Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Using Nofollow Tag On Your Own Internal Links?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
122 replies to this topic

#16 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 07:11 AM

Welcome Robert ! hi.gif

Can you use nofollow as you've laid it out? Certainly.

However at some point it gets down to splitting hairs to the point that it's counter-productive. Not so much as the search engines are concerned, but in how much time and effort you're having to devote to something that will have little, if any bearing.

#17 Robert813

Robert813

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 07:29 AM

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the welcome. Point well taken and if it required alot of time and effort I would certainly agree. But how much time can it take to add
rel="nofollow" to a handful of links on your home page? maybe 5 minutes? If it was a long and arduous task I would certainly agree wholeheartedly.

And I agree that you might not get much of a boost from this tactic, but every little bit helps!

#18 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 07:32 AM

Agreed Robert.

No biggie for a single page or a handful of pages. Not worth the effort if you're talking about having to edit 100's or 1,000's of pages.

Just my personal opinion of course.

#19 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,927 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 08:37 AM

QUOTE
I do use Optilink and I have read "Dynamic Linking" from the creator of Optilink and it sounds like it makes sense to me to use the NOFOLLOW tag.


Yeah some people have a way of making nonsense sound sensible.

#20 sonnyyu

sonnyyu

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 09:33 AM

QUOTE
Yeah some people have a way of making nonsense sound sensible.  -Jill


You mean some people is "Google"? angel_not.gif

#21 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 10:52 AM

hysterical.gif

I rather doubt that's who Jill was referring to in this case. jester.gif

#22 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,612 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 25 September 2005 - 01:59 PM

Why is Google using nofollow on that page? My guess would be that they're using it because they're the ones pushing it and (this time around) they want to be able to point to examples so they won't be accused of a "do as I say, not as I do" approach.

Is Google doing it so they won't bleed PR? I can't imagine why they'd care about that.

A number of people view the campaign to get people to use nofollow as an example of the search engines passing the buck. They can't tell a valuable link from one that's garbage, so their results get skewed by garbage links. Their response to that is to ask webmasters to take care of the problem.

But that has nothing to do with PR, which doesn't mean much of anything anyway these days. If you want to add nofollow to your own internal links, feel free, but it's not really going to help you. The pages you're cutting off from the flow are linking back to the home page, right? If you're causing the links to them not to count, then the links from them are going to be worth less. It's a zero-sum game.

#23 Scottie

Scottie

    Psycho Mom

  • Admin
  • 6,294 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC

Posted 25 September 2005 - 02:10 PM

I guess the gamble you are taking is this- does "nofollow" give me "an edge in SEO" or does "nofollow" say "I don't trust the pages I link to"?

My bet is on the latter, but feel free to test that theory and see how it works for you!

#24 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,642 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 September 2005 - 02:39 PM

Attaching rel=nofollow to a link shows that you don't trust the content at the other end of the link, or don't want to be associated in a positive way with the site you are linking to, or even that you haven't even looked at the content the link refers to. You can envisage a situation where browsers render rel=nofollow links in a different way to links that don't use this attribute value, as a warning to your site visitors to exercise caution before following the link. Be careful, therefore, about applying rel=nofollow to links which you really like and trust. Think also about the effect on your visitors if you effectively tell them that you don't trust or haven't even viewed the majority of links you provide to them.

#25 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,612 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 25 September 2005 - 02:53 PM

Of course, the people who do this on their internal linking figure that it's invisible to users (assuming they don't look at source code) and is only for search engines. And we know what becomes of SEO strategies that are just for search engines...

#26 Robert813

Robert813

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 03:37 AM

Okay I am here to learn nd I need help in understanding this better. First, I'm having trouble understanding where the so called "nonsense" lies, since it wasn't explained why it's nonsense. I have learned from several sources that a link is a link is a link. It doesn't matter if it is CNN linking to my page with their huge PR9 or my home page linking to one of my internal pages with its PR6. My home page gets a vote from CNN and some of its PR passed onto me and my internal page gets a "vote" from my home page and some of its PR6 passed onto it. THat's why we get links...for the "vote" of confidence. If that is nonsense please educate me.

Second, If you look at some of the links that Google has in the Katrina relief page using the NOFOLLOW tag, I find it hard to believe that Google does not "trust" some of those sites including goverment sites and bushclinton relief fund. So that theory that using the NOFOLLOW tag imparts 'mistrust" of a site doesn't hold water ...with me anyhow.

Third, maybe it's is my newness and not having been around long enough to see Googles evil side, but I find it hard to believe that Google would penalize you for something that they endorse. They say that a link using the nofollow tag will not get any credit. That does not mean it will be penalized.

Fourth, I understand that the NOFOLOW tag is fairly (april 2005)new and was originally ceated by Google to thwart off Bolg spam, but it is quite obvious that its use has been extended and accepted by Google. And please I mean no disrespect to anyone in here, but being the former US Marine that I am, I call them like I see them, and it is also quite obvious to me anyhow, by reading the feedback on this thread that few knew of its extended use and acceptability. Sometimes new concepts take awhile to catch on especially when it comes to Google and people can be paranoid to try something new for fear of a drop in rank. Sorry for the long post.

