Matt Cutts Announces NoFollow Google Help Center

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

I am surprised you still so proudly push your "x-robots" solution for html documents.
Don't you realize that x-robots-tag was introduced for NON-html documents to enable them dealing with bots?

Which Internet introduced that if I may ask? Just curious.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Agree with the jest of OWG's comment, especially W3C participation. Google didn't "create" nofollow, it is part of the spec for years but... not in the href it is a http equivalent attribute which it is legit to "create" an equiv meta tag as that is accomadated in earlier HTML specs. It is not "allowed" in the href presently (is listed as not allowed for href in the RFC) in that Google is creating an HREF attribute (rel="nofollow") which is new and formally undocumented or even on the table in the HTML 5 RFC. It is encouraging to see google mentioned in the HTML 5 RFC where it could be adopted and managed by the W3C. The W3C guidelines for implementing "nofollow" is quite transparent, succinct and actionable. ie: it is simply used when the author is not endorsing the link which does put the onus on webmasters not opaque Google guidelines that often are not understood by many in the industry. Sure their will be jackasses that don't use it properly but... there will always be a stall in this industries barn for a large number of jacjkasses this won't fix that!

I would like to add here, what do you think if Google would implement microformats, instead of the undocumented by the W3C rel="nofollow" attribute?

We already have:

rev="vote-for"
rev="vote-against"
rev="vote-abstain"

From my point of view, it would have been a fair deal for everyone. Don't you think?

[kevsta]

John? kgun's test? were you tracking the results? (my previous 3 posts)

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Do you mean that Google does not follow files disallowed in the robots.txt?

Of course it does not.
Up to now Google fully obeys all the networking standards and protocols.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I feel offended! I care more than anybody else about users here. My site is fully accessible and usable.

Why do you care about Google then?
Great sites don't need search engines, a 'word of mouth', bookmarks and natural links should suffice.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Which Internet introduced that if I may ask? Just curious.

Could you rephrase that question please?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

Of course it does not.
Up to now Google fully obeys all the networking standards and protocols.

What? Does Google obey to all network standards and protocols?
I hope you were kidding at this point.

Originally Posted by activeco

Why do you care about Google then?
Great sites don't need search engines, a 'word of mouth', bookmarks and natural links should suffice.

Have you ever noticed that my profession is SEO?

Originally Posted by activeco

Could you rephrase that question please?

No need to rephrase: Robots Exclusion Protocol (REP) standardization is based on/extends the robots.txt specifications from 1994 and 1996, as well as additions supported by all major search engines.

Or did Yahoo pick up the X-Robots directives from Google?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kevsta

John? kgun's test? were you tracking the results? (my previous 3 posts)

I was not tracking those results. The only ones of those terms I am tracking are:

organic search engine optimization #19

and

organic seo #37

About a month ago I was ranking #10 for organic search engine optimization and #34 for organic seo.
Keep on mind that I did a lot of web directories submissions during this year targeting those terms too, and I rewrote some content on our site, so I cannot give any accurate answer.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

What? Does Google obey to all network standards and protocols?
I hope you were kidding at this point.

I would appreciate more substantiated comments than that.
What they don't follow?
Let me provide more straight answer to your question:
Yes, Google fully obeys robots.txt file.

Have you ever noticed that my profession is SEO?

It doesn't matter what your profession is. Great sites don't rely on search engine traffic.
If you do, you have to play by their rules.

No need to rephrase: Robots Exclusion Protocol (REP) standardization is based on/extends the robots.txt specifications

What point do you try to defend exactly? That rel="nofollow" is undocumented by W3C recommendations?
W3C does not provide standardization, but Google doesn't brake their rules either.

Internet standards are regulated by ISOC, IAG, IETF (IESG), IRTF (IRSG)... in that order.

Besides, there is very little awareness about differences in proprietary, open and industry accepted standards.
If company X says "We will provide some extra functionality by introducing Y feature", it doesn't brake any existing standard.
It is up to it's users whether they will use it or not.

Will it become a new widely accepted standard is not important at all.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

I would appreciate more substantiated comments than that.
What they don't follow?
Let me provide more straight answer to your question:
Yes, Google fully obeys robots.txt file.

OK, if posed that way, I have another question: Does Google and Yahoo handle 307 redirects the same way? Do you recommend its use when needed?

Originally Posted by activeco

It doesn't matter what your profession is. Great sites don't rely on search engine traffic.
If you do, you have to play by their rules.

So I do not need to play be their rules. Cool point.

Originally Posted by activeco

What point do you try to defend exactly? That rel="nofollow" is undocumented by W3C recommendations?
W3C does not provide standardization, but Google doesn't brake their rules either.

Internet standards are regulated by ISOC, IAG, IETF (IESG), IRTF (IRSG)... in that order.

Besides, there is very little awareness about differences in proprietary, open and industry accepted standards.
If company X says "We will provide some extra functionality by introducing Y feature", it doesn't brake any existing standard.
It is up to it's users whether they will use it or not.

