Internal and external links and the rel="nofollow" attribute

[kgun]

1. Background.

It is by now fairly well know that webmasters shall put the rel="nofollow" attribute on links that they do not want to pass pagerank to like sold links. (Link brokerage is still an industry).

2. rel="nofollow" on all external links.

Why not handle all links the same and put rel="nofollow" on all? Or alternatively, only follow stable semantic external links. That is, you divide the external links in two subsets.

• One that you regard as stable and semantic and are followed. Example: Central bank websites.
• One that you are more uncertain about and that are nofollowed.

3. rel="nofollow" on some internal or intra site / mininet links. Follow all semantic intra navigation links.

Is that an other possibility? In other words, you only pass pagerankt to internal semantic links, since those are the only links under your control.

4. Conclusion.

How will Google especially and other search engines generally treat the following link model.

1. All external links carry the rel="nofollow" attribute.
2. Only intra site / mininet links are followed.

Alternative link model:

1. All external links exept a stable semantic subset carry the rel="nofollow" attribute.
2. Only intra site / mininet links are followed.

Related WPW thread: Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

Related information:

<cite>
Question: I have reported sites that clearly have paid links (e.g. the backlink page says "Advertising" above the link), but Google does not seem to take action. Why would that be the case? These are .orgs who are clearly selling their .org juice.

Google’s Answer: While paid links and spam reports are being taken very seriously by Google, the results may not be seen immediately for users or even not at all. This does not mean no action is being taken on the offending sites. Also, the TLD of the sites should not be a factor being taken into account. For this reason reporting both, web spam and PageRank passing link selling makes sense and contributes in an important way to the quality of Google's index.

Translation, partly based on .gov/.edu response: Google treats all top level domains the same, so a .org would have no more juice than a .com or .info. Further, clearly marked paid links (ones on pages labeled “Advertising”) are not necessarily violations of Google’s guidelines. If the links you reported were found to be nofollow links, then no action would be necessary. But keep trying to sabotage the competition. Business is war.

Question: Is it true that the fewer the links FROM your website, the more influence they have on the sites receiving those links?

Google’s Answer: PageRank is split up over the links from a page, but I would recommend not concentrating on this (as you won't be able to "measure" and act upon it anyway) and instead making your site as usable as possible for your visitors.

Translation: Yes, the more you link the more the link juice passed on is diluted, but don’t go trying to figure out the formula in order to game the system. We’ll figure you out. We’re Google.
</cite>
Source: Google answers some tricky questions.

[chandrika]

Originally Posted by kgun

We’ll figure you out. We’re Google.

If only Google had added the line..."Resistance is futile".... they may have got a part in the next star trek movie!

[kgun]

Yes, and

Originally Posted by kgun

Business is war.

and I am kgun

Use Google translate to translate my site DigitalStart, hvor du starter ditt søk eller din surfing på nettet. (note the footer of that site) and read how Norwegian government are improving web security by introducing MinID, that IMO is a more secure model than OpenID.

If online security is done correctly, it can be more secure than traditional offline security.

Related thread: Cisco 2008 annual security report::: The invisible hacker.

My next buy is a new laptop with no connection to the internet

[Dubbya]

Originally Posted by chandrika

If only Google had added the line..."Resistance is futile"

[newsblaze]

If all outgoing links had rel="nofollow" that would destroy the value of links in google's algorithm.
If you set all your outgoing links to nofollow, then why would anyone ever trade links with you, unless they were your friends, wanting to help you, but not wanting any help back. (as far as google search is concerned)
If all outgoing links, on all websites were set to nofollow, the PageRank system would disappear.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by newsblaze

If all outgoing links had rel="nofollow" that would destroy the value of links in google's algorithm.

You think that the anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine still constitute the heart of the SE.

Originally Posted by newsblaze

If you set all your outgoing links to nofollow, then why would anyone ever trade links with you, unless they were your friends, wanting to help you, but not wanting any help back. (as far as google search is concerned)

Did you read the posts in the links behind my first post?

Originally Posted by newsblaze

If all outgoing links, on all websites were set to nofollow, the PageRank system would disappear.

Would you miss it?

