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

#106 Bethers

Bethers

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 23 October 2006 - 12:04 PM

Thank you, Jill.

I'll stop using the term black hat - but will continue to believe as I do about it's uses.

#107 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,671 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 23 October 2006 - 01:48 PM

All I can tell you is that I still haven't put nofollow on any links -- internal or external, on one of my sites or a client's. Since I refuse to link to a site unless I consider it worthwhile, I have no reason to tell the search engines that I don't trust it.

Besides, I still don't like the idea of doing the search engines' job for them.

#108 Xanthis

Xanthis

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Location:Ithaca, NY

Posted 23 October 2006 - 03:39 PM

Every page on my site has a printer friendly version. I was considering using the nofollow attribute on links to the printer friendly pages not for PageRank reasons, but to avoid a duplicate content penalty.

As an example, if a page on the site was www.examplesite.com/products/, the printer friendly version would be www.examplesite.com/products/?printver=yes. Since the only difference is the parameters in the query string, I can't use the robots.txt exclusion.

Another set of pages I was considering nofollow for was an online perpetual calendar. I want the SEs to index the calendar for this current month and the three months prior and following, but I would then put the nofollow on months earlier or later than that. Otherwise the spider could in theory crawl from January 1 AD to December 9999 AD by following the Previous and Next links. eek.gif

Any thoughts on this? Thanks!

#109 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,191 posts

Posted 23 October 2006 - 03:54 PM

QUOTE
but I would then put the nofollow on months earlier or later than that.


No, that's silly. You want to use the noindex tag for that. Nofollow won't do what you want, it just tells the engines you don't trust those pages.

#110 Xanthis

Xanthis

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Location:Ithaca, NY

Posted 23 October 2006 - 04:20 PM

Okay, NOINDEX it is! biggrin.gif I was just trying to save the crawlers some time and me a bit-o-bandwidth.

Thanks for the quick response. cheers.gif

#111 Akuta

Akuta

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 19 January 2007 - 08:21 PM

QUOTE(Scottie @ Sep 25 2005, 11:10 AM) View Post
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!


Google clearly says on their blog that it doesn't have a negative effect or anything of the sort, but I also think the PR bleeding thing is fishy ;p

If any of you know other top SEs who follow this rule, please list, too. I can't find anything on Yahoo about them listening to it.

#112 iamzippy

iamzippy

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 August 2007 - 10:03 AM

Hi All! Newbie on deck...

Fascinating thread. NOFOLLOW surely is a curate's egg of a thing. So many ways to perceive it.

I don't go with the idea that NOFOLLOW expresses distrust or no-confidence. As it's been pointed out, we just don't host links to dodgy locations if we're sensible. And there's plenty of evidence that it deters comment spam. Note I say 'deters' and not 'prevents'.

As for using NOFOLLOW on internal links within a site (subject of the original post that kicked off this thread) I wonder how many correspondents have a different view nowadays?

How about this situation? I own a domain. I therefore own and control all the URLs under that domain. I've taken the trouble to design a logical URL structure that's extensible, but put together in a way that's pretty well future-proof. In other words the URLs are an abstraction, unrelated to physical disk folders and files.

I'm putting a site together for this domain. This is a data-driven site that presents pages generated from an external RSS feed whose content changes all the time. Dynamic pages list items from the feed in blocks of ten, and each listed item contains one or more links that will lead to the actual item hosted on the originating site. Yes, it's an eBay or similar affiliate site.

The item-links on my pages point to URLs in my domain. I don't want to generate a unique URL for every item listed (these destinations are oh-so temporary), so I re-use aliases in the range #1 - #10 within the URLs as identifiers. This strategy masks the affiliate nature of the page, obviating problems of bypassing and hijacking. Clicking a link sends the visitor back to the main script on my server, which 301-Redirects to the actual product on the merchant's site. This takes them exactly where they expect to go (I make it plainly obvious that these items are on an external merchant's site).

Given the 'conveyor-belt' nature of the merchant's inventory, item X on any page will likely be different every other page-view. I'm re-using a pool of aliases, so I can't really be putting a 301 on each of them, although I must 301 each request that gets back to my server. But by putting NOFOLLOW on my aliased internal links, I'm merely saying 'this takes you somewhere beyond my control', which it does, even if it initially points inside my domain.

Aside from anything else, my role is to send traffic, not page rank.

Any thoughts? Will NOFOLLOW on internal links bring about my unceremonious doom?



#113 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 23 August 2007 - 03:24 PM

Welcome zippy ! hi.gif

QUOTE
Will NOFOLLOW on internal links bring about my unceremonious doom?


Doom? Probably not. I've not seen any evidence of that sort of thing. However you can never predict when an engine or all of the engines change how they perceive something.

But on the other hand it would be so much easier to simply exclude your jump file via robots.txt. That's a method that has always worked and carries no risk whatsoever.

#114 iamzippy

iamzippy

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 02:37 PM

Hi - and thanks for that supportive response, Randy.

I decided to go with unique URLs on the item links using an encode of the catalogue number. An URL is forever whether it's a throwaway or not, right?

So I have options. Neuter with NOFOLLOW and/or block with robots.txt. I can play around with that.

Thanks again. If there's anything to tell, I'll get back.

Jeff




#115 ScottSalwolke

ScottSalwolke

    Scott Salwolke

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Location:Dubuque, IA

Posted 26 September 2007 - 08:20 PM

I was wondering if anyone is now an advocate of the nofollow tag and its relation to PageRank. I read Dan Thies's Fast Start book and he is a big advocate of it. Yet, reading this thread seems it has little benefit. Yet, most of the comments are from a couple of years ago.

#116 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,191 posts

Posted 26 September 2007 - 09:39 PM

We have another thread that is recent on this topic somewhere. Most likely in the PageRank Forum.

#117 ScottSalwolke

ScottSalwolke

    Scott Salwolke

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Location:Dubuque, IA

Posted 27 September 2007 - 12:32 AM

QUOTE(Jill @ Sep 26 2007, 09:39 PM) View Post
We have another thread that is recent on this topic somewhere. Most likely in the [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showforum=57]PageRank Forum[/url].

It must be in Internal Linking. The search results showed nothing in the Page Rank Forum. I'll keep searching.

#118 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 27 September 2007 - 05:34 AM

You're looking for this thread I believe. wink1.gif

#119 ScottSalwolke

ScottSalwolke

    Scott Salwolke

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Location:Dubuque, IA

Posted 27 September 2007 - 01:35 PM

This is what I was looking for. Thanks.

#120 kceleb9

kceleb9

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 June 2008 - 11:52 AM

Good post - thanks for the useful information.

Does anyone know how big of an effect this can have?




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!