Google inviting SPAM with rel="nofollow"

[collusion]

With Google not following links that have rel="nofollow" on them they are inviting spammers and low quality websites into higher ranking spots.

What I mean is that they are telling webmasters that they can link to whomever they want and they do not have to take responsibility.

While this also effects excellent webmasters who are responsible it also allows spammers to gain rankings even though they are linking to crap websites.

I am not sure that the best way to go is by relying on outside factors for your algorithm. Instead you have to use every single onsite factor and create a formula that cannot be circumvented by spam.

[SemAdvance]

????

Not sure what you are on about or how this allows webmasters to spam google, as any artifical link building can and is easily detected and filtered out.

Just because somewhere you read something about what a 3rd party does or does not do (search engine in this case), is no reason to believe that things are done in such fashion.

Google has some of the brightest programming minds (check the Fortune 400 richest americans list) and they rely on another 99 parts to the algorithm to determine who gets ranked where.

Another important aspect is not to build a business that relies on a search engines results, for it's existence.

Doing so will invariably result in undue stress and anxiety.

[collusion]

But their filtering has nothing to do with it if they ignore the nofollow links altogether.

Filtering out the crap content on the website maybe but by ignoring crap links just because a webmster tells them to is what I am talking about. They should not allow rel="nofollow" or simply ignore it and follow the link anyway to find out what the webmaster is linking to.

[brian.mark]

So do you think Yahoo is also inviting spam by recognizing (possibly) the rel=nofollow?

I think you're missing the point here. The discounting of links is to prevent spamming by automated programs across 1000's of blogs leaving comments. They have not said those links are ignored all together... they have said it passes no weight to the link recipient.

There's a difference there.

Brian.

[collusion]

People should either monitor blogs more often or make it a requirement to approve all comments.

They can also filter out comment links from popular blog scripts. They should not discount every single link across the internet that has a nofollow tag.

I didn't miss the big picture. I am saying that they are missing it. It is either lazyness OR the cost of having to deal with the issue in another way.

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by collusion

People should either monitor blogs more often or make it a requirement to approve all comments.

That wasn't working, so we got the attribute.

Originally Posted by collusion

They can also filter out comment links from popular blog scripts. They should not discount every single link across the internet that has a nofollow tag.

If a webmaster says "Don't count this link" by applying the attribute, why would they count it?

Originally Posted by collusion

I didn't miss the big picture. I am saying that they are missing it. It is either lazyness OR the cost of having to deal with the issue in another way.

It was a way so we, as site owners, could tell Google not to count a link. It's been the overuse that is causing problems, not the fact that it exists or that it's being followed.

[collusion]

That may be but the problem is that by not counting the links it allows webmasters to link to anything, no matter how questionable it is.

[rumblepup]

I'm not an expert, I just play one on various blogs, however

With Google not following links that have rel="nofollow" on them they are inviting spammers and low quality websites into higher ranking spots.

I'm not sure about this statement. It seems as if your saying that the nofollow tags WORK FOR spammers. They don't. Ever tested a nofollow? Works like a charm. Of course Google follows the link. Links are the roadmap of the web. But they grant the link no value. Thus, spammers can't use that link to rank.

What I mean is that they are telling webmasters that they can link to whomever they want and they do not have to take responsibility.

They say that now. Your website is your website, and No SE, including Google can tell you who or what to link to. What the SE's, Google in particular, do say is that you are linking to spam sites, the trust they have put into your site declines. Your OBL's are important too you know. If your trust declines, then bam, bob's your uncle, you loose some SERP.

While this also effects excellent webmasters who are responsible it also allows spammers to gain rankings even though they are linking to crap websites.

I know you tried to clarify, but I'm a little lost here. Like I said. Spammers gain nothing from linking to more spam as far as SERP's go. And since the site linking out to begin with is spam, it's like a spider web in a hurricane, it don't hold up.

I am not sure that the best way to go is by relying on outside factors for your algorithm. Instead you have to use every single onsite factor and create a formula that cannot be circumvented by spam.

Google relies on what only Google knows what. We do our best to figure it out, and get a neat list together of things to do to get good rankings, but that's about it. Extremely educated scientific speculation, is still speculation. What you do have to remember is this. Google does not service websites or webmasters. That's right. Google serves the searching community. Their business is search results, not governing websites. If you don't follow some guidelines, you'll loose positions in search results. That's it. It's not a governing body. We are not forced to do anything by anybody. But they do want quality sites in their search results. So in order to serve up better search results, they come up with stuff like nofollow to help bonafide websites to combat span. Google does a pretty good job of filtering spam, but EVERYTHING can be "circumvented" That's what the spammers have been doing for years, learning how to circumvent and get in your face.

Nofollow hasn't helped any spammer that I know of. But then again, I don't know any spammers.