To fully understand my post you have to thoroughly read at least this Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness. thread.

[SemAdvance]

Originally Posted by kgun

<cite>
Question: I have reported sites that clearly have paid links (e.g. the backlink page says "Advertising" above the link), but Google does not seem to take action. Why would that be the case? These are .orgs who are clearly selling their .org juice.

Actually it would be impossible for an algorithm to determine the intent of the link seller so therefore impossible to regulate algorithmically.

Text Link As is still a PR6 last I checked and Google has known for a while they sell links. (they were a 6 but are now a 7)

I personally never use the attribute and notice no change in PR or ranking results.

So much for falling in line with what a silly SE wants....

;->

Remember Google is the worlds largest purveyor of propaganda man has ever known....the US Government could take a lesson from Google, and they spew a ton themselves.....

[kgun]

Originally Posted by SemAdvance

Actually it would be impossible for an algorithm to determine the intent of the link seller so therefore impossible to regulate algorithmically.

That has always been my point, too.

Originally Posted by SemAdvance

Remember Google is the worlds largest purveyor of propaganda man has ever known....the US Government could take a lesson from Google, and they spew a ton themselves.....

I have personally upgraded Yahoo my first favourite SE. I prefer to be earnest, not consciously being evil.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by kgun

Question: I have reported sites that clearly have paid links (e.g. the backlink page says "Advertising" above the link), but Google does not seem to take action. Why would that be the case? These are .orgs who are clearly selling their .org juice.

Clearly? Why because they charge membership fees and label ads so users know that they are not written by the org? Trying to determine others intent is unfair. Also look at the FCC decisions regarding labeling ads around results and pages with results. That stuff has to be labelled as advertising unless the ORG writes it. I believe Matt has mentioned the FCC decisions as one of the reasons paid blogging is a problem. So it may be that the Ad label is a positive not a negative.

[jawn_tech]

They (Google) say that Yahoo now supposedly joined in the borg collective to adhere to nofollow.

Yet, when doing a Yahoo backlink search, the results still show links to a site that come from a nofollow link.

Without knowing Yahoo's algorithmic nature of crawling, indexing and ranking very well, it brings up the question of exactly HOW google and others follow the nofollow rule. Clearly in Yahoo's case, a nofollow could merely diminsish the ranking value, but not stop the flow of spidering and indexing.

My question is, does Google adhere to nofollow the same way? Because they rubberstamped Yahoo as being one of the SE's that "supports the initiative". And by saying that, they're essentially saying that whatever Yahoo's method is, it's fulfilling their purpose of nofollow.

[Webnauts]

I strictly do not use the "nofollow" attribute and I will never do. I use an technique that does not pass PR to an external site, but it is not the best semantical linking option. Also not the best accessibility option.

For example look at this link: Webnauts | Drupal Association

Now, I decided to replace this technique with microformats, which all SE began supporting them at a certain extent.

I am planning now to use the following:

For linking to relevant authority resources: rev="vote-for".

For linking to other resources: rev="vote-abstain".

For affiliate links: rev="vote-against".

I was using them last year and for a very long time, and I never experienced any problems.

Do you see any problems with this option?

[Webnauts]

I strictly do not use the "nofollow" attribute. I use an technique that does not pass PR to an external site, but it is not the best semantical linking option.

For example look at this link: http://www.seoworkers.com/locate/m/drupal
Now, I decided to replace this technique with microformats, which all SE began supporting them at a certain extent.

I am planning now to use the following:

For linking to relevant authority resources: rev="vote-for".

For linking to other resources: rev="vote-abstain".

For affiliate links: rev="vote-against".

I was using them last year and for a very long time, and I never experienced any problems.

Do you see any problems with this option?

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

My question is, does Google adhere to nofollow the same way? Because they rubberstamped Yahoo as being one of the SE's that "supports the initiative". And by saying that, they're essentially saying that whatever Yahoo's method is, it's fulfilling their purpose of nofollow.

True, however the article you linked to is for blog comment spam not paid links, I believe Yahoo! has not accepted rel= for paid links. IMO, they get it's up to the author not a SE to decide when that is used.

[kgun]

Thank you for exellent feedback.

