New NoFollow Link Tag Introduced

[bhartzer]

This is big news for the search engine industry, and it's important that search engine optimizers and website owners take notice.

Google has introduced a new link tag, and it's ultimately designed to tell the search engines to ignore the link when it comes to calculating their algorithm. This new link tag is called rel="nofollow" and it can be added to any typical href link. By adding the tag to a link on your site, you're telling the search engines to ignore it. According to Google, "From now on, when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results."

Yahoo!, MSN Search, and other search engines are taking Google's lead and beginning to recognize this new link tag called the (rel="nofollow") tag.

This new (rel="nofollow") tag, though, may begin to be used on many other sites--you can begin using it immediately, in fact.

Some website directory owners might consider adding links to their directory but only removing the (rel="nofollow") tag if the link submitter pays them to remove the (rel="nofollow") tag.

Google recently commented on the issue, "We think any piece of software that allows others to add links to an author's site (including guestbooks, visitor stats, or referrer lists) can use this attribute. We're working primarily with blog software makers for now because blogs are such a common target."

According to Ken Moss, the General Manger of MSN Search Dev & Test, "Any link with this tag will indicate to a crawler it is not necessarily approved by this page and shouldn’t be followed nor contribute weight for ranking...Over the coming weeks, our MSNBot crawler will start respecting this new tag, and sometime after that MSN Spaces will start to support this as well."

What do you think? Are you going to begin adding this tag to the links on your site?

[AndrewX]

Very interesting.

If this lessens referrer log spam eventually, then I'm all for it. Sometimes my logs are so full of fake medicine and gambling spam entries, they become worthless to me. My logs are private, so it doesn't actually help the spammers in my case, but maybe if ref spam stopped working in general...

The only thing that concerns me is this will be another tool used by naughty link traders to cheat. Ah well, checking the code was already necessary to check for other forms of cheatin'. At least this is relatively obvious.

[mlmleads]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Very interesting.

If this lessens referrer log spam eventually, then I'm all for it. Sometimes my logs are so full of fake medicine and gambling spam entries, they become worthless to me. My logs are private, so it doesn't actually help the spammers in my case, but maybe if ref spam stopped working in general...

The only thing that concerns me is this will be another tool used by naughty link traders to cheat. Ah well, checking the code was already necessary to check for other forms of cheatin'. At least this is relatively obvious.

I think it is good for stopping blog spam. However it does have the side effect of allowing link traders to cheat their partners by positng the link and the code. It looks to any software that the link is there but the search engine will ignore it.

[jackit_chick]

I've been using that tag on my robot tag ...
<meta name="robots" content="index, nofollow">
for months now. I usually use no follow because a lot of my pages link to the shopping cart. You don't need a shopping cart crawled. If you want your links followed like from page to page you type follow. Typing noindex though, that means that that page won't show up on google, that's the one you wanta be careful about!
So I've used the nofollow or follow tag for months now, so I'm not sure how not having one will effect your page. It's better to be safe than sorry though, so I recommend using it. I like it.
Jennifer

[jawn_tech]

I hope forums (*ahem*) don't consider using it... I can understand guestbooks, etc. Those make sense. Forums however are of a slightly different nature. We have mods to keep tabs on spam, and for the most part, the good membership as a whole knows the rules. It's a community where links are posted for good reason, and imo, by all means search engines, go ahead and follow them.

[deltatrend]

I am interested if this will allow me to set up crosslinks to the sites I design so that only one link gets recognized, and the other is not counted as a crosslink.

For example, I set up a link on my site to a new site I created, to lend it some page ranking. On the new site, I only want a link back to me for publicity purposes, and I don't want a cross-link penalty.

Or the opposite. I have a new client with nice PR. I want them to link to me for that. I would also link to them out of courtesy, but I don't want that counted as a cross-link, and therefore nullified. So, can I use the rel="nofollow"?

[xmx]

the "nofollow" tag used in the <head> of html documents is very old and I think also already quite popular.

The introduction of a similar tag to be added directly to the links of a document can become a very useful tool also in my opinion.

[xmx]

the "nofollow" tag used in the <head> of html documents is very old and I think also already quite popular.

The introduction of a similar tag to be added directly to the links of a document can become a very useful tool also in my opinion.

[ticketauction]

useful how?


Also most software will probably update itself to look for these...

