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

#76 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 01:01 PM

No, that's a case for the robots.txt exclusion. That's exactly what it's for.

It's not what nofollow is for.

#77 abandon

abandon

    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 04:44 AM

Ah right. Thanks Jill.

So I'm right in thinkin that by using the ROBOTS.TXT file you can tell search engine,

"Don't spider any links to these pages unless you find a link to them on the Sitemap page"

?

Edited by abandon, 02 November 2005 - 05:03 AM.


#78 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 07:52 AM

No, you're telling them not to index those pages that you excluded in the robots.txt file. Period.

#79 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,648 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 November 2005 - 08:39 AM

QUOTE(Jill @ Nov 2 2005, 01:52 PM)
No, you're telling them not to index those pages that you excluded in the robots.txt file.
You're telling them to not read those pages you excluded in the robots.txt file. That's a big difference between robots.txt and the meta robots tag's NOINDEX attribute (when the page must be read in order for the tag and attribute to be seen).

REL=NOFOLLOW on a link is a similar notion to the "NOFOLLOW" attribute in a robots meta tag. The fact that you use it doesn't mean that any notice will be taken of it. NOFOLLOW certainly does not mean that the URLs that you link to will not be indexed. If you really don't want some content to be read or indexed, you should use robots.txt.

#80 articleplus

articleplus

    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 12 March 2006 - 08:08 PM

If I have a page says, abc.com/product.htm

and for marketing tracking purpose, I also created abc.com/product1.htm and this link is placed in marketingpage1.htm.

I also created a 301 redirect to re-direct product1.htm to product.htm.


To avoid search engines from indexing both abc.com/product.htm and abc.com/product1.htm, do I still need to use robots.txt to exclude it? or use nofollow?

or search engines already know that product1.htm is equal to product.htm, and so they only index product.htm and do not index product1.htm?

#81 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 12 March 2006 - 10:34 PM

If you 301 a url to another, there's no need to exclude it from the engines.

Any URLs that you do want to exclude should be done via robots.txt. Please see our robots.txt forum for more info.

#82 JimsZ

JimsZ

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 09:06 PM

I read tons about the no-follow links and basically the search engines are just supposed to ignore those pages. I don't see a problem with that, other than you aren't getting crawled on those pages like you would if they showed and basically, any crawling is better than none

#83 Guest_Skanking_*

Guest_Skanking_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2006 - 08:14 PM

Abuse of REL=NOFOLLOW

I have an eight year old that often frequents the net. My wife asked me to check out if she was going to safe places online. I found on a child orientated site (I have reported this already to google) there were links to lets call it "undesirable and dangerous content" when checking source of site it showed the use of the rel=nofollow tag. Had this been a normal link google would have followed the association and removed the so called child friendly site from its listing. Howether the use of rel=nofollow in my opinion protects feeder sites to undesirable content from penalisation.

I am against this tag totally. Sites should be judged in part by who they link to and forums have moderators to decide if links are beneficial and should be allowed.

#84 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:07 PM

The nofollow tag doesn't stop google from following the links at all. It doesn't stop them from anything, in fact.

#85 Guest_Skanking_*

Guest_Skanking_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:25 PM

Yes agreed its following the links Jill, but is it appointing penalties to sites that link to bad neighbourhoods using the rel=nofollow tag. Or have google created a way of allowing a fronted site linked to "undesirable content" to run without fear of penalty ? Be interested in your thoughts Jill.

#86 Scottie

Scottie

    Psycho Mom

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

Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:41 PM

Nofollow is simply "a vote of no confidence."

Google takes this as you saying "I don't vouch for this link."

It doesn't mean they don't follow it or that they don't count it, simply that you either didn't put it there or you did but you aren't happy about it. Or, by their urgings, that you identify it as a paid link. Basically, nofollow says "This is not an editorially approved link that we've put here because we honestly recommend it- it's here for some other reason."

They reserve the right to change how they treat nofollow at any time, with no prior warning.

IMO, a page full of nofollow links tells a search engine "I have no idea what's on this page and I don't care enough to check it out and vouch for it."

I think it's an easy way for them to determine low quality pages.

#87 Guest_Skanking_*

Guest_Skanking_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2006 - 10:07 PM

Hi Scottie,

Yep no problem with what you said.
My argument is that often very offensive sites are using a front site to link to there crap and by using the rel=nofollow tag the front site escapes penalisation. So my interest is more how google deals with sites that link to bad neighbourhoods and escape penalty through the rel=nofollow tag.

#88 Scottie

Scottie

    Psycho Mom

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

Posted 05 September 2006 - 10:12 PM

Yeah, but that's something no one knows except Google. sad.gif

And they aren't talking about the details.

#89 Guest_Skanking_*

Guest_Skanking_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 September 2006 - 10:23 PM

Ermmm

Nah thats not good enough. If google ,yahoo and msn want to have a fucking get together to determine internet code and invent a new tag like they did they should be prepared to stand up and answer all questions on it and how this code effects there databases. Or in future they should leave internet code to w3c.

#90 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 10:58 PM

First of all, who says they're not penalizing those pages?

Second of all, who says the engines WON'T stand up and answer the questions about this attribute? (Or is this one a tag? wink.gif )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
 
No new posts or registrations allowed.