- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
*** OOPS! the title came very wrong : discussion
Hi guys…
I’m going to share with you my thought about ‘nofollow’ links.
Let’s take Wikipedia as an example:
We all know how big Wikipedia is and we all know how hard is to put your link (And make him stay) there.
If you were Google would you ignore that important information ? If I was a search engine and I would saw a link to page ‘x’ from related page at Wikipedia I could assume that this page ‘x’ is very quality and relevant. But Google say that they ignore and won’t pass any juice … That gives Yahoo and MSN and other search engines an advantage … I don’t think Google big as their are can ignore links with ‘nofollow’.
That my opinion … What do you think?
I’m not sure that Google expressly says that they don’t give value to any nofollow links whatsoever. I think there are studies out there where sites have gotten themselves ranked simply from a Wikipedia link. My opinion on nofollow is that it is a flag for Google to look at and then decide if the link has value or not, but I don’t have any empirical information on this. For example, a nofollow link from a blog comment (the reason nofollow was invented) would certainly not be given credit. I could easily believe that Google credits Wikipedia links since that is a human edited website and human edited content is very important to Google.
That said, it is impossible to get a link on Wikipedia if you don’t have real and very high quality unique information that the Wikipedia community finds valuable.
Take a look at this post : http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/
Read the asterisk
[*] at the end of the post.So does this mean that nofollow on internal links is a bad thing then? That’s quite different from current thinking isn’t it?
This is quite an important point. If what Matt Cutts says is true, and there’s no reason to not believe him, then PR sculpting is a complete waste of time, this goes against what I’ve been told fairly recently by seo experts. I’d be very interested to here other peoples take on this.
If Matt makes it a point to say it doesn’t work, then google doesn’t want you to do it.
@heimdall 206093 wrote:
This is quite an important point. If what Matt Cutts says is true, and there’s no reason to not believe him, then PR sculpting is a complete waste of time, this goes against what I’ve been told fairly recently by seo experts. I’d be very interested to here other peoples take on this.
It changed two to three weeks ago. So don’t blame the expert
I still do not understand is nofollow a big no no or what ?
I used it to prevent pr leakage from internal to affiliate links. Should I remove all nofollow tags ?
This No-follow attribute is a poor search engine solution for ranking a website properly !
Second it is a sign you do not trust the links on your website you use………so how trustworthy will become your site ??total Crap
Inspiration;206104 wrote:I still do not understand is nofollow a big no no or what ?I used it to prevent pr leakage from internal to affiliate links. Should I remove all nofollow tags ?
This No-follow attribute is a poor search engine solution for ranking a website properly !
Second it is a sign you do not trust the links on your website you use………so how trustworthy will become your site ??total Crap
I don’t think you should be panic … I was showed my theory that Google don’t treat the ‘nofollow’ always as they say they are. But I don’t think that ‘nofollow’ can hurt your site.
If you are using nofollow in a manipulative way, then it is a no-no according to Google. So, yes link sculpting is not something they like seeing. Using nofollow to external links shouldn’t be a problem, in that case you are just saying that there is this site over here, but you don’t necessarily vouch for it.
It is generally believed that no follow links are nearly invisible to SE, but not 100%, and Google is known to crawl them sometimes. Also other SE than Google may give them some weight, but Google does not.
Google is trying to fix the “no follow mess”, and their last move which does not make sense (to me) shows that they have stepped into the nofollow quicksand.
My guess they are going to have a lot of ad hoc tricks to make sense of it all; but for us, it is quite clear that a no follow link is a dead end, is it not?
@greekhand 206105 wrote:
I don’t think that ‘nofollow’ can hurt your site.
uh think about a blog post with 50 nofollowed comments/urls….
say u have 3 urls in you blog post, they now get 1/53rd of the page juice where they used to get 1/3rd of the juice each…
alexross;206665 wrote:uh think about a blog post with 50 nofollowed comments/urls….say u have 3 urls in you blog post, they now get 1/53rd of the page juice where they used to get 1/3rd of the juice each…
Exactly.
Google should (and may) come with a new option, like a nofollow with 2 flavors: nofollownojuice and nofollowyesjuice. Otherwise all these nofollow links are big juice leaks everywhere.
I just said that Google will not ban his site for using ‘nofollow’
alexross;206665 wrote:uh think about a blog post with 50 nofollowed comments/urls….say u have 3 urls in you blog post, they now get 1/53rd of the page juice where they used to get 1/3rd of the juice each…
The * greekhand referred earlier to in Cutt’s Blog states “Nofollow links definitely don’t pass PageRank. Over the years, I’ve seen a few corner cases where a nofollow link did pass anchortext, normally due to bugs in indexing that we then fixed. The essential thing you need to know is that nofollow links don’t help sites rank higher in Google’s search results.”
The summary theme of his entire blog article on the nofollow is that we should not use it internally within our sites. However, given that it doesn’t pass PR or anchor text, it is still appropriate to use for affiliate links.
