Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I´d like a specific opinion of you.
I´m more a reader than a writer here, but now I´d like to know your opinion about nofollow. I manage a website where there are many nofollows applyied to some internal links, made to Page Rank sculpting atempt.
Now, with the new nofollow directives by Google, what do you recomend? Take away all of them or leave them as they are?
Thanks in advance!
The way I understand this, it is absolutely no use anymore trying to direct pagerank within a site. The no-follow links "eat" pagerank so-to-speak anyway, so actually you loose pagerank. Or do I understand wrong?
[edited by: jatar_k at 12:58 pm (utc) on July 14, 2009]
It's simple to decide what really shouldn't receive any PR.
Let the page rank flow internally. (except to pages that serve relevant content)
If you have a blog, and you are wondering whether or not you should allow comment posters to include a dofollow link, it really depends on what you are trying to do.
If you do allow visitors to post dofollow links, it will definitely increase traffic. But, also realize that you will need to moderate the posts, as many link spammers will attempt to take advantage.
In fact, I´m not a fan of nofollow as well, but the website I was talking about was let on my supervision with this situation. I´d not use this technique in a brand new website or even on a non optimized one.
But, in this specific case, the situation is different. The nofollow are there and I was wondering if I´d get them out or not. I´ll not take any action by now, but in any major website update, I´ll let it withouth the attribute.
Thanks and all the best!
PR really means nothing to me so i dont see what the hype is about. i think its a meaningless tag.
something for so called "SEOptmizers" to claim they know all about...
its like zombie trying to eat your brains... just jog a bit and you can avoid them... ? what ?
This is one of the only reasons to keep looking at the nofollow strategies - on comments.
Inside the website, on the onther hand, to sculpting PR juice, as many coleagues has stated, it´s useless... in my humble opinion, of course :)
Internal "nofollows" seem to be a dead end.
On the other hand, external nofollows are still a question. I have seen many major sites rated #1 for their keywords who use "nofollow" on ALL their external links. Does this not shoot a hole in the value of the "vote?" Should all external links be "do follows?" in order to validate the notion of an external link as a "vote?" This seems unclear to me.
Finally, Google insists on the use of "nofollow" for paid links, and so this rule should followed.
joined:Jan 12, 2009
Remove the other nofollows. You want the spider to view relevant pages you link to as an extension of your content and site.
It is still useful for placing it on links which you may otherwise feel uncomfortable linking to.
If you have a site that already has nofollow sculpting i'd leave it alone. If you plan on sculpting on a new site I'd save my energy and work on other important aspects of a website instead.
My (limited) tests show a grandfathering effect, old sites seem to be affected by it whereas new sites don't.
It's kind of frustrating they have removed this in terms of using it for some pages in your site you don't want to pass PR too. Even if you use the robots.txt file to deindex these pages. In a typical dynamic site you may have lots of links pointing to worthless pages and even with these pages deindexed, PR is still leaking to it.
I always suggest not to tinker with your site if it's not performing well. If your site is heavily sculpted and doing well, no point in backing out those links. Google said this was done over a year ago, so any ill effects should have been noticed a long time ago.
It sure does leave a lot of wordpress plugins defunct !
joined:July 22, 2009
1. Turn on your no follow highlighting tool such as SEO for Firefox, and then check out this link:
What do you see?
I see Google puts no follow on every single link.
So is this whole no follow thing an example of "Do as I say , and not what I do"
Personally I wouldnt remove No follows unless there was a more compelling reason to do so, however I also wouldn't weight them heavily going forward.
I have a hunch that adding all those hoops will ensure that the bots don't pass the PR?
The no follows are more likely to discourage other sites to link to you
Personally, that's why I stopped using it when linking to external sites. If we link to a site, it's worth passing juice to.
I still do some sculpting on our help, faq, and contact pages... but that's about it, and not very much.
joined:July 22, 2009
I just saw the no follow highlighting and assumed that they were rel = no follow.
The topic is realy interesting, because we can see that there are no conclusions yet! Even inside the SEO/Webmasters comunity...
A coleague above has tested and, for him, the rel=nofollow exclusion was not interesting. On the other hand, there is the Matt Cutts information.
So, the conclusion I can take is:
- old time rel=nofollow aplyied and that are working, should be left.
- new websites or "not rel=nofollow PR sculped yet" websites should not have this "technique" adopted.
- For posts and user manipulated insertions, I´d use nofollow to avoid spam.
- Content external link, in my vision, would be rel=nofollow free. Exception for specific cases, as competitors etc.
Any change, any inclusion or even any exclusion for you?
Feel free to change, because I see this topic will be the directive for rel=nofollow use if we could include all our experiences and feelings :)
Bye for now!
And how far I know some Search Engines also follow those no-follow links but if you want to follow only Google Search Enigne then you should go for only follow links else No-follow links are also helpful for visitors.