Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For example wiki does it. All links set to no follow. I see no reason for it, 99.9% of their links are trust worthy.
The tag is being abused/misused to my mind.
It's that simple.
Basically, any tool intended to combat a perceived problem with spam/ranking/whatever that is then placed into the hands of webmasters will ultimately be misunderstood and misused, thus not only negating any intended outcome, but also creating more problems by muddying the waters. Unless of course, that was the intended outcome. ;)
Onya
Woz
But nofollow was specifically designed for links over which the webmaster had no direct control; it was introduced in the face of rampant link spam, and the pressure on honest bloggers, forum owners and wikis was horrendous; many forums folded, many blogs and Wikis became a morass of porn and pharm links.
Nofollow stopped that. Not 100%; there's still idiots pointlessly spamming nofollow forums - there's still idiot SEOs telling them them to! But the tide has turned.
For the antispam movement, it was a pivotal moment, and, in fact, there has not been a major spammer initiative since; lots of minor ones, but nothing like the torrent of cr*p that preceded nofollow. Great, huh?
At the time, many of us foresaw that new uses would be found for nofollow, and they have, and that will continue.
But this is old news; those threads, in every SEO forum, are there to be seen. I regularly reread the first such thread I was in; it's not often back then that I was 100% right ;)
Nothing has really changed; sure, it's occasionally misused - but the hurt (if any) caused by nofollow overuse is nothing to the hurt caused before it existed. Do we really need another squabble about nofollow?
It's been such a success - not to mention being the first antispam cooperation between major SEs - that it ain't goin' nowhere. It's here to stay!
Seems to be becoming a standard procedure to either hide affiliate links ... For example wiki does it. All links set to no follow...
I mean, can the Google algo really say "this is OK for wiki and bigsite2 and bigsite3 but not for anyone else"?
So as Woz said, this is being technically "misused", but does that really matter in every case? In fact, maybe there are times when it's a logical extension of the original purpose.
For example, if a site has a hundred affiliate links with their typical long url formatting, then that is certainly not really "natural linking", and if anything, approaches a "paid link", since the siteowner is hoping to make some $$ by including them on the pages. To my eyes at least, using the "nofollow" attribute in that sort of circumstance appears to approach the reason for its creation in the first place, though clearly it is not actually the original reason.
But maybe that will turn out to be ok (in limited circumstances). Has Google issued any clarification updates on this evolution of nofollow? That would help...
........................................
Wikipedia and others -- utilize it in a way that was not intended
I don't see any evidence of this occurring; Wikipedia, like forums and blogs, is subject to 'outsiders' posting links that the owner may not support; that's one of the founding reasons for nofollow - nothing wrong there at all.
Google algo really say "this is OK for wiki and bigsite2 and bigsite3 but not for anyone else"?
Sorry?
The Google algo - so far as I know - treats nofollow the same whoever / wherever they are.
Is there any evidence that this is not so?
The Google algo - so far as I know - treats nofollow the same whoever / wherever they are.
But as you indicate, that may not be state of affairs, at this point at least. Though if philuk is correct in the originating post about it becoming a standard procedure, things may be going that way.
..........................
For me,the only question remaining is 'where's the harm' if the occasional sites 'overuses' nofollow?
Visitors still get to follow the link; so do SEs. OK, so the SE's wont 'count' the link - but if the link wasn't there at all, it would be even worse.
And sites that 'hide' their links in that way are punishing themselves.
I really think it's an unwise webmaster that gets into a lather about one link here or there; life is too short, and other SEO issues are much more important.
I've seen a few 'inappropriate uses' of nofollow; but all indicated naivety or ignorance (or bad advice received) rather than malice. And I've not seen many at all.
The emotive issue that goes around is using nofollow for advertisements. In the light of Google's aversion to paidlinks, this is an issue. But nofollow for a paidlink, other than one you genuinely recommend, does fit the 'nofollow' code; a link on your site that the webmaster does not endorse.
But as we also know that it's the link brokers, not webmasters, in Google's sights, I doubt the average webmaster has anything to fear.
This has been discussed here before at some length.
In the light of Google's aversion to paidlinks, this is an issue. But nofollow for a paidlink, other than one you genuinely recommend, does fit the 'nofollow' code; a link on your site that the webmaster does not endorse.
However! As has been said, the true and only purpose of my including the link to them is $$, and thus, it is a kind of "paid link".
So while I may trust the merchant and thus endorse the merchant, if it wasn't for the (potential) money, they wouldn't be there, and thus it is by no means "natural".
I may be off-base here, but using nofollow under that specific circumstance is me signalling to Google that I realize it is not a natural link, and thus can be ignored (given, as you said, their stated aversion to paid links).
I'm really hoping for more clarification from them in the very near future, before the nofollow practice gets completely out of hand.
............................................