Will it become a new widely accepted standard is not important at all.

OK. Then thanks God I do not see any reason why to use the bloody condom.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

OK, if posed that way, I have another question: Does Google and Yahoo handle 307 redirects the same way?

AFAIK Google handles it according to specifications.
HTTP status codes & Google

Yahoo sometimes fakes http/1.0 requests in order to get content of older servers and 1.0 don't recognize 307.

Do you recommend its use when needed?

Personally I would stick with 302.

So I do not need to play be their rules. Cool point.

So why accusing them of sticking "their nose in our business as deep as possible"?

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I was not tracking those results. The only ones of those terms I am tracking are:

organic search engine optimization #19

and

organic seo #37

About a month ago I was ranking #10 for organic search engine optimization and #34 for organic seo.
Keep on mind that I did a lot of web directories submissions during this year targeting those terms too, and I rewrote some content on our site, so I cannot give any accurate answer.

oh right i didnt realise, that was never going to work then. you have to pump the extra PR through your target anchor text to see clear effects. just a little bit more PR aimed at the whole site probably wouldnt show any difference at all.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

OK. Then thanks God I do not see any reason why to use the bloody condom.

So this means you are alright with selling links on your pages that are followed Webnauts ??

Do you also approve spam botnets running automated posting agent scripts dropping followed links on your blog and forums too ??

Do you get a laugh out of these things too ??? You are an SEO, correct ??

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Have you ever noticed that my profession is SEO?

Are you saying that you practice "SpamE-O" then ????

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by AVC

So this means you are alright with selling links on your pages that are followed Webnauts ??

Do you also approve spam botnets running automated posting agent scripts dropping followed links on your blog and forums too ??

Do you get a laugh out of these things too ??? You are an SEO, correct ??

Because I am a professional SEO, I redirect users with a 301, and the bots to a 403 page. Anything more safe than that?

Originally Posted by AVC

Are you saying that you practice "SpamE-O" then ????

I would suggest you to be very careful what you say here. OK?

[AVC]

I suggest you be more careful with what you post if you feel you are beyond being questioned.

Do you use the same redirects when folks post links within their comments on your forums and blogs ??

[Old Welsh Guy]

Originally Posted by AVC

Using no follow tags properly allows you to sell links and advertising without being de-indexed, so it is a win-win situation for those who understand it.

.

But if your links are on topic and quality you shouldn't HAVE TO nofollow them!

Originally Posted by AVC

Using it on unmoderated user generated content is a must if you wish to retain your trustrank at Google and your SERP's.

I agree with this, elements such as blogs etc should have them. but then again, if I were a google Engineer writing an algo to grade the quality of blogs, I would consider blogs with Nofollow to be less than blogs with follow, as it shows me that the blog with dofollow links in the comments is highly moderated!

This is not an ideal case, and would not be applied unilaterally, keep in mind google uses a sliding scale algo with interlinked eleements ie. if my site is more trusted, than yours, a slightly spammy title (for example), whilst it might harm your rankings, it might not affect mine, as the trust element on my site might push the spam bar higher.

There are pro's and con's for each case, but remember google will gladly throw baby out with the bathwater if it makes for more relevant SERP's, they have done it before and will do it again.

I know they have talked about using no follow on internal links within a site. this is odd as apart from a few cases all internal links should be follow links. Again they are saying 'hey it is OK to use nofollow on internal links' but then they might well have a sub algo that identifies no follows internally and investigates it.

Google are good at making something appear 'ok' only to move it into the 'hey this WAS ok but as it has now been highly abused, it is no longer OK' section. THIS is the problem with algo chasing, it means that you are constantly having to update your site to keep up. (which is why I never recommend algo chasing)

[kgun]

Interesting discussion so long:

May be time to repeat these articles and threads that some members may not know:

1. Official Google Blog: Controlling how search engines access and index your website
2. Official Google Blog: The Robots Exclusion Protocol
3. Official Google Blog: Robots Exclusion Protocol: now with even more flexibility
4. Yahoo! Search Blog: Yahoo! Search Support for X-Robots-Tag Directive to Simplify Webmaster's Control and Weather Update
5. The "nofollow" tag
6. The ability to pass pagerank. Can it be lost?
7. Does PR Sculpting Work?
8. Links-Do they have too much weight?
9. NEWS!!! Google re-introduces PageRank
10. Official Google Blog: Introduction to Google Search Quality

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by AVC

I suggest you be more careful with what you post if you feel you are beyond being questioned.

Do you use the same redirects when folks post links within their comments on your forums and blogs ??

Temporally I still use the ""nofollow" attribute on my forums, done with the vBSEO plugin which we are planning to modify to redirects when we will have the time. On our old board software we were using redirects.

On my blog I do not use "nofollow". But I moderate manually the posts.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I would like to add here, what do you think if Google would implement microformats, instead of the undocumented by the W3C rel="nofollow" attribute?

We already have:

rev="vote-for"
rev="vote-against"
rev="vote-abstain"

From my point of view, it would have been a fair deal for everyone. Don't you think?

