72 replies to this topic

[dasheriprock]

Matt Cutts did an interview with Rand Fishkin of SEOMOZ. I have seen threads here where people have stated that nofollow=untrusted and that using nofollow on internal links is telling Google that pages on your site are untrustworthy. I think this comment pretty much puts that argument to rest.

www.seomoz.org/blog/questions-answers-with-googles-spam-guru

"Does Google recommend the use of nofollow internally as a positive method for controlling the flow of internal link love?

• A) Yes – webmasters can feel free to use nofollow internally to help tell Googlebot which pages they want to receive link juice from other pages
  _
  (Matt's precise words were: The nofollow attribute is just a mechanism that gives webmasters the ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity. Plenty of other mechanisms would also work (e.g. a link through a page that is robot.txt'ed out), but nofollow on individual links is simpler for some folks to use. There's no stigma to using nofollow, even on your own internal links; for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery. By the way, the nofollow meta tag does that same thing, but at a page level.)"

Edited by qwerty, 31 August 2007 - 12:31 AM.
Had to delink URL

[qwerty]

I'm "Gladstein" in that discussion, and I'm still not comfortable with this. Is Yahoo going to treat it the same way? Can we count on this not being abused to the point where we need to go back and undo the change on a dozen or so sites?

I just think I'd rather just use my navigational kung fu to distribute internal PR. I like hubs, and hubs have treated me well over the years.

[Michael Martinez]

And another SEO myth is born, in my opinion.

I fear that people will now go forth and shoot themselves in the foot and place "rel='nofollow'" on their internal pages, blocking their content from search indexes because Rand Fishkin said that it makes good SEO sense.

People need to pay close attention to this part of what Matt actually said: "... for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery."

Some people are instilling panic and fear in Webmasters by suggesting that it's a good idea to use "rel='nofollow'" on your About page and other "incidental" pages to make sure they don't outrank the home page for the site name/company name, instead of optimizing the home page (and the internal navigation of the entire site) to ensure that the home page ranks first for the site name/company name.

Just using your name for the anchor text pointing to the root URL (rather than the word "home") is usually sufficient to ensure that the home page ranks first.

Eliminating pages from the Google index denies you PageRank -- that is, preventing Google from including your own pages in the index prevents Google from assigning PageRank to those pages.

All pages that are assigned PageRank are given a "starting value" (usually said to be 1 divided by the total number of pages in the index in various technical papers and presentations) that is used to calculate how much value they pass through their links. If you have 100 pages and you use "rel='nofollow'" on 50 of your pages, you eliminate half of your potential starting PageRank.

Just because a page doesn't have any external links pointing to it doesn't mean it cannot pass PageRank (and link anchor text) to other pages on your site.


In the past, Google has asked people to use "rel='nofollow'" (or the "nofollow" meta value) on user-generated pages like profile pages where people were embedding links to suspicious or malicious sites. It makes sense to use "nofollow" on such pages because you don't want your site to become a spammers' playground. But even there you don't sacrifice PageRank.

And on some sites with large amounts of autogenerated content that is duplicated across multiple pages it may also make sense to use "nofollow" on internal links, but people need to understand that they are sacrificing potential PageRank (that could be preserved and utilized by placing unique content on those pages) in order to avoid having their pages filtered in search results for duplicate content.

Edited by Michael Martinez, 31 August 2007 - 12:59 AM.

[Randy]

Personally I have an issue with the Multiple Choice format of such surveys. IMO you don't get true feedback to the actual question because the answer will often be shaped or shaded by the answer choices available.

As to the main issue of using nofollow on internal links, let's just say I won't be using it at all. I've been around this business long enough to fully understand that Google's usage does not always equal Yahoo's usage does not always equal MSN's usage. Nor does it mean that Google's usage today will be Google's usage tomorrow.

As Bob stated above there are other easier and time tested ways to control the distribution of link pop/PR. These methods have always worked in all of the engines without fail, so I see no reason to make a change and start relying on something that may or may not work as advertised.

[glengara]

Another vote against its use internally....

[dasheriprock]

I fear that people will now go forth and shoot themselves in the foot and place "rel='nofollow'" on their internal pages, blocking their content from search indexes because Rand Fishkin said that it makes good SEO sense.

Actually, it was matt cutts that said it. Rand was the messenger.

People need to pay close attention to this part of what Matt actually said: "... for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery."

Actually, I think you should pay closer attention. He says that nofollow drops it from the link graph and the "ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity". One single followed link would still get that page found/indexed by Google.

Just using your name for the anchor text pointing to the root URL (rather than the word "home") is usually sufficient to ensure that the home page ranks first.

