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

#31 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,928 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 06:38 AM

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with use that attribute, and it's certainly not going to hurt you in anyway, in my opinion.

But using it on your own site isn't going to help you with anything either. That's what I meant about the nonesense comment.

If there are pages on your site that you don't want/need indexed, that's fine, then simply use robots.txt and exclude them. But there's ZERO need to exclude them because you're concerned with PageRank issues. If they're not important pages, simply bury them deeper in the site, or whatever.

#32 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,085 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 26 September 2005 - 09:31 AM

QUOTE(Robert813 @ Sep 25 2005, 05:44 AM)
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.  What he says is that a page does not "bleed" PR but it passes its PR on. The page that contains the link does not "give up" an PR but what it gives is a "vote" based on its own PR and how many pages it "votes for " using links. So if a page "votes' for only 3 pages rather than 4, the PR of  the home page distrubutes its PR in a more concentrated manner.


That is a good summation of how PageRank is earned from incoming links (but understand that this is not the only way you get PageRank -- a document's damping factor also contributes PageRank).

QUOTE
Since getting a top Google position rely's heavily on page reputation and PR it only makes sense to control the PR of inside pages if we can.


That is not necessarily true. Google takes many other factors into consideration, and people have no way of knowing how much PageRank affects any particular search result.

One document can rank highly for many searches and poorly for many others. Its PageRank is usually irrelevant to the rankings because Google looks first at relevance.

REL=NOFOLLOW is useful for limiting where you cast your PageRank votes. In fact, that is precisely what it was designed to do. But some unscrupulous people have been using REL=NOFOLLOW on all their outbound links.

What they don't understand, and what you should understand, is that if Google finds no outbound links distributing PageRank on a document, it evenly distributes that document's PageRank to ALL other documents.

There is no way to NOT confer PageRank.

#33 Scottie

Scottie

    Psycho Mom

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

Posted 26 September 2005 - 09:56 AM

QUOTE(Michael Martinez @ Sep 26 2005, 10:31 AM)
REL=NOFOLLOW is useful for limiting where you cast your PageRank votes.  In fact, that is precisely what it was designed to do. 

...

There is no way to NOT confer PageRank.
View Post


Why are you linking to sites you wouldn't recommend? Why would you send site vistors to a site that you wouldn't vote for?

If you want to "not confer pagerank", use javascript, jumplinks, or robots.txt, as PR hoarders and paranoid types have already been doing for years. There are already many ways out there to stop links from "leaking".

If you want to link to pages you don't trust, use nofollow. The engines have never said they wouldn't count those links, only that they would recognize that you don't trust them. Matt Cutts in March said at that time, they would not follow a nofollow link, but that they reserved the right to change how they treated nofollow links at any time. Yahoo said they weren't sure how they were going to treat them, only that they recognized the attribute as a vote of no confidence.

If you can't stand the idea of recommending and voting for other sites, you really shouldn't bother to link out at all.

#34 Robert813

Robert813

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 10:15 AM

First, thanks to all for the wonderful feedback. I am obviously still learning as there is a lot to know in this specialized area of SEO and SEM. I learn alot from these boards and others like it. And you all know how conflicting the info out there can be.

I use the nofollow tag ONLY on my privacy policy link, about us link and a few others internal links that I do not care to pass page rank onto and to conserve the pagerank and pass it on to more important internal pages. As a novice, I'm not sure why this would be looked upon as PR hoarding or paranoid. I'm a businessman, looking to make money from my e-commerce stores and maximize.

Business is war, make no doubt about it, and if there are things that I can do to give myself an edge, (even the small edge that it might be) and it is legal and ethical, then by all means I would want to utilize every weapon at my disposal.

I would never link to another site and use the nofollow. You are all 100% correct in that if you didn't trust the site why include it.

Sure there are other ways to accomplish the same thing. Nofollow just happens to be a very easy method. I am not familiar with jump links.
If Google changed their view of nofollow then javascipted links would suffice. Remember "keep it simple stupid"...well nofollow follows that advice!

#35 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,928 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 10:19 AM

Just exclude the pages via your robots.txt file as that's how one is supposed to exclude pages they don't want indexed. It's very simple.

As to this:

QUOTE
Business is war, make no doubt about it


I personally couldn't disagree more with that statement. But that's a personal opinion, of course. I think the worst thing any business can do is have the attitude that business is war and that their competitors are their enemies.

#36 Bri

Bri

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario

Posted 26 September 2005 - 10:32 AM

Frankly, i think this concept is nonsense. I think Google understands it's own link popularity. they have a hefty amount of PHD's just trying to figure out what we're doing and why. To suggest that a site can so simply manipulate this to it's own advantage is pretty absurd.