Just my .04, cause I'm bidding higher than NeO and Jawn :)[/quote]

[collusion]

What I am saying is exactly what you said. Nofollow allows a website to not be penalized because of who they are linking to. That is the entire problem. What if a website has quality content but the general purpose it has is to link to questionable sites for affiliate programs?

You just made my point. They do not rank a website by who they link to but they should. In my opinion their algorithm just got 1 step closer to BAD.

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by collusion

What I am saying is exactly what you said. Nofollow allows a website to not be penalized because of who they are linking to. That is the entire problem. What if a website has quality content but the general purpose it has is to link to questionable sites for affiliate programs?

You just made my point. They do not rank a website by who they link to but they should. In my opinion their algorithm just got 1 step closer to BAD.

You mean when they started using that attribute quite a while ago? They do use who you link to in the algo, but if someone is showing users links to a bunch of spam, nobody else is going to link to it, and that page isn't going to rank well because of it.

Brian.

[collusion]

If they assign the link no value then it is not being included in the algorithm as anything more than "ignore this link".

They can follow the link all day but if they assign it no value then the site linking to the junk is not being penalized for it.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by rumblepup

But they do want quality sites in their search results. So in order to serve up better search results, they come up with stuff like nofollow to help bonafide websites to combat span.

Then why not delete the link? I am not talking about affiliated links.

[collusion]

I agree kgun. We need to as webmasters, either delete spam links or make them approval only.

[rumblepup]

What if a website has quality content but the general purpose it has is to link to questionable sites for affiliate programs?

Brian said it best, so I'll just shut up.

..

no I won't. he, he.

Quality content is decided by a whole messload of factors, but two that we know about are:
1. The actual content on the page.
Not spammy, not keyword stuffed, etc, etc.
2. Who's (or what, depending on your point of view) other websites point to it. I know I'm not going to point to a webpage that has "good" content while it's obl's will spam my website visitors. I don't like to.

They can follow the link all day but if they assign it no value then the site linking to the junk is not being penalized for it.

But they will be, not by Google, but by the websites that (would have) linked to them. Thus, no quality IBL's, and no PR dust from Google, thus nobody likes you so go play somewhere else.

Then why not delete the link? I am not talking about affiliated links.

Exactly, oh great one. Why would anybody with a quality website, or a website that they believe to be quality, link to spam, or bad stuff? Are you not, as a responsible webmaster, responsible for the health and well being of your visitors? Well, no, your not, but at least the quality of their visit to your site.

Nofollow was not intended for a democratic link. It makes no sense to use it as a link to cool stuff. Now, if your giving an example of a bad site, like "look at this spammy horrible thing" and warning people ahead of time, then use the nofollow. No link luv, thouroghly explained why the link is there, and you've done your good deed for the day.

[collusion]

I have seen MANY websites gain top 10 spots without having a single inbound link so IMO that factor don't mean a thing.

BUT,

I am not saying anything about the quality being bad. I am actually saying what if the quality is equalivent to an excellent site but for some reason the webmaster links to something questionable. WHY on earth would Google not want to count that link and give it weight as a bad link? It does not make sense. My guess is Google made that happen to please a ton of upset webmasters and have them stop emailing them. It certainly does not help their search results by allowing the "excellent" content site to be on top if the site links to bad sites.

Correct?

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by collusion

It certainly does not help their search results by allowing the "excellent" content site to be on top if the site links to bad sites.

So just because the link uses the nofollow attribute are we assume it is no good? False.

Not sure why this is being "over-thought". Google first introduced this attribute for comment spamming and is trying to push it to other uses. I personally have not understood why we should use it at all other than the original intention. If you link out to a website then why not have the bot follow it?? We are supposed to be building websites for people not search engines.

[collusion]

Nobody said that. actually the opposite has been said. We are saying that whether it is good or not the webmaster linking to it has to be held accountable. If it is good they get rewarded. if not then penalized.

[incrediblehelp]

I agree that websites should be held accountable for there outbound links, but as everyone has stated, Google does not follow links using the "nofollow" attribute so they are essentially not held accountable. Of course we are not Google so no one can know for sure.

[collusion]

thank you incrediblehelp. we agree on something :)

[incrediblehelp]

Interesting post from SEO Black Hat:

Nofollow and How Google Really Verifys Links

[Clicken]

I have seen MANY websites gain top 10 spots without having a single inbound link so IMO that factor don't mean a thing.

Could these sites have been experiencing what is known as the sandbox?

The no follow is useful to webmasters and so to say that it shouldn’t be used because SOME abuse it, would not be a step ahead. Imo

It certainly does not help their search results by allowing the "excellent" content site to be on top if the site links to bad sites.

If a site has excellent content that I found useful, I may not care where their links go, for one I am not forced to follow them.

Then again, I may try to find another excellent content site for help which offers better links and probably return if needed.

Either way it is really decided by the visitor whether the site was good or not... isn't it?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Clicken

Either way it is really decided by the visitor whether the site was good or not... isn't it?

Exactly. The visitor / surfer is the boss. Always keep that in mind when you link out.