollow. This time of year is usually a benchmark period for my clients anyway so it is really difficult to micro track what the cause and effects are. I just do it and be done with it. I don't have the time nor the inclination to figure out what Google is doing "exactly". I can only guess based on experience and protocol.
From a "conceptual" standpoint, I like NF because of the micro management of link equity if that is the end outcome. I'm still too early into all of this to really make any educated guesses as to its effectiveness. There are quite a few others around here who have used it for years. After I got involved with the above topic referenced and had my head smacked quite a few times, it finally clicked. So, I got on board and now use it where applicable.
We tend to overlook the replication of internal links on our pages. Using NF allows you to minimize that replication and "direct" the flow of equity through the site.
On a side note, I personally believe the anchor text is still taken into consideration when using nofollow. ;)
Yes nofollow can be used to your advantage. Yes, nofollow can be used against you.
Maybe, if you've got a site that won't pass the "sniff test" on closer examination. As Shaddows said, "Google doesn't hurt you because a site is 'optimised', they hurt you because your optimisation activities are plain manipulative."
As for being the search engines "beotch," rel="nofollow" is easier to implement than meta statements for descriptions and keywords, which most site owners use and which have no function other than to help search engines with their indexing.
OK, my take on "rel nofollow" and canonical. More SE factors to take into account as a webmaster/SEO. ;-)
So here goes, here's how I see it being useful. I have a page with content provided by a client (before he had a web site), when it went up originally.
Later we also looked after his site and his site had the content there as well.
Now we don't look after his site and content, so I can canonical meta tag my original page content to point to his page that he has up, as the source (even though we published it first), and "rel nofollow" the cite/attribute link on my page back to his site.
His directory listings on other pages of my site remain full meta follow/index, because I want GYM to understand these are the important links as far as I'm concerned, to his site from my site, and to pass full "link juice" and PR* to them, from these.
Do I get it?
I can canonical meta tag my original page content to point to his page
The canonical tag will not work across two domains, sorry.
meta statements for descriptions and keywords, which most site owners use and which have no function other than to help search engines with their indexing.
Oh, OK. Back to the drawing board understanding who, what, where and when, on canonical then :-}
Cheers
JP
