28 replies to this topic

[wowdezign]

I don't ever remember reading what Google's intentions are with regard to the nofoolow (he he) attribute. I remember Matt saying in an interview that it is a way of saying that 'I can't, or I won't vouch for that link'.

IMO this attribute is simply a way for Google to discern motive on the part of the person or organization that controls the site.

This could be done directly, or through the use of statistics and ratios. A simple example would be:

Site A continuously links to pages in site B and 100% of the links include the nofollow attribute. In reality, site owner A is telling Google, "I regularly link to sites I don't check into", or they could be saying "Although I won't vouch for this site, I'll send my visitors to it". Either way, it expresses an intention.

That is just an example of how it could be utilized. If we started thinking of other statistics and ratios, we could go on for days speculating-Which, by the way, is what this post is.

[Jill]

Yes, but wowdezign, Mr. Cutts has also said that ALL paid links should use the nofollow attribute so that Google can identify them as such.

Silly, yes. But that's what the man said.

[wowdezign]

Thanks Jill, I wasn't aware that was said.

It still makes me wonder what the intentions of Google might be. Has it ever been stated?

[wowdezign]

I should clarify what I mean by that. Has Google said or done anything that would reveal the underlying reason for this recommended practice - using nofollow on paid links.

[St0n3y]

well, the "purpose" of this was so that spam comments posted to blogs would not pass link value. Blog programs would automatically add the nofollow to any comment link.

[wowdezign]

It just sounds like most people that have been posting make it sound like a bad thing and I am trying to decide if there are any possible benefits to having it.

For example: Has Google ever stated that just because a link is "not vouched for" by the one placing it mean that it will always be treated that way? I mean, what if site A has a paid link (with nofollow) and a visitor clicks that link and then subsequently bookmarks the page to which the link led? If I'm monitoring links, I'm thinking, "Hey, that paid link must be what that user wanted".

This is just a simple example, but it seems to me that Google has, in the past, looked at what the declared nature of a page, site, or link is and then compared it with user behavior to make a determination of value.

I might be way off base though, I'm just a web designer who likes SEO not a professional SEO.

[wowdezign]

"Using nofollow is a safe way to buy links, because it’s a machine-readable way to specify that a link doesn’t have to be counted as a vote by a search engine." - Matt Cutts (emphais added by me)

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm wondering about, "It doesn't have to be" is not the same as saying "It will not be".

When you consider the latest features Google is adding, WOW! Then they would be able to even track purchases made after those links, no?

[Jill]

I should clarify what I mean by that. Has Google said or done anything that would reveal the underlying reason for this recommended practice - using nofollow on paid links.

Yes, they don't like paid links because they don't consider them a vote for a site, but an ad. They don't want to count them in their link pop algos and give credit for them.

[St0n3y]

They don't want to count them in their link pop algos and give credit for them.

... and they would like us SEOs and webmasters to do the work that their algorithm can't for them!

[wowdezign]

Ahh, that makes sense. And when I watch TV I tune in for the programming and not necessarily the commercials that will run during that show. (except for the Super Bowl) Yet, I sometimes buy a newspaper because of the classified ads therein. Hmmm...

nourishment for thinking. (aka, food for thought)

BTW - did I mention I'm an aspiring comedian?

Edited by wowdezign, 03 July 2006 - 04:41 PM.

[seoboyuk]

b.com is taking the brunt i believe. soon others to follow...

[Jill]

Just as an update to this thread...

I'm glad I spotted this business.com issue, as it got picked up by Threadwatch and business.com has actually changed the policy!

Funny thing is that I don't even know why I happened to visit business.com that fateful day when I posted this and had noticed the nofollow links. I had assumed that others must have already noticed they were using nofollow since I know others visit there a lot more than I do, but nobody had mentioned it yet!

Or maybe they had just instituted it and it was just a crazy coincidence that I visited there and noticed!

At any rate, it's pretty cool to see the power of a forum post in having a real impact on the way things work online.

[Leann_Pass]

Business.com using no-follow, redirects, etc. is by no means a new thing. I noticed they were doing this on MOST of their links over a year ago. I marked them off my list at that point. I honestly thought it was common knowledge - I really believe there has been mention of it here, not a whole thread, but mention.

[Jill]

Pretty funny that it never came to light until I posted it here!