Should I nofollow interlinking if I own both sites?

[ChrisWilson]

Lets say I own two sites, I place a banner on site A that points to site B. This isn't a paid spot, I own both sites, yet you think this should be treated as basically a paid spot, and that link NoFollow'd?

[aakk9999]

I have a case like this and I am nofollowing such links. Im my case the links are for visitors only and I do not want Google to have any doubt on this.

[netmeg]

potato potahto. I will *never* nofollow a link to one of my own properties.

[goodroi]

I agree with nutmug, I dofollow the links to my own properties. I avoid interlinking unrelated sites even if I own them. I interlink the sites because users on my widget e-commerce site will be interested in my widget repair site or my widget forum site.

[ChrisWilson]

Yea, that's why it has been tricky for me. I link to them, as they are both forums, but they are very different topics. I should probably just nofollow it.

[aakk9999]

In my case I have too many links from one site (informational) to another (product selling) and I feel it is safer to nofollow them... and I cannot sell directly from informational because of how the cart is set up.

[jimbeetle]

I agree with nutmug

Are you sure that's not supposed to be with two gs?

And I also dofollow links on my own properties, related or not. Actually, I don't think I've ever nofollowed any link (but I might just be having a senior moment).

[aristotle]

Well if you interlink a large number of sites, each to all the others, that's the kind of linking pattern that might not look natural to Google's algorithm. So maybe it depends on how many sites are interlinked. It's also possible that Google doesn't give any credit to the links in this type of pattern even if you don't get penalized.

[andycambo]

I've looked into this recently and went with not adding 'nofollow' to the links after reading Google's guidelines. Mainly because of these two reasons that Google mentions: -

Untrusted content: If you can't or don't want to vouch for the content of pages you link to from your site.

Paid links: A site's ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to it. In order to prevent paid links from influencing search results and negatively impacting users.

I was thinking if that Google see that if you're website has 'nofollow' links pointing to it then they may use this data to suggest that website isn't trustworthy.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into or I don't think Google is trustworthy...

[lucy24]

If you don't believe a site has any value, why would you send humans there?

[Jez123]

I thought linking your on sites (without nofollow) was A SIN.

Seriously, what's to keep anyone making related site after related site and linking it to their main site? I thought Penguin's job was to stop just that?

I have 3 related sites that are not linked in any other way than a mention of the company name and the same phone number! Am I missing a trick?

[netmeg]

Seriously, what's to keep anyone making related site after related site and linking it to their main site?

Lots of people do that, and Google has gotten better at detecting when it makes sense to do that and when it doesn't. It's not as easy as "always do this" or "never do that."

In my case, if I put a link one one of my sites to one of my other sites, it's because I think the users of the first site would genuinely be interested in the content of the second site. (And my stats bear that out) If I don't think they'd be interested, if I would only be putting the link there for the sake of having the link there, then I don't nofollow it - I don't put it there in the first place.

It's a nuanced approach, and if you're not sure and you're feeling a little paranoid about it, then just don't place the link. If you think your users will genuinely find it a useful resource (whether it's your own site or not, and whether it's directly related or not) then put a link there and don't put nofollow on it. And don't get crazy with the anchor text either - just use the name of the site.

But if you want a straight out formula for when you link and when you don't link, you'll have to keep waiting because there isn't one.

I agree with nutmug

You of all people should know better. If I had a link to you, I'd nofollow it for that.

[lucy24]

You of all people should know better.

We're not allowed to joke about your name? :( I assumed he did it on purpose.

if <snip> then I don't nofollow it - I don't put it there in the first place.

Could we make that into a banner and post it somewhere?

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I share Netmeg's opinion and will never nofollow a link to one of my own sites, I trust myself. I don't, however, recommend that you spam a link to your own sites from wherever you can. Links need to make sense.

[netmeg]

We're not allowed to joke about your name?

(I was joking about him joking!)

[geekay]

The Google Content Guidelines lists the following three uses:
– Untrusted content
– Paid links
– Crawl prioritization (Search engine robots can't sign in or register as a member on your forum, so there's no reason to invite Googlebot to follow "register here" or "sign in" links.)

But look at the way Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums etc. are utilising the nofollow. To me it appears that the vast majority of nofollows are used in a way contradicting the G Guidelines. Confusing.

[Whitey]

I do not want Google to have any doubt on this.

Agreed. Interlinking, should not:

- intend to manipulate rankings
- be for the purposes of distributing page rank
- be seen as a "scheme"

So why not no-follow to be safe.

An odd link here or there that's on topic and relevant shouldn't matter though.

[sundarrawat]

IF you own both websites and have made dofollow link to each other then it does not come under paid linking in any case.

There are plenty of example sites which are doing the same thing. Paid links penalty is not a algorithmic penalty so Google will filter your website before penalizing or hit your website on advertorial issue.
Here you can read the complete article by Barry (SEORoundtabale) - [seroundtable.com...]

[netmeg]

So why not no-follow to be safe.

Because at some point(s), I put my foot down as to how much Google can tell me to do on my own site. And for me, nofollow is one of those points. If Google takes issue with it, then I will just have to live with it. So far, they haven't. YMMV.

[EditorialGuy]

I think the key here is the word "banner." Display ads normally don't transfer PageRank, so if you have a banner that does, it could raise questions.

[jimbeetle]

To me it appears that the vast majority of nofollows are used in a way contradicting the G Guidelines. Confusing.

And G's guidelines are a repurposing of the original intent of nofollow, specifically -- and only -- to combat comment spam on blogs.

So yeah, as netmegg said, there comes a point where it's just gotta' stop.

[Planet13]

But look at the way Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums etc. are utilising the nofollow. To me it appears that the vast majority of nofollows are used in a way contradicting the G Guidelines.

I think that the reason those particular sites use nofollow is because they realize that people will spam the daylights out of them if they allowed links to pass page rank.

So it isn't so much of an editorial statement that wikipedia thinks that the sites they link out to suck. It is more just a precaution to avoid people posting (even more) spam on those sites.