Is it time to retire rel="nofollow" ?

[seoskunk]

I just checked my wordpress account and it had 1000's of comment spam all using rel="nofollow" in the link text. This hasn't deterred spammers one bit at all. In fact in many ways its made it worse, to the user they can't actually tell which links from a site are untrusted and for a webmaster its almost impossible to get a genuine dofollow link from anywhere.

I think its time this code was retired....

[EditorialGuy]

A company that basis it number one ranking signal off the correct usage of that signal doesn't need to respond/explain how the number one ranking signal should be used? Interesting..

OK, here's an official Google explanation of rel="nofollow" that may be helpful if you've missed it:

[support.google.com...]

It really isn't all that complicated. And again, most site owners will never need to worry about how or whether to use rel="nofollow". It's just a tool, like so many other HTML attributes and tags that are designed for specific situations.

[tutp36]

in wordpress rel nofollow was set by default. its made for a reason

[CaptainSalad2]

Good point tutp36!

Google states "use nofollow of you can't or don't want to vouch for the content of pages you link to from your site"

Who wants to vouch for a stranger they just met on the internet?! ;)

I haven't seen any resident expert provide a single reason why a site owner should maintain dofollow links in 2014? And this is on a board of "people in the know" so god help people who don't live their lives around this stuff when deciding what to do!

Nofollow provides site visitors with the same benefit of dofollow and the site owner receives insurance of zero Google wrath, where's the motivation to dofollow again?

Unless there is some kind of affiliation between site owners, (lets come back from la la land for a moment, that is the reason behind MOST links in 2014) there is zero benefit in vouching for a 3rd party site and owner you don't know.

Please no theory on "google trusting a site less if they nofollow everything", this is debunked by the mega sites default use of nofollow ranking like runaway trains.

In summery, that's the problem with nofollow, the ambiguous way its been marketed and adopted, not the attribute itself!

[EditorialGuy]

I haven't seen any resident expert provide a single reason why a site owner should maintain dofollow links in 2014?

Maybe because Matt Cutts has said that Google's system rewards outbound links?

Maybe because it's the right thing to do?

[CaptainSalad2]

Please cite where may cutts states you get a ranking improvement from do follow links? I must have missed it!

As for 'it's the right thing todo' it's off topic and but lets not put google and phrase 'the right thing todo' in the same thread as google! Since when does google do the right thing love? Let's start with tax avoidance? or just not go there and get back on topic and forget 'the right thing todo' when it comes to ranking on g ;)

[EditorialGuy]

Please cite where may cutts states you get a ranking improvement from do follow links? I must have missed it!

See the earlier post in this thread where I included a link to a blog post by Matt Cutts that included this statement:

"In the same way that Google trusts sites less when they link to spammy sites or bad neighborhoods, parts of our system encourage links to good sites."

If you can show us that Matt Cutts no longer stands by that statement, please do.

[aristotle]

Sometimes actions speak louder than words, and Google's own actions include automatically adding nofollow tags to all outgoing links from plus.google.com, sites.google.com, and youtube.com.

[CaptainSalad2]

If you can show us that Matt Cutts no longer stands by that statement, please do.

If you can show us that Matt Cutts says this about "dofollow" links, please do.

Parts of our system encourage links to good sites.

He says links, he doesn’t mention how the links are marked up chief. Your taking an ambiguous sentence and suggesting he is talking about dofollow links to back up a weak argument.

So the evidence you have of a derived ranking improvement for dofollow linking out hinges on a single VAGUE sentence about links (irrespective of how they are marked up), from a single guy at Google, over his 14 year career?

And you also dismiss the thousands of sites that nofollow by default and rank like a boss as proof there is no ranking downside to nofollow everything?

If you have any straws in your premise now might be the time to clasp a few :)

[aakk9999]

Lets not forget that not every site invites comments or UGC, and neither it uses Wordpress or some other off-the-shelf CMS that implements nofollow by default or via plugin.

Therefore there are huge number of sites that do not use nofollow at all. In fact, many bespoke written CMSs do not use nofollow or do not use it by default.

With regards to ranking advantage or not advantage, it is difficult to argue one way or the other without doing some testing.

Perhaps sites that nofollow everything may rank better if they dofollow selection of authority links. Or they may not and dofollowing may have no impact. Or it may have impact but it is so miniscule that it is not really reflected in SERPs. Likewise, sites that do not use nofollow may maybe damage ranking if they put nofollow on every link. Or ranking may stay unchanged and it may have no effect.