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

They (Google) say that Yahoo now supposedly joined in the borg collective to adhere to nofollow.

Yet, when doing a Yahoo backlink search, the results still show links to a site that come from a nofollow link.

My bolding. Interesting observation.

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

Without knowing Yahoo's algorithmic nature of crawling, indexing and ranking very well, it brings up the question of exactly HOW google and others follow the nofollow rule. Clearly in Yahoo's case, a nofollow could merely diminsish the ranking value, but not stop the flow of spidering and indexing.

My bolding. Very interesting.

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

My question is, does Google adhere to nofollow the same way? Because they rubberstamped Yahoo as being one of the SE's that "supports the initiative". And by saying that, they're essentially saying that whatever Yahoo's method is, it's fulfilling their purpose of nofollow.

Confusing rules reminds me of the fact that confused customers seldom buy. So should we as webmasters buy the SE's steadily changed rules / standards and lack of standards?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I strictly do not use the "nofollow" attribute and I will never do. I use an technique that does not pass PR to an external site, but it is not the best semantical linking option. Also not the best accessibility option.

Never say never Closed doors can be difficult to reopen.

John that means that you agree with me on the point that you shall not pass pagerank to an external site. May be that is what Yahoo does wit the rel="nofollow" attribute. See above.

Semantic linking is my main issue and I thought you were WPW's accessibility guru.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Now, I decided to replace this technique with microformats, which all SE began supporting them at a certain extent.

I am planning now to use the following:

For linking to relevant authority resources: rev="vote-for".

For linking to other resources: rev="vote-abstain".

For affiliate links: rev="vote-against".

I was using them last year and for a very long time, and I never experienced any problems.

Do you see any problems with this option?

I think that is very interesting and I can not personally see any problem with that solution. I can not answer for the SE's. It may also be more in line with my thought on advanced semantic linking (that post is still #1 on Google for that search term). But, that model may be some years into the future. It will be very interesting to see how future browsers will handle XLink, XPointer and the other X(ML)-technologies.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

True, however the article you linked to is for blog comment spam not paid links, I believe Yahoo! has not accepted rel= for paid links.

Interesting. Do your have further information?

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

IMO, they get it's up to the author not a SE to decide when that is used.

Good point. The client / webmaster is the boss.

[Terry Van Horne]

Kgun, on the Yahoo! not backing rel= for paid, I am remembering reading that and at the time I remember thinking that they seem to be, IMO, more trusting of webmasters. Earlier in my carreer I was a regular at Html Writers Guild, Yahoo! founders were on the list. Googlers came along after we'd blown that trust!

[kgun]

Yahoo has always been my favorite SE on financial information. We used it before we have heard about Google. Now Google concentrates on green technologies developing their own chrome browser and space exploration.

A professional financial advisor would lift his eyebrows.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by xuchunfeng1984

i think google consider " no follow " as well but not enough.

Is that true?

OK. Now another question for all in the thread. If the "nofollow" is an appropriate solution, how does Yahoo deal with it?

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Is that true?

OK. Now another question for all in the thread. If the "nofollow" is an appropriate solution, how does Yahoo deal with it?

I think they "dofollow" it, spider it, index it, but not rank it.

[getmea]

I never thought about using the "no follow" setting in my sites. In the case of a related site with link backs to my site, I guess it would be ok to omit the "no follow" setting. But what about news articles related to my site content? Obviously, they are not linking back to me...I merely offer some news on the skateboard industry as a way to keep the visitor informed as well as to include keywords, etc...

[kgun]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

I think they "dofollow" it, spider it, index it, but not rank it.

Very interesting even if it may seem a bit contradictory.

Now I am more confused on this attribute than ever. To sum up as I understand it:

• Google do not follow the link and urge you to use it on (ad) links that shall not pass pagerank.
• Yahoo follow it, index it but don't rank it.
• There is aslo a third important SE, msn (Live). What are their policy?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

• There is aslo a third important SE, msn (Live). What are their policy?

Will indicate to their crawler that it is not necessarily approved by the page and shouldn’t be followed nor contribute weight for ranking.

