Letting people know to change NoFollow to Follow

[Rlilly]

I notice people using design elements we offer on our site which are free and posting about it. But they using a Nofollow. Its not a paid link and there is nothing bartered to get it. I think it is unfair and not right. I will be emailing all these webmasters and demanding they change the link to follow or remove the post.

[EditorialGuy]

Then content is dead for SEO. Why risk the time and effort creating it and getting nofollows even thou the guidlines you cite says thats the way to rank!

Content isn't dead, and neither is legitimate linking (as Kratos has so eloquently explained).

Trading goods or services, such as "design elements," for PageRank? That's a different matter altogether.

[samwest]

Why bother? Rumor is that Google doesn't CARE about links anymore!
(more misdirection by the master of misdirection)

[Rlilly]

@editorialguy, you failed to understand what I am getting at: editorial legitimate content according to Google which should help you rank, is getting linked to with nofollow.

AND what makes it even more unfair, the person linking to resourses/information/design elements in a post with a nofollow, could be getting links with follow to their post.

So if content is not dead yet, it is almost dead.

[Kratos]

Rlilly, a very small amount of editorial content on the WWW uses nofollow. Most editorial sites using nofollow are low quality content sites (WikiHow is a classic example) that don't offer anything new to the WWW.

Matt Cutts addressed this some time ago in a webmaster video (it's on Youtube) where he stated that the amount of nofollow links are in the single digit number (and low at that) out of all links (without nofollow and with nofollow combined).

It isn't a worry whatsoever for the time being, although I do get what you're saying and can understand the concern. On the overall context of the WWW, it's mostly the sites in the IM vertical and content mill sites that use (and abuse) the nofollow tag.

Wikipedia would gladly remove the nofollow if it wasn't because of all the spam we get every single day (I'm an editor there and constantly remove spam, including companies paid to put links of businesses there and thinking Wikipedia gives a SEO boost LOL).

[Rlilly]

@kratos - I am talking from experience. I guess its the niche I focus on, specifically Mommy and Crafter blogs, were the huge majority have fallen for the FUD and are using nofollow for every link on their blog, some even internal links.

[rish3]

Trading goods or services, such as "design elements," for PageRank?

I don't think the OP was doing this. I have seen that, in the past...like "use our css/html/whatever widget, but link to us if you do that". But, reading his post again:

I notice people using design elements we offer on our site which are free and posting about it.

The key part seems to be "posting about it". He's talking about people writing posts that mention his widget, but linking with rel=nofollow.

Asking that they remove the rel=nofollow (in an aggressive way) is perhaps a bad idea, but it's not trading for Pagerank.

[FranticFish]

specifically Mommy and Crafter blogs

I'm researching this niche (and those that touch it) presently.

Yes, those supposedly 'in the know', and those that are members of badged networks might be using 'nofollow'. You need to widen your net and stop looking at the low hanging fruit if you want links (not saying that those PR and media-friendly blogs aren't good for traffic though).

The obvious stuff is all rinsed out by agencies and those who Google things like 'list of mommy bloggers'. Obvious footprint. Look harder: connections of connections of connections. Every now and then I stumble on an old page with links to Geocities sites on it. Those sometimes have some good stuff on them. Cross-reference everything.

[fathom]

I notice people using design elements we offer on our site which are free and posting about it. But they using a Nofollow. Its not a paid link and there is nothing bartered to get it. I think it is unfair and not right. I will be emailing all these webmasters and demanding they change the link to follow or remove the post.

Sorry it is a paid link if you demand it to be dofollow.

You cannot make demands afterthefact... that would be false advertising. You invented a link scheme without telling anyone that.

You haven't added value to your domain to get others to dofollow link to it you are scheming to create that value and Google says that is ok so long as it is nofollow.

[rish3]

Sorry it is a paid link if you demand it to be dofollow.

I think "demand" is the key word there.

You could certainly politely ask why they used rel=nofollow, which seems out of place, given that their post was specifically about your widget.

"Hey, I noticed you wrote a blog post about our widget...thanks for the exposure, we appreciate it. I did notice, however, that the link back to our site had the rel=nofollow attribute on it. Usually, people use that within a post because there's something about the site being linked to that they aren't sure about. Is there anything we can improve on our side?"