The only way to find this out is to test, to have two sites, one that nofollows everything and one that does not use nofollow (apart from in the UGC). Do thorough ranking and traffic check, then change respectable links to either add (or remove) nofollow. Wait a bit to see the impact (if any).

This may give some indication, although change(or not) in ranking on other sites may not be the same as for testing pair of sites.

[aristotle]

Another consideration is that some webmasters could think that using nofollow is safer, because they fear that Google's algorithm might mistake a dofollow link for a purchased link and then unjustly penalize them for selling links. So they use nofollow as a precaution to try to protect themselves from being unjustly penalized.

[EditorialGuy]

He says links, he doesn’t mention how the links are marked up chief. Your taking an ambiguous sentence and suggesting he is talking about dofollow links to back up a weak argument.

So you're suggesting that Google's systems are designed to encourage nofollow links, when:

1) The purpose of rel="nofollow" is to distinguish between organic links (a.k.a. citations or editorial links) and comment-spam or advertising links?

2) Google's algorithm is built on a foundation of PageRank?

What does Google have to gain from that scenario?

[aristotle]

EditorialGuy -- You're badly confused. What something was designed to do and what it actually accomplishes can be quite different, as obviously happened in this case. See my previous post above yours, which points out that some people are using nofollow for other reasons than the originally stated purposes.

[CaptainSalad2]

So you're suggesting that Google's systems are designed to encourage nofollow links, when:

No my suggestion was very clear. My suggesting is there is no ranking benefit/loss for a site that marks all its outgoing links with or without the nofollow attribute.

And since I see evidence to back this up via the brands default use of nofollow and their current ranking positions its logical to assume there is no ranking downside to playing it safe via nofollow as default :)

[EditorialGuy]

And since I see evidence to back this up via the brands default use of nofollow and their current ranking positions its logical to assume there is no ranking downside to playing it safe via nofollow as default :)

If you believe that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has as much authority, trust, PageRank, etc. as the big brands do, and if you don't trust your own judgment when linking, then I guess it makes sense to nofollow everything in sight.

As for me, I'll continue to follow standard Web practice with editorial links--as I've done for the last 18 years without a Google penalty.

As I said earlier, that's the right thing to do. And my use of the phrase "right thing to do" has nothing to do with Google: It's about showing respect for the sites I link to editorially. If a site is worth an editorial link, it deserves to enjoy the benefits of that link. (Sometimes it's better to be generous than to be selfish.)

[CaptainSalad2]

The right thing todo is off topic, that said we can all agree that dofollow is the right thing to do and should be used for everything except ads (paid links) and 3rd party generated content/links!

The topic was, what are the benefits for site owners to dofollow any outgoing links in 2014 with the threat of punitive action from Google running rife, why risk without reward?

If you think you can get ahead of someone in the SERPS by dofollow linking to them or other authority sites in your industry then link on my man, link on ;)

Your basically saying Google rewards little sites that dofollow link (pass page rank) to large brand/authority sites while the brand/authority sites are okay to "nofollow everything"...

Sounds awfully like a pyramid scheme, doesn't it ;)

[EditorialGuy]

Your basically saying Google rewards little sites that dofollow link (pass page rank) to large brand/authority sites while the brand/authority sites are okay to "nofollow everything"...

No, I'm saying that brand/authority sites have so many other things going for them that getting extra credit for things like dofollow links, https, etc. probably doesn't matter to their rankings. The little guy, in contrast, probably needs all the help he can get.

[aristotle]

EditorialGuy wrote:
On the other hand, they can't reward you for linking to useful and relevant resources, either

How do you know they can't reward you for linking to useful and relevant resources?

[seoskunk]

I remember you used to be able to see dofollow or nofollow links in WMT. I just wonder if nofollow has been upgraded to pass some link benefit as so many spammers deliberately seek nofollow links.

A bit like pagerank has been devalued, have google internally dismissed nofollow as a non ranking signal and the spammers are ahead of the game, as usual.

[Clay_More]

On the 15th of this month I pointed a lot of links to a site, most of those links were evidently no-follow. The day after, I pointed a smaller quantity of links using the same keyword phrases to a similarly themed site. Those links have more do-follow links.

There isn't much point in discussing what Google may, or may not consider important unless you are willing to actually "see" the reactions based on a reasonably controlled environment.