[deepsand]

To the best of my knowledge, Google never said that "nofollow" was intended to have any effect re. indexing.

To quote from Official Google Blog: Preventing comment spam , "when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results."

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

To the best of my knowledge, Google never said that "nofollow" was intended to have any effect re. indexing.

To quote from Official Google Blog: Preventing comment spam , "when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results."

I think this clarifies everything: Matt Cutts Interviewed by Eric Enge on September 24, 2007

[deepsand]

To the contrary, it muddies the waters, owing to the fact that neither Eric nor Matt speak with the necessary precision. Even when Eric does ask a precise question, he allows Matt to get by with imprecise responses.

Example:

Eric Enge: Can a NoIndex page accumulate PageRank?
Matt Cutts: A NoIndex page can accumulate PageRank, because the links are still followed outwards from a NoIndex page.


Huh? A page accumulates PR owing to outbound links?



Matt needs to take a refresher course in the English language.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

To the contrary, it muddies the waters, owing to the fact that neither Eric nor Matt speak with the necessary precision. Even when Eric does ask a precise question, he allows Matt to get by with imprecise responses.

Example:

Eric Enge: Can a NoIndex page accumulate PageRank?
Matt Cutts: A NoIndex page can accumulate PageRank, because the links are still followed outwards from a NoIndex page.

I think you did not understand.

If you have a page with these tags/rules <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> or <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />, the page will not be indexed, but the links will be followed. And a non-indexed page still can accumulate PR, if it receives juice from other internal or external links.

[kgun]

My personal opinion.

Google have with thier foccus on the rel="nofollow" attribute on links made big problems for serious publishers while I am sure that those who sell links behind the scene laugh on their way to the bank.

A better advertising model for professional publishers:

Pay per static brand link a better solution for professional publishers

This is not economic war, but (hopefully fair) competition.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I think you did not understand.

If you have a page with these tags/rules <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> or <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />, the page will not be indexed, but the links will be followed. And a non-indexed page still can accumulate PR, if it receives juice from other internal or external links.

But, that is not what Matt said!

He said " A NoIndex page can accumulate PageRank, because the links are still followed outwards from a NoIndex page."

Hence my observations re. lack of necessary precision.

Sloppy speech/writing makes for misunderstanding.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

But, that is not what Matt said!

Well then I say that.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And a non-indexed page still can accumulate PR, if it receives juice from other internal or external links.

A question on this. we all know this is the stated postion, but i have always assumed this meant real PR, not toolbar?

well apparently it's toolbar as well as we have lots of non-indexed tag pages showing toolbar PR on various blogs.

anyone else seen this?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kevsta

A question on this. we all know this is the stated postion, but i have always assumed this meant real PR, not toolbar?

That is correct. And once again: When I talk about PageRank, I never mean the toolbar.

Originally Posted by kevsta

well apparently it's toolbar as well as we have lots of non-indexed tag pages showing toolbar PR on various blogs.

anyone else seen this?

That is what I met above buddy.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Well then I say that.

I'll be advising Matt to speak with you re. getting his "facts" straight!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kevsta

A question on this. we all know this is the stated postion, but i have always assumed this meant real PR, not toolbar?

Toolbar PR is real PR; it's just not constantly updated.

Originally Posted by kevsta

well apparently it's toolbar as well as we have lots of non-indexed tag pages showing toolbar PR on various blogs.

If you're seeing a non-zero Toolbar PR for a page, then that page is indexed. Toolbar PR is not determined on-the-fly, but is stored data, based on a previous instance of that page having been indexed.

That a page is not displayed in the SERPs does not mean that it has not been indexed.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

I'll be advising Matt to speak with you re. getting his "facts" straight!

I will appreciate that very much. I have enough to bitch about if that happens.

