Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Business.com Uses Nofollow
Posted 02 July 2006 - 11:40 PM
(Perhaps this was mentioned here already and I missed it?)
Posted 03 July 2006 - 04:14 AM
Posted 03 July 2006 - 08:37 AM
Posted 03 July 2006 - 08:40 AM
Posted 03 July 2006 - 09:02 AM
not on all of them.
Posted 03 July 2006 - 10:58 AM
You gave me a bit of a scare there. The client on that page had to be convinced it was worth the money to be listed at business.com. If it turned out to be nofollowed or 302'd I'd be eating some crow.
Posted 03 July 2006 - 11:14 AM
It's exactly the opposite of how our boy Matt C. wants it to be!
They're supposed to nofollow the paid links not the freely given ones.
Watch Business.com lose all their PR any day now!
Posted 03 July 2006 - 11:26 AM
But if you think about it, this is being used almost precisely as Matt has said it should, though not how they really intended. Business.com is saying that the paid links have been investigated and "approved" while the other ones... well, they're just not so sure about. Basically, B.com is vouching for the paid links (not to be confused with paid ads), but are not vouching for the free ones.
Posted 03 July 2006 - 11:35 AM
Posted 03 July 2006 - 11:46 AM
Personally, this looks like Business.com's way of saying, pay us if you want the link value... which really is exact opposite of what Google intended.
Posted 03 July 2006 - 11:56 AM
IMO, nofollow simply doesn't make sense for directories, or any site over which the owners have control. If you don't trust the link, don't link to it. Under those circumstances, no link would have nofollow on it.
Posted 03 July 2006 - 12:00 PM
I think that sums up the nofollow tag altogether.
Posted 03 July 2006 - 12:10 PM
It'll give him an easy one to out and make a few more confusing points.
Posted 03 July 2006 - 12:13 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users