I just read an article in Net Effect that encourages using nofollow on internal links to redistribute PageRank away from pages like Privacy Policy and towards product and selling pages.
As time has gone by since nofollow was introduced to fight blog comment spam, it seems to have become more acceptable to use nofollows this way. There seems to be renewed debate about this - and people are so divided.
What do you all think?
Caro
Subscribe to HRA Now!
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE!
www.CustomReportSharing.com
From the folks who brought you High Rankings!
More SEO Content
International SEM | Social Media | Search Friendly Design | SEO | Paid Search / PPC | Seminars | Forum Threads | Q&A | Copywriting | Keyword Research | Web Analytics / Conversions | Blogging | Dynamic Sites | Linking | SEO Services | Site Architecture | Search Engine Spam | Wrap-ups | Business Issues | HRA Questions | Online Courses
Sponsored Content
New Debate About Nofollow On Internal Links
Started by
Say Yebo
, Dec 05 2008 02:22 PM
8 replies to this topic
#2
Randy
-
- Moderator
-
- 17,540 posts
Convert Me!
Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:38 PM
I think in the vast majority of cases such PR sculpting is a complete and utter waste of time and effort.
If a page needs the extra tiny bit of link juice that the very involved process of PR sculpting gives the chance to gain, it's much, much easier to simply get another site or two to link to the page.
If a page needs the extra tiny bit of link juice that the very involved process of PR sculpting gives the chance to gain, it's much, much easier to simply get another site or two to link to the page.
#3
Say Yebo
-
- Active Members
-
- 203 posts
HR 4
- Location:USA
Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:57 PM
Dang - just noticed an ENTIRE pinned entry on the nofollow tag! Sorry guys! Brain dead today.
#4
Jill
-
- Admin
-
- 32,317 posts
High Rankings Advisor
Posted 05 December 2008 - 04:24 PM
SEO companies are always looking for new things they can sell clients which can use up time but have no effect. This is yet another one of those.
It fits nicely with other things like make your site validate, remove all images and other things that have nothing to do with SEO.
It fits nicely with other things like make your site validate, remove all images and other things that have nothing to do with SEO.
#5
Diablos
-
- Members
-
- 19 posts
HR 2
Posted 15 December 2008 - 11:28 AM
QUOTE(Jill @ Dec 5 2008, 04:24 PM) 
SEO companies are always looking for new things they can sell clients which can use up time but have no effect. This is yet another one of those.
It fits nicely with other things like make your site validate, remove all images and other things that have nothing to do with SEO.
It fits nicely with other things like make your site validate, remove all images and other things that have nothing to do with SEO.
Agreed Jill I am so fed up with clients asking me to complete stupid tasks that have nothing to do with SEO and wasting the time I do have doing real SEO. A validating site is a designers responsibility, not ours.
Worse still the logic behind this doesn't even make sense, lets think for a second,
IF and I mean IF the nofollow tag works exactly as Google preaches then putting it all over your site will be a negative issue because Google is going to end up not accounting all the content on the pages you see as insignificant.
I wouldn't want any content wasted on my sites even if its not the nicest keyword friend stuff. The natural growth of your site will bring higher PR to product or category pages, I have never seen a site where T&C's have 2 PR and 1000 links more than a product category.
On the other hand IF Google is lying about nofollow an it does something else you are achieving nothing and maybe even harming your site (although unlikely).
#6
1dmf
-
- Active Members
-
- 2,154 posts
Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning
- Location:Worthing - England
Posted 15 December 2008 - 12:12 PM
QUOTE
A validating site is a designers responsibility, not ours.
Not if you're the one who edits the code and invalidates a valid site.I don't think a plumber who damages a painters work should expect the painter to have to put it right, or at least they will have to pay the painter the cost for putting it right!
#7
austk
-
- Members
-
- 52 posts
HR 3
Posted 15 December 2008 - 01:03 PM
If having links to your own site is a bad thing, then I guess you can find me guilty. I have never considered using no follow links to my own site. I see that google counts your internal links so I do not think you would want to hide them?
#8
Diablos
-
- Members
-
- 19 posts
HR 2
Posted 16 December 2008 - 04:11 AM
QUOTE(1dmf @ Dec 15 2008, 12:12 PM)
Not if you're the one who edits the code and invalidates a valid site.
I don't think a plumber who damages a painters work should expect the painter to have to put it right, or at least they will have to pay the painter the cost for putting it right!
I don't think a plumber who damages a painters work should expect the painter to have to put it right, or at least they will have to pay the painter the cost for putting it right!
Yeah if you break it of course you should fix it but there are not many SEO practices that break validation if you know what you're doing.
#9
chrishirst
-
- Moderator
-
- 5,881 posts
A not so moderate moderator.
- Location:Blackpool UK
Posted 17 December 2008 - 05:54 PM
QUOTE(1dmf @ Dec 15 2008, 05:12 PM)
Not if you're the one who edits the code and invalidates a valid site.
I don't think a plumber who damages a painters work should expect the painter to have to put it right, or at least they will have to pay the painter the cost for putting it right!
I don't think a plumber who damages a painters work should expect the painter to have to put it right, or at least they will have to pay the painter the cost for putting it right!
Either that or ...
... blame the electricians!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