[andy206uk]

I don't want to be picky guys... but there is no such thing as a "nofollow tag". What you are refering to is an attribute of the <a> tag.

"a" is the tag
"rel" is the attribute
"nofollow" is the value

Sorry to point this out but it drives me nuts when I get customers on the phone talking about things like "alt tags". Just doing my bit to help educate the masses ;)

[zbatia]

I personally had no need in this option. Usually, if the page is related to payments or internal matter, there is no need to index it (I mean entire page with all the links). So, I use:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow">
It's quite simple.

The attribute "nofollow" is a useful addition if you want your page to be crawled, and, at the same time, you want to exclude some URLs from being crawled. Some folks mentioned its usefulness for preventing cross-linking. I'll take this into consideration.

[greeneagle]

Guess I am just a "stick in the mud"... as far as I am concerned, unless there is something I am unaware of... it's a completely useless tool. Why the heck would anyone link anything useless anyway?

Indemnified efforts from the start..... What is the value here?

Why mess with this door when we are trying to digest what seems to be increased value in OBLs in the last update

Just my opinion!

Ken

[rivux]

Its useful to stop links from blog comments and other areas where you have zero control over the links that are being posted. Like say a forum or a blog or a news article which allows comments. You can specify a tag as nofollow and google will take it as a link that isn't 'approved' or 'endorsed' by the page its on. It makes perfect sense and has a lot of uses.

[greeneagle]

Trash is Trash - They are all introducing AI and detecting real value, blogs or not! Just don't see the use or value therein ..at all!

Ken

[rivux]

I disagree with the trash comment. I think anytime you can tell a Search Engine what you endorse on your page and what you don't its a positive. If I allow my users to post comments on the website, it would be great to tell Search Engines that the comment links aren't mine while other links are mine. For 1 it increases the value of the links you do have control over while at the same time not giving value to the links you dont have control over.

If you have an issue with a segment of the internet then thats fine, but that shouldnt cloud your judgement on a tool that can be rather valuable when used correctly.

[greeneagle]

rivux:

"I disagree with the trash comment. I think anytime you can tell a Search Engine what you endorse on your page and what you don't its a positive."

Let me know if I am being over critical...but please let me also know how that view distinguishes any "perp" (within the bounds you prescribed) from a "Spammer" in an "AI" driven Search Engine eye (algorithm))?

They are continually refining the defininition of "TRASH"... Right?

What, is your assessment of the the last update then?

Ken

[kservik]

Can you give me an example on how to write the tag?

[magic_majax]

Unless it's valid mark-up I won't use it.

If a link is not worth a robot following what's the logic in encouraging a human to do so?

I can see its purpose with a shopping-cart page but surely it would be simpler to keep validity and use "noindex" on the shopping cart page instead?

[greeneagle]

magic majax:

Unless it's valid mark-up I won't use it.

Can I interject an AMEN, there!

Ken

[andy206uk]

It *IS* valid mark-up.

Here's proof.

You guys might not be excited about this, but it's very useful to bloggers who get inundated with comment spam. By removing the value of the links they make the whole thing a waste of time for the comment spammers.

[greeneagle]

andy206UK

"Strict" is as tough as a "PR6"...

What are you saying?

Ken

[andy206uk]

kservik... the code goes like this:

Link

[greeneagle]

andy206uk

You only have 1 validation fault on your home page, just a simple "alt" tag - fix it!

Ken

[andy206uk]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

magic majax:

Can I interject an AMEN, there!

Ken

It seemed to me like you were implying that it wasn't valid html. It is.

Also... there's nothing tough about strict as long as you are starting with a fresh site. Making a website with old content strict is a real bitch... but a new one is easy enough.

[greeneagle]

congrats andy206uk

Ken

[magic_majax]

Right, cheers, I did believe it wasn't valid, I've never seen that attribute used anywhere before.

It still seems more efficient to simply use "follow,index" once and then "noindex" on a shopping cart page.

The only conceivable use I think of this is "flaming" external hyperlinks - and since you can't control the content of the destination page these are generally unwise.

[andy206uk]

congrats for what?

[magic_majax]

Originally Posted by andy206uk

congrats for what?

For knowing the HTML specs I guess. Cheers means thanks, thanks for telling me it's valid HTML, I assumed it wasn't. I won't ever use it though, I never make bad links. If it's not fit for a robot then why send humans there?

It's just going to cause bloated complicated code, it's better to use "follow,index" on all pages in meta by default and qualify shopping carts, etc., as "noindex".

