Rel="nofollow" PR Sculpting Techniques

[Tonearm]

There seem to be quite a few different techniques for sculpting PR with rel="nofollow" but I haven't found a thread that organizes them. It would be great to make this thread a congolmeration of these techniques in a relatively organized fashion.

TECHNIQUE:
Add rel="nofollow" to pages which don't need to be in the SERPs such as About Us, Contact Us, Shopping Cart, etc. I've had good results with this.

[Shaddows]

We're well off-topic here. The OP was concerned with techniques. The whys and wherefores might be better housed over here [webmasterworld.com]

[signor_john]

Now, take that one clear signal, add it to other signals that can be used to determine if there is an abusive manipulation taking place and BAM, you've crossed the threshold.

This should be of concern only if you're giving other signals that suggest "abusive manipulation."

I would strongly encourage Google to penalise sites that make heavy handed use of NF in removing OBLs from the link graph.

I'd agree except for the fact that rel="nofollow" was created as a brute-force tool to neutralize "comment spam" from blogs and the like.

[Shaddows]

Yep, UGC should be blocked. Actually, it should be moderated, but failing that blocking is fine.

Ecom and info sites with content written by the webmaster or 'trusted authors' should not be using NF for outbounds.

Again, imagine what would happed to the Google algo if everyone blocked all their outbounds. They'd either have to ignore NF, or use the same criteria SEs used before G invented PR.

[pageoneresults]

Again, imagine what would happed to the Google algo if everyone blocked all their outbounds.

Ya, it would become dominated with sites like the Wiki. Does everyone remember when the Wiki implemented nofollow and what transpired afterwards? They soared right to the top of the SERPs. They were bleeding too much PR initially so they stopped the outbound flow of it and kept it on site. Plus "I think" they were given instructions by Google on what to do as they were being groomed for authority status at that time.

[signor_john]

They [Wiki] were bleeding too much PR initially so they stopped the outbound flow of it and kept it on site.

I had the impression that an even bigger reason for Wiki's use of rel="nofollow" was to prevent drive-by spammers from peppering articles with self-serving links.

[Shaddows]

I had the impression that an even bigger reason for Wiki's use of rel="nofollow" was to prevent drive-by spammers from peppering articles with self-serving links.

Possibly, but cause and effect are not the same thing.

They WERE leaking PR. The used NF, probably to stop spamming.

Two things happened. The first is they no longer linked to bad neighbourhoods (which is the upstream effect of driveby spamming), the second is that the PR hoarding dramatically boosted their rankings.

However, Wiki is a special case; its entirely UGC. But it is a poster site of the 'benefits' of PR hoarding. And to keep pushing the point, if everyone did this, the only PR that would 'flow' wouldb be internal PR. And where would your relevancy signals be coming from?

[honestman]

I agree with all you say Shaddows in terms of the long-term efficacy of abusive "PR hoarding" via use of the
"nofollow." But what about sites which make it a point to provide as many outbound links as possible in order to provide their audience with the best information which they do not have themselves? In other words, what about sites that are generous in their outbound links and are rewarded for that generosity by being considered "authority sites" or niche portals and therefore get much potentially and actually valuable pass-through traffic?

How would you suggest using nofollow (of outbound links) in such a situation in a reasonable manner? So far, none of my sites has suffered from NOT using nofollow based upon the many #1 rankings for keywords and common keyword combinations.

[wheel]

Ya, it would become dominated with sites like the Wiki. Does everyone remember when the Wiki implemented nofollow and what transpired afterwards? They soared right to the top of the SERPs. They were bleeding too much PR initially so they stopped the outbound flow of it and kept it on site. Plus "I think" they were given instructions by Google on what to do as they were being groomed for authority status at that time.

Very astute point P1R. I've got a portal project I was considering proceeding with where much of the draw would be lots of unique content combined with lots and lots of outbound links. I was kind of wondering if those two things, in combination and in excess would be useful for ranking. The wikipedia example shows that that combination is actually detrimental.

[signor_john]

The wikipedia example shows that that combination is actually detrimental.

I think the Wikipedia example just shows the benefits of having a huge information site with untold thousands (millions?) of organic inbound links.

[tedster]

I think wikipedia was already ranking quite well before they implemented nofollow, but they had a bigger spam problem.