[shakir]

At the beginning Google considering all the link and meta tag etc. But on that time too much spammers did many things and make unnecessary links and found many spammers in the forums. But after put nofollow was quit OK and getting naturel links and also many forums escaped from killers. Also they sto considering metatag, many site found list of keywords say moteth 100 in the metatag and also my self I put all my key word in the meta tag.So on searching getting un related sites and information. Now Google forcing to put nature links and also distribute keyword in the content, so can get good quality site search

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by shakir

At the beginning Google considering all the link and meta tag etc. But on that time too much spammers did many things and make unnecessary links and found many spammers in the forums. But after put nofollow was quit OK and getting naturel links and also many forums escaped from killers. Also they sto considering metatag, many site found list of keywords say moteth 100 in the metatag and also my self I put all my key word in the meta tag.So on searching getting un related sites and information. Now Google forcing to put nature links and also distribute keyword in the content, so can get good quality site search

Notice: I am not sure if I understand! If I did not, can someone translate the post?

So, the topic is about "Internal and external links and the rel="nofollow" attribute".

Who is talking about meta tags, natural links and keywords distribution within the pages content?

About your comment:

Also they sto considering metatag, many site found list of keywords say moteth 100 in the metatag and also my self I put all my key word in the meta tag.

Do you think that someone in this thread would click on your sites links in your signature to see what you are doing with your meta tags? I honestly don't believe so.

Please be so kind and stop going off-topic. You did that already in other threads and it is getting very annoying.

Thanks.

[weegillis]

There are enough mysteries, puzzles and dilemmas come down the pike each day to take up my time, so this one,

rel="nofollow", What do the other SE's do to filter paid links?

has rather slipped under the radar.

This question goes to the OP, I believe, in that it illustrates the tangle of algorithms in use by G and the #2, #3, #4, .. search engines, and their individual basis for awarding top position in serps. PR is just one vegetable in a complete garden variety soup.

That G asks developers to flag paid links is a complete inconvenience for the 'straight sites' goes without saying. On a small scale it was not hard to accommodate but it was still an inconvenience, and another task on a typically crowded plate.

The larger question has to be, is all this effort on the part of developers proving to be successful for G to combat whatever it is they are combating? If not, then we're all wasting our time.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by weegillis

This question goes to the OP, I believe, in that it illustrates the tangle of algorithms in use by G and the #2, #3, #4, .. search engines, and their individual basis for awarding top position in serps. PR is just one vegetable in a complete garden variety soup.

The thread is posted in the Google subforum.

Originally Posted by weegillis

That G asks developers to flag paid links is a complete inconvenience for the 'straight sites' goes without saying. On a small scale it was not hard to accommodate but it was still an inconvenience, and another task on a typically crowded plate.

PageRank and inverting the web's linkmatrix are related to the Google SE. Consitency is important. Google's overall goal should be to make their organic results as semantic as possible. But then the broader question arises. If semantics are related to PageRank, what about submitting? A professor not submitting his articles and posts may be drowned in Google's index compared to a student or a copycat that is a clever submitter.

Originally Posted by weegillis

The larger question has to be, is all this effort on the part of developers proving to be successful for G to combat whatever it is they are combating? If not, then we're all wasting our time.

As long as a semantic SE is their goal, yes. The problem is that IMO they should be very careful with guidelines and rules that may hurt the serious / prefessional content provider more than the unserious / unprofessional. I stand by my point that paid links are sold behind the scene without a rel="nofollow" attribute on the links.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So, the topic is about "Internal and external links and the rel="nofollow" attribute".

Yes that is correct.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by kgun

4. Conclusion.

How will Google especially and other search engines generally treat the following link model.

1. All external links carry the rel="nofollow" attribute.
2. Only intra site / mininet links are followed.

Alternative link model:

1. All external links exept a stable semantic subset carry the rel="nofollow" attribute.
2. Only intra site / mininet links are followed.

Related WPW thread: Links::: Life or death of your eBusiness.

As a link collector I more and more think this is a final conclusion that Google will like.

1. Put the rel="nofollow" attribute on all sold links.
2. Put the rel="nofollow" attribute on links that you are unsure about and will not vote for now.
3. Put the rel="nofollow" attribute on all non-semantic links. Generally the same as the preceeding point.
4. Follow your internal navigational semantic links.
5. You shall be careful with changing (sometimes encrypted) affiliate links, so include them within a <div id="advert"> Links here </div> tag.

Alternatively:
Don't care about the rel="nofollow" attribute at all. Leave it to the SE algorithm to figure out the relevance of the link strucuture.

