Should I use the nofollow link on my blog?

[terrybarnes]

I've seen this on loads of forums and there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. I have a blog to help people save money and give them useful websites to go to and so I'm starting to build up a lot of external links. The majority of links are those I use myself regularly and so I'm happy with the website I'm linking to but as I'm just starting up the blog I'm linking out a lot but not really getting any links coming in as yet.

Any ideas?

[coolguythampy]

The answer according to me would be yes and no depending on your need

When should the answer be yes?

I guess it would be when you are going to link out too much (Loads and loads of external links)

When would it be no?

The answer would be when you want more traffic. generally people (Webmasters in particular) are attracted to do follow blogs as commenting would provide them with a valuable source of in bound link

[terrybarnes]

Interesting stuff - I think I'll add the nofollow link to my general outbound links such as those in my useful links section and any post where I'm commenting, and linking out, to a product.

[jimbeetle]

Well, basically, the definitive answer (as far as nofollow was implemented in the first place), is that the proper use of nofollow is for links that you cannot or do not want to vouch for, as in user added links in blog comments.

As for any other reason to use nofollow, that depends on exactly what your reason is for doing so.

[terrybarnes]

So if I'm writing an article and listing different products and companies I wouldn't use the nofollow link. Same with my useful links page - which would all be links that I would add so would know the website.

[Shaddows]

To outline the issues:

1) nofollow was invented (as jimb states) so that you could link to sites without giving them a 'vote'.

2) Some people point to the mathematical implications of outlinks exceeding internals. Which is to say you do not 'recycle' (or, depending on your POV, 'hoard') your PR, rather you 'leak' it.

3) Others point to the 'bad citizen' effect of nofollowing legitimate links. Conceptually, think what would happen if everyone Nofollowed all their links.

4) Whatever the reason for a followed link, SEs (and G in particular) will penalise you for linking to dodgy content (or sometimes linking to sites that link to dodgy content). I don't mean the pointless, vacuous content that infests the web, rather driveby download sites, malware hosters, spammy sites and the like. Oftern refered to generically as "Bad Neighbourhoods"

There is a great thread here [webmasterworld.com]. Though its mostly about PR sculpting, there is some discussion about origins and applications.

I would say, on balance, nofollow:
Sitewide outbound links
Any UGC (possible exception for trusted members)
Any reference to something you do not like (e.g. "I hate those guys over at Scammers-R-us.tld)

I would follow
All endorsements
All positive editorial reference

Then, once I had set myself a clear policy on outbounds, I would concentrate on the other half of the PR issue- getting the quality inbounds.

<edit for clarity>

[edited by: Shaddows at 9:55 am (utc) on Jan. 14, 2009]

[edited by: caveman at 3:57 pm (utc) on Jan. 14, 2009]
[edit reason] Delinked link [/edit]

[terrybarnes]

Thanks, Shaddows, for a very useful post. All good stuff to take on board.