[fathom]

I do agree with you Rish3 but my take isn't based on the OP problem of nofollow links being used but Google's problem with "in lieu of cash" ... "If it is really GOODWILL then there are no demand or polite suggestions" and I would think a certain amount of nofollow links would convey that as goodwill.

If this was pointed out to Google would they see an intentional attempt to game the system or a legitimate goodwill offer.

It can't be both!

A scheme is a scheme because it is meant to fool someone.

In this case (based on the OP own admission) to fool Google and all unsuspecting users that don't use rel="nofollow".

Google says the best way to determine what should be rel="nofollow" is DISCLOSURE, DISCLOSURE, DISCLOSURE. If the OP DISCLOSED that you must provide a dofollow link to use said assets that would afford users actual decision-making power & also give Google what it needs to say "SORRY THOSE ARE PAID LINKS AND WE ARE TAKING MANUAL ACTION".

That works for everyone.

[bwnbwn]

Putting content out on the web for other to link to is a hit and miss. Some will link with the www some without, some will link to the site and not the actual content some will. Some will no follow so won't. This is called natural linking and there is a pattern. If all of a sudden 100 went from no follow to follow it might trip a switch.

The OP should just be happy with the traffic (main reason for the link) be it follow or no follow. I don't even check anymore makes no difference to me, I like the traffic.

[rish3]

It can't be both!

I disagree in this case. There is a history, and specific purpose for rel=nofollow....roughly to be used for "links you can't vouch for". If the blog post was indeed about OP's widget, then "can't vouch for" doesn't really apply. It's the subject of the post.

I wouldn't find it "unnatural" to contact a webmaster to tell them, for example, about a broken link due to a typo. In this case, it's asking about an aspect of a link that seems wrong. Very similar.

I get that I'm perhaps alone in my view :)

[EditorialGuy]

There is a history, and specific purpose for rel=nofollow....roughly to be used for "links you can't vouch for".

Right. And if you're linking to someone who supplies infographics, WordPress themes, widgets, or other freebies to all comers, you may well wonder if the offer of freebies isn't driven by SEO considerations--in which case you may feel that it's better to be safe than sorry by nofollowing the link.

The OP might do better (in terms of getting followed links) if he had a message on his site that said something like "If you like and use or recommend our graphics, we hope you'll link to us in whatever manner you prefer."

[roshaoar]

Yeah I agree with you EditorialGuy, many of such sites do seem to be very SEO driven. Or have SEO demands.

That said, I'm not sure the web is being improved with the numerous CMSs that offer a 'nofollow all links' type option. I don't think what the web is about really. What I find especially annoying are the sites that have this enabled but disable it for their select friends, ie their sponsor.

This has put me off writing some decent content for sites - as a contributor and specialist editor my 1000w in-depth article has links to my own site elaborating on stuff nofollowed, but other links to the site's affiliate products or sponsor links are not nofollowed. This sort of arrangement is all over the place and yeah, it follows Google's rules for the writer but not for the big fish.

it's like the difference between knowing to follow Google's rules and the wisdom of following Google's rules. Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

[fathom]

The OP might do better (in terms of getting followed links) if he had a message on his site that said something like "If you like and use or recommend our graphics, we hope you'll link to us in whatever manner you prefer."

Absolutely - I could see Google never having a problem with this.

Wisdom is knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.

Why wouldn't you want tomatoes in your fruit salad!

[rish3]

Right. And if you're linking to someone who supplies infographics, WordPress themes, widgets, or other freebies to all comers, you may well wonder if the offer of freebies isn't driven by SEO considerations--in which case you may feel that it's better to be safe than sorry by nofollowing the link.

If you think it's shady, you wouldn't write about it.

Why post what amounts to an editorial endorsement, and then rel=nofollow the link?

Perhaps rel=nofollow makes sense if it's a scathing review. Otherwise it just feels selfish, like "Was really impressed with your widget, so much so that I wrote a post about it...essentially, well, vouching for it. Except for the link, of course, I'm not going to actually vouch for it in a way that exposes me".