IMO, this doesn't work because of the 1st and 3rd. What I like is the simple nature of the rel=nofollow for the http equiv. Which is simply "the author does not endorse the link". That is a easy statement to implement and puts the onus for the value on the webmaster, which, IMO, is where it belongs. Currently a large number of SEOs are not sure what should be nofollowed and why. So a large number of opportunities are left on the table and good directories are collateral damage because of the Aholes who caused it.

[AVC]

Originally Posted by Old Welsh Guy

But if your links are on topic and quality you shouldn't HAVE TO nofollow them!

You don't HAVE to do anything, but if you want your pages to rank in the future you are going to HAVE TO DO SOMETHING IF YOU ARE SELLING LINKS, that is if you want your pages to be indexed long term!

By your example if someone starts a thread on drugs here on WPW, online pharmacy spammers should be allowed to post links to their Viagra websites in the thread and WPW should allow them to be followed so the spammers sites can rank.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by AVC

You don't HAVE to do anything, but if you want your pages to rank in the future you are going to HAVE TO DO SOMETHING IF YOU ARE SELLING LINKS, that is if you want your pages to be indexed long term!

By your example if someone starts a thread on drugs here on WPW, online pharmacy spammers should be allowed to post links to their Viagra websites in the thread and WPW should allow them to be followed so the spammers sites can rank.

Not what OWG said at all! What he did say was it was up to WPW to decide!

IMO, if they want to endorse that... then they do nothing and they shouldn't be surprised when Google bends 'em over, and sans lube, gives it to 'em! You seem to mbe saying that Google is acting on every sale of a link that is reported. IMO, they aren't, you are exagerating the extent and degree to which they de-index/punish which only serves to add to the collateral damage. The fact no one, beyond a G engineer, which includes you, knows for sure what paid links are, referring to selling links without qualifying it is IMO, misleading, because there are paid links which pass juice and do exactly what you'd expect. The sponsorship page on W3C being just one of 100000000000's.

[AVC]

Using the example of W3C and comparing it to a fake blog or link farm directory is the exaggeration here and that is being conducted by you Terry, it seems that there are SEO's like yourself who have a vested interest in selling links so you defend it with your life.

Many "so called SEO's" have become link farm promoters to make an "honest living", but Google knows what is up and so do webmasters that look the other way still trying to rig the system in their favor by search engine spamming which in the past has been called SEO, I call it "SpamE-O".

Google is able to tell the difference between a page like W3C which is an industry non-profit and a legitimate page versus a contextual link farm promotion network engineered by "SEO's" who sold out long ago and became link farm exchanges using SEO forums as a front for their operations.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by AVC

Using the example of W3C and comparing it to a fake blog or link farm directory is the exaggeration here and that is being conducted by you Terry

I didn't make any such comparison what I did do was use the W3C sponsor page as an example of a paid/sold/sponsored link that worked exactly as expected and an example of using "nofollow" as the W3C intended it to be used. You also refer to link farms and fake blogs but in my quote of you, you were saying "selling links" adding the forum example. I agreed with OWG that it was the author who decides whether "nofollow" should be used and that if you screwed up then you deserve to get exactly what you spoke of. I disagree with you on both the extent and scope you frame your statements in regarding the extent and degree to which paid reviews and sponsorships affect a sites value. Those that got it, deserved it, for offenses much more objectionable than selling links and the quality of the directory made it clear what was going on, but, they were less than 30% of the 100 or so general directories and less than a handful of bad niches I personally have reviewed. Most that got whacked we identified them before Google as "low quality/priority" directories.

Originally Posted by AVC

it seems that there are SEO's like yourself

How's that? Are you saying I do that? Sticks and stones... just an opinion that I should take seriously, but... I doubt you could find another person who would agree.

Originally Posted by AVC

Many "so called SEO's" have become link farm promoters.

There are also more than a few web promotion, web design and development firms that developed them. Agreed that some of the worst were owned by SEOs but many were condemned on IHY before G got around to a whackin' em! Do you think in the 100's of submissions and real reviews SeoPros do we haven't come by that a time or two or removed SEO vendors that were doing it? The answer is yes to both.

Originally Posted by AVC

Google is able to tell the difference between a page like W3C which is an industry non-profit and a legitimate page versus a contextual link farm

Link farms by their example in the Google guidelines are not kosher... if a link farm/spammy anything is selling links it is co-incidental and a secondary issue... obviously they shouldn't be treated exactly the same as the W3c.

[Terry Van Horne]

sorry repeat post

[AVC]

Terry, I understand you are doing your best to navigate though the new reality, you do list many directories on your website so you must also understand that many of us may think you are a bit bias toward favoring the directory industry in some of your statements.

But I do think that you are a man of integrity based on your posts here, maybe not perfect, no one out here is, we have all done a few things that would not be considered kosher in the new environment, but it is up to us to make changes to fight spam on the web or we ourselves will be considered spammers.