Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Matt Cutts Blesses Nofollow On Internal Links
Posted 04 September 2007 - 04:29 PM
Posted 04 September 2007 - 06:07 PM
Making it a "use at your own risk" proposition for me.
I personally don't believe in taking the band-aid approach to my site architecture and would not recommend using nofollow on links in my main navigation. Either the links are important (and you have them there) or there not (and you don't).
Posted 04 September 2007 - 06:21 PM
Posted 04 September 2007 - 06:26 PM
Then again, it's named "nofollow" rather than "notrust". "I don't trust this link" is the original use they gave us for it, but its name comes from the robots exclusion protocol, where nofollow means "don't follow this link". So it all makes sense to me linguistically, just not to the extent of the use of it.
Posted 04 September 2007 - 08:56 PM
Let's see, which other search engines are we worried about exactly? MSN sounded pretty well on board with honoring nofollow as "don't follow this link," so that leaves Yahoo, right? 'Cause Ask isn't exactly crawling up a storm. The nice folks at Yahoo have this to say:
When you ask for specifics... but it doesn't really matter if they follow the links or not, does it?
Posted 04 September 2007 - 08:57 PM
For example URL tagging on your own site to differentiate between identical url links for analytics purposes.
Posted 05 September 2007 - 01:30 AM
That's my bigget beef: the lack of documentation. http://www.php.net/htmlspecialchars is an example of proper documentation. It has the usage, expected inputs, expected in/outputs. Where is a similar such page for nofollow?
I have no way of telling anyone what it does. I can't mjustify my belief, because there is no documentation at all. Heck, we are SEO professionals, and we are pouring over several blogs, conference announcements and individual chats trying to decipher what it all means. It is like a religious class!
Until there is a standardised, central location for documentation, even just on each SE, I can't recommend using nofollow.
For those who think I am dreaming, http://www.sitemaps.org/ is an excellent example of what can (quite trivially) be acheived.
Posted 05 September 2007 - 05:14 AM
My further concern would be that this contradiction would paint your site as one that had been SEO'd which, in borderline cases (i.e. given other evidence), could be enough to trigger some kind of penalty. That's still a concern.
However, my concern has been massively lessened by the realisation that the Web must be full of nofollow'd links on a site to other pages on the same site; not because everyone is an SEO, but because most blog software would nofollow every link made in a comment ... and some of those links will be to other pages on the same site.
Posted 05 September 2007 - 12:05 PM
Isn't the nofollow a much nicer and more user-friendly way of achieving the same thing?
Posted 05 September 2007 - 12:14 PM
Alan, as you say, any site that allows non-owners to create links (blogs, forums) can also create internal links that are nofollowed. If a search engine wanted to figure out who's doing SEO, they don't need to look at anything more than the use of anchor text (internally and externally), which is a "cheap" calculation since they're already doing text analysis and would likely be able to use the same functions.
Posted 05 September 2007 - 10:16 PM
Never considered that AT ALL!!! What a hoot! I bet the people making blogging software never thought of that.
Maybe I should petition wordpress to start "whitelisting" sites to avoid nofollow. But, wait, is that the right thing to do? I mean, didn't you pay for the link by "buying" the domain and "paying" for hosting?
I am so confused!!!!
Posted 06 September 2007 - 02:22 AM
You mentioned it also on some other thread recently. But again, what about google? Is there any reason why the NoFollow should not be used to prevent indexation of pages with non-content effecting parameters?
Posted 06 September 2007 - 02:33 AM
Posted 06 September 2007 - 04:26 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users