[Webnauts]

Back to the alternative I mentioned above (microformats), I asked the employee of Google Neil Fraser:

Would you use instead of the "nofollow" attribute the microformat attribute "vote-against"?

His answer was:

Implementing this suggestion would quickly prove that Hell hath no fury like the Blogosphere scorned.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

As a link collector I more and more think this is a final conclusion that Google will like.

1. Put the rel="nofollow" attribute on all sold links.
2. Put the rel="nofollow" attribute on links that you are unsure about and will not vote for now.
3. Put the rel="nofollow" attribute on all non-semantic links. Generally the same as the preceeding point.
4. Follow your internal navigational semantic links.
5. You shall be careful with changing (sometimes encrypted) affiliate links, so include them within a <div id="advert"> Links here </div> tag.

Alternatively:
Don't care about the rel="nofollow" attribute at all. Leave it to the SE algorithm to figure out the relevance of the link strucuture.

Excellent Kgun. I use <div class="ads"> and in addition I use rev="vote-against". In other cases where I am unsure, I use rev="vote-abstain".

How about that?

[kgun]

Microformats may be the best and most flexible solution. Is it ahead of time?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

Microformats may be the best and most flexible solution. Is it ahead of time?

Let me ask you this? Is XHTML+RDFa Markup a head of time? My web site is already coded with that doctype. Are microformats a head of time? Google and others support hcards. Look at Yahoo Seamonkey.

How do the SE perceive all that? My success speak for itself. Instead of having problems, I am moving very strong ahead.

[kgun]

So Google's foccus on the rel="nofollow" attribute is a blind track?

John sum up your conclusions for this thread. I have summed up mine above.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kgun

So Google's foccus on the rel="nofollow" attribute is a blind track?

John sum up your conclusions for this thread. I have summed up mine above.

I think I am not ready yet.

Question: What happens if you can disallow Google to crawling a link? Will PR be passed? No!
So what about this? Googlebot: Keep out!

[Terry Van Horne]

1. rel= is in the html specification and Google has chosen to use it for their own devices. The specification says it is to show the authors trust in a resource. IMO, That should be a webmasters first priority or you are building pages for SE's not users. That was in Googles guidelines but I guess they should add "unless we tell you otherwise".
2. What the heck is a paid link because it isn't just about a transfer of benefits or paid memebers of ORG sites that include reviewed links wouldn't still be passing juice. I can show you a whole bunch of those, most are labelled as sponsors or advertising.
3.The W3c chose to use the meta index,nofollow rather than the rel= as an attribute of the link element to prevent passing juice from it's sponsor page. IMO, that says a lot about rel= future as an attribute of the href element in the html spec.

IMO, the W3C should not have used either unless it doesn't trust its sponsors which IMO, makes this action and their motives seem even seedier than when it was doing nothing. I think it was the use of the page as an example of a "paid link" passing juice, just one example of the fanatics that are pointing fingers. That makes that program a resource for the "everything ranked above me is spam" crew! If you ask the W3C I'll bet my left nut they will say that is an acknowledgement of a donation not paid links/advertising. IMO, they took the easy way out and did nothing but confuse the issue further.

I also believe this discussion should differentiate the use of rel="nofollow" for "paid links" and user generated content/blog comments because AFAIK, all engines supported the use of rel="nofollow" for user generated content and blog comments. That was it's original "intended use" as described in the announcement in 2007 which is linked to and referred to often in this discussion. That puts the webmaster in control and that is how it should be implemented.

It wasn't until 2008 that Google started the rat program and FUD campaign demanding it be used for paid links... but... what is paid? That is about as transparent as the balance sheet of a US Investment bank? IMO, it was meant to be that way so it is open for G to do whatever it pleases. I don't have a problem with their request or punishment as that is their right as the owner of the resource. I can choose to give 'em a one finger salute and use it how it was intended ie: as an indication of the authors trust in the link. Paid is all about intent and only the author knows their intent no matter what some of the rat program "mind readers" believe.

