72 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

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.

I don't think anything in this process far exceeds anything else. We're talking about making a relatively small change. If your average page links out to say 20 other pages counting both navigation and links in the context of the page, then sticking a nofollow on one of those links means that rather than splitting the page's PR 20 times, you're splitting it 19. Do this for 1000 pages and it's going to make a difference, but it's still only about a 5% difference.

[DanThies]

One can't come back to a place that one has never even visited, Jimmy.

After years of dealing with Michael, I'm starting to think he actually believes what he's saying. He likes to use these straw man arguments, like "nofollow means that you cut off all the links to a page." Because it's easy to beat up the straw man. I think it's called a "defense mechanism" in PSY101.

Exactly, Bob - it depends on how many pages you're trying to affect, but even 10-20% more can make a big difference in indexing.

[Michael Martinez]

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.

I'm looking at what Matt Cutts actually said, not Rand Fishkin's perverse interpretation. And Matt Cutts offered further clarification apparently because so many people have twisted and distorted what he said both here and elsewhere.

I think saying people "should be" using nofollow is a bit strong. More like people can use it for internal links if they're power-user-y enough to want to sculpt PageRank flow within their site at the link level. But I'd say that most regular webmasters don't need to worry about link-level PageRank flow within their site. I think saying "power users and webmasters should be employing on their sites" overstates it a little. It's available if you want to get into that much fine-grained control.

After years of dealing with Michael, I'm starting to think he actually believes what he's saying.

Pettiness and cheap shots don't make you any better an SEO or moderator, Dan. Either you can support your arguments with relevant facts and citations or you can't.

Abusing your position as a moderator doesn't leave me with a great impression. Nor will it impress other people.


As far as using "nofollow" for SEO goes, it's a crazy idea that neither you nor anyone else in the industry can effectively implement. You may think you can do it but you have no way to show that you can.

As Matt Cutts indicated, "most regular webmasters don't need to worry about link-level PageRank flow within their site". And I note that he also feels "saying 'power users and webmasters should employing on thei sites' overstates it a little".

I'll agree with Matt on this one.

And given the inflammatory tone of your posts, I'm done with this thread.

[Jimmy Dunne]

I'm looking at what Matt Cutts actually said, not Rand Fishkin's perverse interpretation. And Matt Cutts offered further clarification apparently because so many people have twisted and distorted what he said both here and elsewhere.

I know you're supposed to be a 'controversy guy', but I think you take it too far sometimes. Calling Rand's interpretation 'perverse' kind of makes you look more silly, than controversial. And Matt just clarified by saying that it can be used for it, but he wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody should use it. And that's clearly for the reasons that Dan Thies cited above.

As far as using "nofollow" for SEO goes, it's a crazy idea that neither you nor anyone else in the industry can effectively implement. You may think you can do it but you have no way to show that you can.

What? You can't implement it? You throw a nofollow on a link and you watch pagerank get cut off from those pages. You can see the effect (delayed effect) after toolbar updates. Where do you think it goes? If it wasn't possible to 'effectively implement' then matt wouldn't even answer the question, he'd just say it's not possible to control PR with nofollows.

As Matt Cutts indicated, "most regular webmasters don't need to worry about link-level PageRank flow within their site". And I note that he also feels "saying 'power users and webmasters should employing on thei sites' overstates it a little"

Yeah, matt said it can be used with no adverse effect, but that it doesn't need to be used. I don't see what the big deal is with that statement. He says nofollow does control pagerank, he says you are free to use it with no adverse effect, and he says that it's not for everyone. No argument there. There are plenty of people that would use it incorrectly, but if done well it can send PR to important pages.

Michael, michael, michael....you are trying to stir up controversy over nothing....is the blog a little slow these days?

[Jill]

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......

Ahahaha Goes right along with my revisited Art of SEO article. Very good point, Glengara, I hadn't thought of that before!

[Randy]

You think yahoo is going to start penalizing pages that use nofollow after google blesses it...talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

Last time I bothered to check, Yahoo doesn't even not follow nofollowed links. They do exactly the opposite and Follow them! So who's to say what they may or may not do in the future.

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.

Sacrilege!

IMO whether it's boosting AS pages or getting deeper pages indexed internal PR manipulation flags SEO like little else

Yup. It's one thing to wave a little red flag now and then. It's another thing entirely to raise a huge red flag to the top of the tallest flagpole in the world, then installing some really bright lights to shine on it 24/7/365 to make sure everybot-y notices.

[qwerty]

You know, Jill's going to beat me about the head and shoulders (at least) for saying this, but I don't worry about a search engine identifying a site I've worked on. I know I'm improving the site, so I don't feel like anyone needs to pretend I didn't touch it. That doesn't mean I stick my name on the site -- that's just crass -- but I think of it this way: if you walk into a house and the door closes without getting stuck on the frame, the floors are flat, and the place doesn't shake when a dachshund walks by, then that's a sign that someone worked on that house and made it good and solid. And it's a good house. Why should you take that as a signal you shouldn't trust the place?

Now, if they make the walls 3 meters thick and put 20 ovens in the kitchen, that's another matter. That's not a signal that you had an architect; it's a signal that you're a bit of a loon.

[Jill]

Not gonna beat you up, Bob! It's just that when you've been in this biz as long as I have, and have seen the stuff from the old days when the engines would seriously look for any sign of SEO and then bash you, it's hard to get out of that mentality. I'll never forget that time in the late 90's when I posted to an email newsletter list about my client who had a number 1 ranking in Alta Vista for gift baskets, and then it was gone the next day. That jades you forever!

[Big Bill]

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.

Remind me again, just how is it that Page Rank works well at all?

BB

[Big Bill]

Not gonna beat you up, Bob! It's just that when you've been in this biz as long as I have, and have seen the stuff from the old days when the engines would seriously look for any sign of SEO and then bash you, it's hard to get out of that mentality. I'll never forget that time in the late 90's when I posted to an email newsletter list about my client who had a number 1 ranking in Alta Vista for gift baskets, and then it was gone the next day. That jades you forever!

Perhaps then potential SEO clients should be seeking out SEO firms who don't court the high profile that you do? The downside to branding, mayhap?

BB

[glengara]

I still remember the quoted sentiment on SEOs of one of "The Founders" as "much like a mother grizzly watching a hunter poke her cub with a stick" :-)

In these days of pointers towards "intent", having overt SEO signals might well limit what gets the benefit of the doubt, IMO.

[Jill]

Perhaps then potential SEO clients should be seeking out SEO firms who don't court the high profile that you do? The downside to branding, mayhap?

BB

I don't understand what you mean by this one, BB.

(BTW, I split your other post regarding The Art of SEO article onto it's own topic here.)

I still remember the quoted sentiment on SEOs of one of "The Founders" as "much like a mother grizzly watching a hunter poke her cub with a stick" :-)

Yes, me too. You are talking about Sergey, right?

[glengara]

Never found out which one of them it was, but it had the ring of authenticity to it :-)

And I doubt sentiments have changed that much despite the present "sweetness and light"....

Edited by glengara, 01 September 2007 - 12:58 PM.

[DanThies]

IEither you can support your arguments with relevant facts and citations or you can't.

My point exactly. When you can't, you beat up a straw man. I've been watching you do it for years.

I'm done with this thread.

[nethy]

Why is Google allowing webmasters to shape Pagerank? Doesn't this go against the philosophy of letting their automated process determine the importance of a page?
Is this signalling a higher belief in webmasters' ability to determine the importance of a page, at least internally to a site?