[CaptainSalad2]

No, I'm saying that brand/authority sites have so many other things going for them that getting extra credit for things like dofollow links, https, etc. probably doesn't matter to their rankings. The little guy, in contrast, probably needs all the help he can get.

I made several posts last year about the testing I did of "onsite" ranking factors (should be in my posting history)!

I had the site pass every usability, associability, speed test known to man. WSC complient, unique hand written text and photos, mobile... (90-100% scores)! I also included a number of links to very well-known paint suppliers (it was a local handyman site) as well as a couple of the mega “lead generating” supersites G currently loves. (the ones that no follow everything).

I ran the tests for something like 8 months in total and the site never moved from page 3, it wasn’t until I added BACK LINKS after giving up with “onsite” quality signals and removed outbound links (4 no reason) and the site went to and remains on page one. I can only tell you what I have seen from my own testing, you can think it helps if you like but I don’t see that!

I would like to have said it does help as it makes logical sense for G to have applied some weight but because it’s a very easy signal to “manipulate” if there is any weight applied it’s so tiny I couldn’t measure it even at the less competitive local level, I just don’t see it in practice!

[edited by: CaptainSalad2 at 10:56 am (utc) on Sep 23, 2014]

[CaptainSalad2]

Here is a post I made back then.

[webmasterworld.com...]

I didn't mention outbound links but I assure you I did add them!

[seoskunk]

You couldn't make this up!

Pinterest that survives by scraping other peoples content has added rel=nofollow to all its links to the source website. So the website is good enough to steal all the content from and photo to rank your website but not good enough to send a link back to the original content.

What a Joke nofollow has now become!

[CaptainSalad2]

What a Joke nofollow has now become!

This is the problem with nofollow, the way its being executed and I dare say exploited! Example in my niche (local tradesmen)

Local tradesmen create profiles (£500-£1100 per year) on lead generating supersites that Google has decided should rule every search in the industry.

Local tradesmen’s dofollow link to their supersite profile from their personal website because it looks good to their visitors (they have no idea what nofollow is or that a link is a "citation". They just think its a way to get from A-B).

Supersite no follows everything by default.

Supersite is happy to vouch for local tradesmen they list to do everything from clean a window to rebuild a house (at a cost of hundreds of thousands)........... but they won’t vouch for them on Google, riiiigghhhttt!

It is genius really, nofollow gives brands the ability to take from niche sites without needing to give anything back.

[anand84]

Supersite is happy to vouch for local tradesmen they list to do everything from clean a window to rebuild a house (at a cost of hundreds of thousands)........... but they won’t vouch for them on Google, riiiigghhhttt!

I agree with OP that nofollow has lost its purpose. Now websites that are scared of Google are nofollowing everything and sundry. Meanwhile, websites that get paid to post links continue to do so. We are slowly but surely moving towards a scenario where every unpaid link is nofollow and only those that are paid remain followed.

[EditorialGuy]

We are slowly but surely moving towards a scenario where every unpaid link is nofollow and only those that are paid remain followed.

Or, perhaps more accurately, "We are slowly but surely moving towards a scenario where SEOs use rel="nofollow" for all of their unpaid outbound links." (That that could be a great way for SEOs to call attention to themselves or their clients.)

[MikeNoLastName]

Sure. Owners of Web sites, even big ones, do all kinds of stupid things. I've seen corporate-owned sites that had warnings not to link to them without permission. (How dumb is that?)

And yet, THEY are the ones ranking, and probably have the status to get "hints" dropped from G and/or the money to hire employees or former employees from G to consult for them and tell them the best strategies. So PERHAPS there is some truth to the strategies?

[GreyBeard123]

We are slowly but surely moving towards a scenario where every unpaid link is nofollow and only those that are paid remain followed.

Certain nofollow links are in high demand, scarce, and expensive..

[ronin]

We are slowly but surely moving towards a scenario where every unpaid link is nofollow and only those that are paid remain followed.

When 20% of the web is nofollowing unpaid links and 5% of the web is dofollowing paid links and a third of the web is dofollowing unpaid links and nofollowing paid links and over half the web is scratching their head at what this paragraph might even mean... nofollow has lost any significance it might ever have accrued as an independent, self-contained signal.

That said, I'm sure Google never looks at signals on an isolated basis.

I'm sure Google looks at constellations of signals... and dynamically interacting combinations of constellations of signals.