Not really. Because if you do a link analysis when most people link naturally around their site, a lot of times unimportant pages have about the same number of links as important pages. Besides, using the word "Home" has advantages in the fact that it improves the user experience because people are familiar with it. By utilizing a nofollow tag, you can control PR/Link reputation on one "Home" link and then pass it in a footer link, for example, for the keyword you actually want it to rank for. That way, there is the familiar "Home" link for the user, and you are passing reputation through another link.

Eliminating pages from the Google index denies you PageRank -- that is, preventing Google from including your own pages in the index prevents Google from assigning PageRank to those pages.

Again, you should probably read what matt actually said. It's link level, you don't lose all pagerank to that page. And you act as if pagerank not sent to a page because a nofolllow is used is 'lost' pagerank. More PR is funnelled to other pages, which is the whole point. Would you rather have a page where you sell products have more PR or just continue to link to your 'about us' page?

[Randy]

Would you rather have a page where you sell products have more PR or just continue to link to your 'about us' page?

Quite frankly, I don't care. Both are important to the Sales Process. Remember that? It's the part where you gain the trust of real people so that they'll buy something from you?

Sorry, but I just don't buy into it and probably never will. I simply don't see any reason to get caught up in the whole nofollow debate as long as the old tried and true methods of constructing your navigation to signal all of the search engines which pages of your site you consider to be the most important still work. This is especially true since all of the search engines are treating it differently.

Those who live in a Google-centric world may use it. Others may (probably will) abuse it. Eventually Google may have a change of heart. Then what will you do? You'll revert back to the old tried and true methods and have to spend hours revamping your site.

FWIW, I hope you also read additional comments Matt made farther down in the page. He made a couple of corrections or clarifications to the way people were translating/extrapolating his comments and the choices he made in Rand's multiple choice answers.

[DanThies]

Some simple points:

1. Nofollow on internal links isn't used to keep pages out of the index. You can do that with robots.txt or meta tags.
2. Removing pages from the index will reduce the total amount of PageRank you have in the site, but that's a straw man (see #1)
3. The reason why you might use nofollow is to change the distribution of PageRank within a site
4. The main reason why you might wish to redistribute PageRank is to get more of your pages indexed
5. Redistributing PageRank can help get more pages indexed by bringing more pages over the threshold value that Google uses to decide when to index a page
6. Getting more pages indexed means that you increase the total amount of PageRank within the site
7. Nofollow can also be used to channel a little extra PageRank to selected pages
8. Nofollow allows you to do this without screwing up your navigation for human users
9. Google's reps have been telling us for a long time that it's OK to do this - Matt's analogy of PR as "Play-doh" is actually very helpful if you've seen it

Matt's absolutely right that there's not a whole lot of utility for the average webmaster, because smaller sites are not going to gain a lot with minor adjustments to their linking structure, and the average webmaster is far more likely to screw it up. If you know what you're doing, and where to use it, it's very useful... and it's worked for a long time.

[dasheriprock]

Quite frankly, I don't care. Both are important to the Sales Process. Remember that? It's the part where you gain the trust of real people so that they'll buy something from you?

Yeah, and how does using a nofollow tag on an about us cause you to lose the trust of the visitor on your site? The link is still active, the visitor can still view the page. The only time it might raise an eyebrow is if they are using the firefox browser with the nofollow plugin...and I'm sure about .0001% of people are using that, and they're all SEO's.

Sorry, but I just don't buy into it and probably never will. I simply don't see any reason to get caught up in the whole nofollow debate as long as the old tried and true methods of constructing your navigation to signal all of the search engines which pages of your site you consider to be the most important still work. This is especially true since all of the search engines are treating it differently.

Worst case is that they don't observe it. You think yahoo is going to start penalizing pages that use nofollow after google blesses it...talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

Those who live in a Google-centric world may use it. Others may (probably will) abuse it. Eventually Google may have a change of heart. Then what will you do? You'll revert back to the old tried and true methods and have to spend hours revamping your site.

How can you 'abuse it'? That comment doesn't really make sense considering it's all internal. You only have so much pagerank to use and by taking it from one page, you are just using more on another. It's not like you're getting double the pagerank. If you use it here, you're not using it there.

[DanThies]

The idea that it could be abused is understandable, just not realistic. For a normal site, you can only do so much with structural changes.

I think we'd all agree that making structural changes is sometimes useful for SEO. Nofollow is just a way to make those structural changes without having to screw with the user experience. How could that be a bad thing?

Google officially blessing nofollow is just a recognition that PageRank doesn't always work well in identifying the important (to a searcher) pages within a site.

[Michael Martinez]

Actually, it was matt cutts that said it. Rand was the messenger.

As I showed above, that was not the case. Rand took what Matt said and blew it way out of proportion, basically distorting the facts.

Actually, I think you should pay closer attention. He says that nofollow drops it from the link graph and the "ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity".

You need to stop and look at what is happening. If the only links to your internal pages are from your own nofollowed pages, then you're removing your pages from the index.