IMO, There are also FTC issues with paid links that aren't labelled as paid or include disclaimers about the links. That I'm sure is a consideration when Google determines what is paid. That was one of the reasons for Google slapping blogs using a Blog network to sell blog links. It was a rather foolish endeavor given the FTC rulings on labelling advertising when SE's started their Ad networks to monetize their results. It also was monetizing "risky" techniques though Google has no problem allowing the paid link brokers to advertise on the content network. A prime example of the hypocricy that that has begun to ooze from the GooglePlex where "do no evil" seemingly includes any action that protects their bottom line.

Oh yeah... we should also include that the "paid links" clampdown is also responsible for Blackhats exploiting the algo to facilitate negative SEO. Nothing like releasing that genie form the bottle. Now anyone who believes IBLs can't hurt you are just sticking their heads in the sand and hoping Google can get the genie back into the bottle.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

1. rel= is in the html specification and Google has chosen to use it for their own devices. The specification says it is to show the authors trust in a resource. IMO, That should be a webmasters first priority or you are building pages for SE's not users. That was in Googles guidelines but I guess they should add "unless we tell you otherwise".

The rel= is a html specification Basic HTML data types but the "nofollow" attribute not. This attribute was designed by Google’s head of webspam team Matt Cutts and Jason Shellen from Blogger.com in 2005. Just to avoid any misunderstandings.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

2. What the heck is a paid link because it isn't just about a transfer of benefits or paid memebers of ORG sites that include reviewed links wouldn't still be passing juice. I can show you a whole bunch of those, most are labelled as sponsors or advertising.

Can you please provide us a couple here so we can have a look?

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

3.The W3c chose to use the meta index,nofollow rather than the rel= as an attribute of the link element to prevent passing juice from it's sponsor page. IMO, that says a lot about rel= future as an attribute of the href element in the html spec.

Again incorrect. According the W3C specs <META name="ROBOTS" content="NOFOLLOW"> means that a robot should not analyze a document for links, and not for preventing passing PR juice: Performance, Implementation, and Design Notes

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

IMO, the W3C should not have used either unless it doesn't trust its sponsors which IMO, makes this action and their motives seem even seedier than when it was doing nothing. I think it was the use of the page as an example of a "paid link" passing juice, just one example of the fanatics that are pointing fingers. That makes that program a resource for the "everything ranked above me is spam" crew! If you ask the W3C I'll bet my left nut they will say that is an acknowledgement of a donation not paid links/advertising. IMO, they took the easy way out and did nothing but confuse the issue further.

Well said. In my eyes, W3C screwed up there. If the W3C would have proposed something and something else wasimplemented then there is reason to criticize if the proposal was any good. That said, even if I am a Web Standards Advocate, I am not against the implementation of the nofollow attribute because it is not a W3C standard. I already metioned many times what is my problem with it, so I will not mention here again.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I also believe this discussion should differentiate the use of rel="nofollow" for "paid links" and user generated content/blog comments because AFAIK, all engines supported the use of rel="nofollow" for user generated content and blog comments. That was it's original "intended use" as described in the announcement in 2007 which is linked to and referred to often in this discussion. That puts the webmaster in control and that is how it should be implemented.

I agree. My opinion about how to deal with paid links, blog comments, etc, I expressed in a previous post of mine in the thread. Using Microformats.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Oh yeah... we should also include that the "paid links" clampdown is also responsible for Blackhats exploiting the algo to facilitate negative SEO.

I fully agree.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Nothing like releasing that genie form the bottle. Now anyone who believes IBLs can't hurt you are just sticking their heads in the sand and hoping Google can get the genie back into the bottle.

Can you explain what you do mean exactly with IBLs hurting?

[weegillis]

Oh s--t! I don't trust my own site! All this time I've been using 'nofollow' on my own link to as much as say, don't waste your time, I haven't had time to do anything here since July.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Oh s--t! I don't trust my own site!

That was a good one!

[weegillis]

From a DB perspective, the rel= implementation is really only a matter of a tweaking a few templates. But what about the poor sod like me who's built countless static html pages on god knows how many sites? If all those footer links are faulty then my a-- is grass... They can't possibly all be repaired.

Remember the old (new) adage: old websites never die, they just get abandoned.

Gawd if we could just have SOME way to do things consistently, at least for just a while!