#37 Robert813

Robert813

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 10:35 AM

Well we're all certainly entitled to our opinions and thats obviously a discussion for another board..but go tell that to the Donald Trump's, Jack Welch's, Lee Iacocca's of the world and see what response you get...as a matter of fact I'll save you the time....they'll tell you to never come work for them!

#38 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,928 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 10:48 AM

Yeah, I'd definitely lose if I were on The Apprentice. ignore.gif

#39 DanThies

DanThies

    Keyword Super Freak

  • Moderator
  • 865 posts
  • Location:Texas, y'all

Posted 26 September 2005 - 11:38 AM

QUOTE(Robert813 @ Sep 25 2005, 04:44 AM)
What he says is that a page does not "bleed" PR but it passes its PR on. The page that contains the link does not "give up" an PR but what it gives is a "vote" based on its own PR and how many pages it "votes for " using links. So if a page "votes' for only 3 pages rather than 4, the PR of  the home page distrubutes its PR in a more concentrated manner.
View Post

Robert,

The piece of the picture that you're missing, among other things, is that the pages you link to also pass PageRank and reputation back to the home page and other pages.

Rather than trying to hide your contact pages from search engines, you can actually use them to support your other important pages, with links. If you're just dying to "funnel PageRank" the best way to do that is by adding links, not hiding them.

I won't even get started on how many people will use the "search site" function in their search toolbar.

#40 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,085 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 26 September 2005 - 11:40 AM

QUOTE(Robert813 @ Sep 26 2005, 10:15 AM)
I use the nofollow tag ONLY on my privacy policy link, about us link and a few others internal links that I do not care to pass page rank onto and to conserve the pagerank and pass it on to more important internal pages. As a novice, I'm not sure why this would be looked upon as PR hoarding or paranoid. I'm a businessman, looking to make money from my e-commerce stores and maximize.


Well, to be honest, there is no reason to devalue internal links, especially if they all contain their own internal links back to important parts of your Web site. Your privacy policy and about us page are important parts of your site. You are, at best, only reallocating your internal PageRank without affecting it one way or another. At worst, you are actually diminishing your internal PageRank (slightly).

You are in no way giving yourself any kind of competitive edge by using REL=NOFOLLOW on your own documents.

Those internal pages help Google, Yahoo!, and other search engines identify the most important parts of your Web site. They are natural content. They ARE important and you should treat them as important.

But that is all I think I need or will say on the subject today.

#41 sonnyyu

sonnyyu

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 11:44 AM

QUOTE
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. -Alan


Until this post I start see the word of "abuse", I agree use vs. abuse worth to discuss, but should be in an other thread?


QUOTE
It's not only a matter of trust. In my post above, I said "trust ... or ... positive association ... or ... viewed content" -Alan


I think it is upon who you asked. Google put hurricane resource page without viewed content?

QUOTE
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?


I think Google tried to stay away an other "Official Google Bomb" or super PR boost. Since hurricane resource page receive link from Google home page (PR10),
hurricane resource page will become PR9 soon and pass high PR over all link on pages, nofollow will block the PR transfer/leak.



for similar case check following links

forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3547

only diff is this time The home page of total of 36 plus google English sites PR leak.


My 2.0 cents

#42 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,596 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 26 September 2005 - 11:47 AM

QUOTE(Alan Perkins @ Sep 25 2005, 02:39 PM)
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.
I believe I recall not too long ago coming across a Firefox extension that does exactly that. Allows anybody looking at your site with that extension installed to see the "nofollow" links displayed differently from "normal" links.

--Torka mf_prop.gif

#43 Robert813

Robert813

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 12:51 PM

[
QUOTE
The piece of the picture that you're missing, among other things, is that the pages you link to also pass PageRank and reputation back to the home page


Point understood, but my Privacy Policy and About Us pages will most likely usually have less PR than my homepage thus passing back less PR than it receives.

And if you have lots of other "natural content" pages and continually add pages they should clearly make up for any lost PR potential for blocking a few contact pages.

I keep waiting for the argument that will change my mind on using nofollow..LOL...so far no dice...but this has been interesting!

#44 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,928 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 02:03 PM

QUOTE
I keep waiting for the argument that will change my mind on using nofollow.!


You won't find one because the bottom line is that it won't make one bit of difference to your site whether you use it or not. So just use it if it will make you feel like you're somehow being proactive!

smile.gif

#45 Robert813

Robert813

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 26 September 2005 - 02:17 PM

Thanks all! I took away some good thoughts and hopefully contributed a few.




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!