[fathom]

But they did write about it.... And while we can't be certain why they used rel="nofollow" it wasn't because they were hording PR. You can't be ceratin about anyone motives not the OP his motive for offering free stuff wasn't because it really was free.

It doesn't matter.... Natural links are haphazard links. Not "I did this so you must do that" those sound like paid links don't they?

This is still a scheme, add great stuff to you own website and when others link you can be certain you got a natural link dofollow or nofollow.

We know why the OP wants dofollow links but certainly the ranks are not the implied reason for this developmenti - are they?

[phranque]

i would be worried about the lack of nofollow not looking natural in the context of the site linking to yours.

[fathom]

For the OP

I think it is unfair and not right. I will be emailing all these webmasters and demanding they change the link to follow or remove the post.

A client has over 200 nofollow links from wikipedia never asked for one but when she updated her guide a team of editors helped to adjust every url reference and while wikipedia's policy is to nofollow everything... (That could be your problem) She gets over a hundred visitors a day and the editorial value from wikipedia is trust not link juice and that is better than ranks since you have a different source of income/referrals.

[rish3]

But they did write about it.... And while we can't be certain why they used rel="nofollow" it wasn't because they were hording PR.

In my experience it is usually either

- They have no idea, it's just how the CMS was set up

or

- They are jackasses. Like a certain "how to" site that reads an article that happens to rank for something they want to rank for, does a thin, shoddy rewrite, and posts a rel=nofollow link in a resource section.

[EditorialGuy]

But they did write about it.... And while we can't be certain why they used rel="nofollow" it wasn't because they were hording PR.

They're probably just being careful. In any case, the OP has a right to be unhappy about nofollowed links (hear that, Wikipedia and TripAdvisor?), but he certainly isn't in a position to demand followed links. Sending nastygrams to Wikipedia or Willie Webmaster isn't likely to be a productive use of his time.

[Rlilly]

@EditorialGuy,

These are nofollows by default. There is no being careful or SEO consideration. Every outlink is nofollow regardless. Some might not even know they posting nofollows because there CMS is set to nofollow. Infact links we got 14 years ago turning nofollow becuase folks are now using a nofollow plugin. We got those links before SEO. That would upset anyone. Some know they are posting with nofollows, and also know that folks will link to "our content" on their pages with follow. How fair is that!

But in anycase, what difference does it make if there was SEO consideration when one created content for its viewers. Even Google sponsors good content for SEO: [static.googleusercontent.com...]

In our case, the content we create and offer for free is something they can use with the product we sell. Perhaps buy more of it, and even attract new buyers. Unfortunately, they can also use a competitors product with it.

[fathom]

By default you never disclosed to user they MUST provide dofollow links and we all know why you didn't that would paint a bulleye on you for being manually reviewed.

It's a crappy deal but your offer isn't what it seems, by default.

[AlexB77]

IMO, most important in this case is traffic, if you get traffic from those links, even if they are nofollowed, then you should have nothing to worry about, because you are benefiting from it already and if you don't get traffic from them then they are not going to harm your site in anyway at all. I am not sure about your particular case, but in my experience I have seen many sites that were giving something for free and many other sites were kindly providing links to them, but those sites were somewhat unrelated to their niche, so the best option was to ask most of the owners to add "nofollow" in order to keep traffic and avoid penalties. I personally would not bother to much about it, so long as they can't harm my I am not losing anything at all.

Best of luck!

[snippet]

I think the moral of the story is don't sweat it. You can waste countless hours worrying about it, but really you could be screwed either way, or you could win either way. Which is why you should just not sweat it.

If the link (follow or nofollow) is from a decent site (ie - not spammy), then leave it alone and focus your energy on your site, your users, your business model, your community. There are a hundred other things more important.

If the link(s) are from spammy site(s), disavow the domain(s) and get back to more important work.

Don't waste valuable time and energy trying to change something that is not within your control. It will just add stress to your life, and distract you from the more important things in life and business.

[Edge]

All non-spammy links are valuable. These links could result in visitors whether they are follow or no-follow. Accept and appreciate all respectable links to your website.