#27 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,642 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 September 2005 - 03:59 AM

Nice post Robert813 smile.gif
QUOTE(Robert813)
Okay I am here to learn nd I need help in understanding this better. First, I'm having trouble understanding where the so called "nonsense" lies, since it wasn't explained why it's nonsense. I have learned from several sources that a link is a link is a link. It doesn't matter if it is CNN linking to my page with their huge PR9 or my home page linking to one of my internal pages with its PR6. My home page gets a vote from CNN and some of its PR passed onto me and my internal page gets a "vote" from my home page and some of its PR6 passed onto it. THat's why we get links...for the "vote" of confidence. If that is nonsense please educate me.
You're quite correct there ... though of course, if CNN links to you and attaches a rel=nofollow attribute to that link, that does not count as a vote from CNN.

QUOTE
Second, If you look at some of the links that Google has in the Katrina relief page using the NOFOLLOW tag, I find it hard to believe that Google does not "trust" some of those sites including goverment sites and bushclinton relief fund. So that theory that using the NOFOLLOW tag imparts 'mistrust" of a site doesn't hold water ...with me anyhow.
It's not only a matter of trust. In my post above, I said "trust ... or ... positive association ... or ... viewed content". I think in this instance it's likely to be the third option [Google hasn't viewed the content it is linking to]. If Google had viewed the content, and wanted to be positively associated with the publisher, and trusted that publisher ... then why would they use a rel=nofollow?

QUOTE
Third, maybe it's is my newness and not having been around long enough to see Googles evil side, but I find it hard to believe that Google would penalize you for something that they endorse. They say that a link using the nofollow  tag will not get any credit. That does not mean it will be penalized.
Correct. Nobody said you would be penalised. But strategies designed to horde or manipulate Pagerank, especially those that use something as obvious as the rel=nofollow attribute value, may well be penalised. As is so often the case, it's not the use but the abuse that's a problem.

QUOTE
Fourth, I understand that the NOFOLOW tag is fairly (april 2005)new and was originally ceated by Google to thwart off Bolg spam, but it is quite obvious that its use has been extended and accepted by Google.
I agree, yet I don't think its use to manipulate/abuse Pagerank has been accepted by Google, and that's what we're warning against here.

#28 DianeV

DianeV

    HR 4

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 26 September 2005 - 04:26 AM

Okay, well enough, Robert. smile.gif <Didn't see Alan's post above before I posted.>

You have to remember that Google, like any SE, automates its spidering of the web; in general, it does not send people to sites to determine whether a site is trustworthy (e.g., Google "likes" a site) -- though I quite imagine that they have a rather large seed core of sites deemed trustworthy (CNN, Adobe, etc.). Otherwise, it's almost all done automatically or, more specifically, programmatically. In more plain terms: no search engine has enough staff to monitor billions of websites, let alone pages.

On another note, I was pretty active in the WordPress forums at the time that nofollow was introduced. It was hailed by most everyone there as the great solution to comment spam. Anyone who, like me, ventured a word of caution about its actual implementation and interpretation by the SEs now and in the future was looked upon as pro-spam and maybe even some kind of major spammer (which is pretty funny if you know me, but I digress). There was even an unidentified person posting threatening remarks towards anyone who questioned the intent and viability of nofollow.

At any rate, with all due respect, the folks participating in the WordPress forums are not SEOs; many have only operated a blog, and they don't really understand SEO pretty much at all. In general, they think that PageRank is "how your page ranks".

Think about it: many bloggers link to other sites like crazy, and to friends' sites because that's who they know and like -- which, of course, can be a huge problem for search engines (note how fast Yahoo and MSN.com leaped upon Google's nofollow bandwagon; ever see those three big competitors agree to anything so fast?). What I mean is: did no one ever consider that perhaps the SEs, who were touting nofollow to bloggers as the Holy Grail that would end all their blogspam problems, might really want bloggers to participate in inhibiting their own ability to boost each other's search engine rankings?

No matter. My concern has always been what the use of nofollow communicated about the page it was on, let alone the whole site. At the very least, it communicates that "this link is junk" or even "I have no idea what I'm linking to; I don't know and I don't care". Or even: "I don't monitor comments on my blog, and the people who comment here are untrustworthy". Indeed.

Bottom line: however nofollow is interpreted by SEs today (and we have no guarantee that they all interpret it the same way), that could always change. It was pretty masterful the way they spun it, though.

#29 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,642 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 September 2005 - 04:44 AM

Good post, DianeV. I agree with pretty much all of it. With respect to this...
QUOTE(DianeV)
You have to remember that Google, like any SE, automates its spidering of the web; in general, it does not send people to sites to determine whether a site is trustworthy (e.g., Google "likes" a site) -- though I quite imagine that they have a rather large seed core of sites deemed trustworthy (CNN, Adobe, etc.).  Otherwise, it's almost all done automatically or, more specifically, programmatically.  In more plain terms: no search engine has enough staff to monitor billions of websites, let alone pages.
In general, I agree with that too. In this specific instance, though, we were talking about the rel=nofollow links on www.google.com/hurricane.html (ar at least I was biggrin.gif).

#30 DianeV

DianeV

    HR 4

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 26 September 2005 - 04:48 AM

Thanks. Actually, I hadn't yet read all of your post when I wrote and posted mine.

In any case, I reserve the right to change topics at any time, as I am unfortunately wont to do. LOL smile.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!