Because if you do a link analysis when most people link naturally around their site, a lot of times unimportant pages have about the same number of links as important pages. Besides, using the word "Home" has advantages in the fact that it improves the user experience because people are familiar with it.

Did you read what I said? People who have complained that their "About Us" pages come up first for their names can usually fix the problem by altering their internal navigation text by replacing "home" with their name.

By utilizing a nofollow tag, you can control PR/Link reputation on one "Home" link and then pass it in a footer link, for example, for the keyword you actually want it to rank for.

You really don't seem to understand what this is all about. "Nofollow" began life as Google's proposed solution to blog comment spam. Having failed miserably to cure that ill, they perverted it to be their solution for paid links.

All "nofollow" does is reduce Google's task of filtering out links that prove their system doesn't work.

It's not an SEO tool, it's not a good idea to use on your own pages, and it sure isn't something you want to use on your internal navigation pointing to the root URL.

And you need to learn that PageRank isn't some mystical thing that comes from outside. It starts with your own pages. The fewer pages you include in the index through your own deliberate omission, the less PageRank you end up having to work with.

[Michael Martinez]

Some simple points:[list=1]
[*]Removing pages from the index will reduce the total amount of PageRank you have in the site, but that's a straw man (see #1)
[*]The reason why you might use nofollow is to change the distribution of PageRank within a site
[*]The main reason why you might wish to redistribute PageRank is to get more of your pages indexed
[*]Redistributing PageRank can help get more pages indexed by bringing more pages over the threshold value that Google uses to decide when to index a page

Nope. That's total nonsense. If you're nofollowing your own pages the only way they'll get indexed is if you get external links to them. Most internal pages don't earn external links. And not all external links pass PageRank anyway (for reasons other than possible uses of "nofollow").

Furthermore, most natural links occur only after people find your pages. By using "nofollow" on your site you prevent Google from crawling your pages and they won't be indexed, thus reducing the chances that your site will be found in Google's index.

You can certainly compensate for lack of search visibility (and everyone should) through other forms of Web marketing but many people get most of their traffic from search engines, and many people get most of their traffic from Google.

You don't get pages indexed by telling Google NOT to follow links to those pages.

You can't have it both ways.

[qwerty]

I don't think Dan's suggesting nofollow-ing every link to a given page. If you wanted to do that, you'd simply block the page using the robots exclusion protocol. The idea is, as an example, to nofollow the link in your main navigation to some page, but to have a link to it on one or two pages. That way, the page gets indexed, but gets very little of the site's total PR.

I still don't like it, but it's not as crazy as all that.

[glengara]

IMO whether it's boosting AS pages or getting deeper pages indexed internal PR manipulation flags SEO like little else, I know we're all meant to be friends these days but......

[Jimmy Dunne]

Interesting interview. I remember reading that Matt made those comments earlier this year. But as far as Michael's comments go, I couldn't disagree more. I don't really understand where you're coming from and how you could make this argument after reading the comments.

As I showed above, that was not the case. Rand took what Matt said and blew it way out of proportion, basically distorting the facts.

He did? How could you take an exact quote from someone and blow it out of proportion?

You need to stop and look at what is happening. If the only links to your internal pages are from your own nofollowed pages, then you're removing your pages from the index.

Michael, are you the same dude that used to write for SEOMOZ? Because I'm finding that really hard to believe. Nofollow doesn't remove pages from the index...go back and get the SEO textbook out. As long as their is one follow'd link on your site, the page will get indexed...regardless if there are 1000 other nofollow'd links pointing to the same page.

Did you read what I said? People who have complained that their "About Us" pages come up first for their names can usually fix the problem by altering their internal navigation text by replacing "home" with their name.

Ummm....ok....do you have problems ranking for your name? Because I kind of consider that a given without any real shift in your SEO strategy. I'd rather use my internal links to target high value keywords. And I'll just assume that I can rank for my name just fine.

You really don't seem to understand what this is all about. "Nofollow" began life as Google's proposed solution to blog comment spam. Having failed miserably to cure that ill, they perverted it to be their solution for paid links.

Who cares what it began as, I only care what you can do with it now. Just because paypal started as software for palmpilots, doesn't mean i can't use it today to accept cc's.

It's not an SEO tool, it's not a good idea to use on your own pages, and it sure isn't something you want to use on your internal navigation pointing to the root URL.

Matt cutts disagrees with you. And who to trust? Matt Cutts (who typically would err on the side of caution and tell webmasters not to use something risky) or you? Hmm.

And you need to learn that PageRank isn't some mystical thing that comes from outside. It starts with your own pages. The fewer pages you include in the index through your own deliberate omission, the less PageRank you end up having to work with.

Come back to reality Michael. We're talking about use of nofollow on a handful or pages. You still have the other 1000 that are on the site. And what you gain by cutting those pages out far exceeds leaving them in to have them suck pagerank from other pages.