Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
So what happens when you have a page with “ten PageRank points” and ten outgoing links, and five of those links are nofollowed? Let’s leave aside the decay factor to focus on the core part of the question. Originally, the five links without nofollow would have flowed two points of PageRank each (in essence, the nofollowed links didn’t count toward the denominator when dividing PageRank by the outdegree of the page). More than a year ago, Google changed how the PageRank flows so that the five links without nofollow would flow one point of PageRank each.
...Matt clearly suggests that applying nofollow to a login link will stop pagerank from being wasted.
For reference, the video (also mentioned in Matt's blog post) is...
Google I/O 2009 - Site Review by the Experts
[youtube.com...]
In the context of encouraging focused site structure, while at the same time discouraging the use of rel="nofollow" on internal links and urging we 'let the PageRank flow', Matt did offer a login link as an example of where nofollow might be of help. He noted that Googlebot didn't have a credit card and wasn't going to fly to Vegas for the weekend, and he said, "so don't bother to waste the PageRank on that sort of stuff happening."
It's not clear in this context whether this comment had to do with PageRank for spidering purposes rather than for ranking purposes, but I'm assuming that it did. Google probably doesn't want to waste resources spidering a reservations system.
Given that nofollowed links are now a black hole for PR, I think there's no point in using them for PR sculpting. iframes for utility links are another matter. A good hierachical structure is probably where the most solid, longterm gains are to be found.
As usual, that is not what he says. Like every time before, he simply says if you don't want to send/waste pagerank on a login page, you don't have to, and that pagerank will not flow through a nofollow link. He does not say that the pagerank can be used elsewhere.
"...the short answer is no..."
"...don't use nofollow..."
The poor guy, every time he says black is black someone posts here that he meant black is pink.
You can either have a PR2 or a PR0 login page. Not many people would prefer the PR0 choice, but you can have that if you want.
The issue is what happens to it if you don't send it to the login page.
The obvious interpretation of what Matt says here is that by using rel="nofollow" on a link to the login page then the PR that would have flowed will not be wasted and therefore can be used elsewhere. ie it will be "saved" for other use.
This goes counter to what he and other Google folks have said which is clearly that rel="nofollow" will stop PR being passed but it does not save it to be shared amongst the other links from that page. ie it is just lost down a black hole.
So which bluff is true? Does rel="nofollow" continue to "save" PR for other uses or does it disappear down a black hole?
Cheers
Sid
No it's not obvious. It's leaping to a wild conclusion since he has stated that is not how it works.
He has said rel nofollow is the granular equivalent of noindex,nofollow -- which means PR dies, just like it does with noindex,nofollow. He spoke of it in the same way in the clip, while even more clearly belittling using nofollow for on-site links.
If you want a PR0 login page (for god knows what reason), you can do it with a crapload of rel nofollow links, or one meta tag. Or, if you have 1 or more other links on the login page other than the login itself, you can more sensibly use noindex,follow.
No it's not obvious. It's leaping to a wild conclusion since he has stated that is not how it works.
You are saying more or less exactly what I was trying to say. If you leap to that wild conclusion then what he has stated elsewhere can't also be true.
He implies in the video that sending PR to a login page would be wasted. In fact it is definitely "wasted" down the black hole if you rel="nofollow" the link to it.
Correct me if this simple interpretation below is wrong.
If a page had $100s worth of PR and spent $20 of it on a link to a login page then the $20 is spent. If you decide to rel="nofollow" that link you don't get the $20 back to spend elsewhere you might as well burn it because it just disappears. That is what I call a waste.
Cheers
Sid
Personally, my understanding of the use of English tells me the phrase "so don't bother to waste the PageRank on that sort of stuff" implies that you can avoid the waste of PageRank by using NF.
However, MC has categorically stated the reverse. So its pretty pointless to hope that an implication is truth. The sensible conclusion is that MC is free and easy with his use of English, while being highly corporate in the message he tries to convey.
Anyway, the obsession with PR is missing the point a bit. NF is now a tool that hurts to use, but it was, and remains, useful in maintaining site structure (with semantic relations being more important than ever). For the host page, keeping all OBLs (inc cross-links) on topic actually appears to be quite important in some limited testing I've done.
As I've said from the beginning of this debate
Personally, my understanding of the use of English tells me the phrase "so don't bother to waste the PageRank on that sort of stuff" implies that you can avoid the waste of PageRank by using NF.
That's the obvious interpretation bit.
No offence meant but have you looked at the definition of "obvious"?
It seems to me that Robert mentioned this apparent slip because perhaps there was a different implication than the Google corporate message on NF. I was simply pointing out that both can't be true and one was either a slip of a bluff.
I think that the obsession with PR in this thread is simply because that's what the thread is about.
Cheers
Sid
I have only tested WITH OR WITHOUT links, not WITH BUT NOFOLLOWED. However, my expectation (given the weakness of PR as a ranking factor) would be the cost of NF would be outweighed by the benefit of on-topic linking
But others active on this thread categorically believe that particular interpretation not "obvious". They think it is wrong, a willful projection of ones desires that bares no relation to the intent of the speaker.
This thread is part of a series that has two themes: rel=nofollow and PR. As a set, they have focussed on the effect of one on the flow of the other. All I'm saying is there are other aspects to nofollow than their effect on PR. However, as this is about the 5th thread on the subject, is seams silly to open a new one on "rel=nofollow and semantic sculpting". Although I might, if it sparks interest.
Also note, this Google I/O conference was in May - the big deal about the change in PR scoring wasn't happening until June, so it really wasn't on his mind at all at taping time.
My take is that Matt just spoke casually here
Agreed. Ultimately he would have a chuckle over the final destination of this thread.
It turns out that off-topic linking hurts the host page, with negligible impact on destination page.
All the reason why developing and planning a great taxonomy where theme support other relevant themes is so important.
I have used nofollow on some websites, and not on others, and to be honest have never noticed an appreciable difference.