Pick outbound links that have a good PR or listing.

I guess if search engines become more "theme-fussy" and the page contains info that you need but is superficially off-topic it could serve a purpose. That's a bit of a strange scenario and it would still probably be better to create a specific "quote page" that's "index,nofollow" with a courtesy link upon it.

[andy206uk]

Sorry... That was meant for Ken ;)

I agree that it creates extra code but the thing is typically on a comments page you have a link back to the posters website on their name which is fine. Afterall if they made the effort to post a useful comment they desrve it, but it prevents people posting lots of links in the comment body and gaining benefit from it.

You see, typically comment spammers target really old posts and by doing that you can often miss that they've been added. This way, it doesn't matter how many links they post they don't get any benefit from it.

Anyway... no-one say's you have to use it! ;o)

[28overpar]

There was a comment earlier in the thread that if it wasn't a link that was good enough to be followed by a search engine, then why would a user follow it.

Although, in a perfect world, this makes a lot of sense, unfortunately, it's not that simple.

Search engine spiders and algorithms are programmed to make a decision on the importance of a page based on a number of various criteria.

They are not human.

I can see a use of this sort of html code in order to add some uniformity to a set of similar pages on a site with respect to the number of inbound/outbound links on a page - which I do feel is relevant in search engine rankings.

As an example, let's say a Soccer site for fans has a page for every team in the League. On each page there is the same sort of information - Club address, team list etc and listings of Cup successes.

Every Cup Success Link, links to either an internal or external page of the match report for that game.

Clubs with a history of great cup runs are going to have potentially hundreds of links more than a non-League side.

All things being equal - number of links on a page are taken into account in ranking a page. So, if I can find a range of number of links on a page on my site that does very well, and I know that too many or too little links have an adverse effect on my page - I can dictate what the spiders see.

OK, it's not as clear cut as this, as it would depend on competition to the keywords used on the page, but this "nofollow" code would allow a set number of links to be spiderable on every page - but, more importantly, you would still be able to show ALL of the information to the user.

A long winded analogy perhaps, but I hope you can see what I mean.

28overpar

[rivux]

Originally Posted by magic_majax

Pick outbound links that have a good PR or listing.

It isn't for links that YOU add, its for links that get added to your site that you don't have control over. Like blog and article comments, or forums or any number of other user entered data that you don't control. You could use it for your own links if ya feel like it, but that isn't the thought process behind the attribute.

This isn't rocket science but yet it seems people miss the point of it. If you don't have user entered content on your site then don't worry about the attribute, just forgot that it ever exists. But if you run a blog or a news site then its a really good development and will be extremely useful. There is no law that says everyone has to use it, so if ya don't need it, then don't use it.

[magic_majax]

I understand the logic behind overpar's post, sort of, but any relevence to a specific team would get a bit swamped in the content anyway, regardless of outbound links.

For rivux, HTML isn't dynamic, I don't see how markup can affect inbound links.

[xmx]

A simple addition I can make about how this command can help is the following example.

Google can penalise your PR and/or SERP if you link together too many of your own websites.

Using this option you can avoid this penalisation and continue addressing the visitors of your sites to your other sites.

Clearly you don't want to use "nofollow" in the <head> of your index files as you want that the search engines index all of your sites.

[greeneagle]

xmx:
"Google can penalise your PR and/or SERP if you link together too many of your own websites."

I haven't seen that train of thought applied to Sites on different Servers unless it is "obscene" like link farms, otherwise they would penalize at least 30-50% of Sites living in "Resold" Hosting positions on the same server. We have already established the fact that different domains are treated as just that, even on the same server, (in other threads) right?

We also, I think, have established that the "RULES" change for higher ranked Sites. "Sins" aren't "Sins" when you reach "Trusted Status". You do know that, right? How many examples do you want? For instance, I can show you very highly ranked Sites that have a multiplicity of duplicate content pages that are only distinguished by external CSS.

Ken

[magic_majax]

I heard some guys have worked out obscure linking structures where site A links to E, E links to C, C links to B, B links to D, D links to A, etc., and they use this for their black ops.

They could use that pattern for the robots and channel humans more explictly around their little empire.

i think these are keyword sellers that do that. I read an article on it somewhere, maybe here?

[greeneagle]

magic,

"Triangles" are popular but in this last GOOGLE update I sincerely believe we saw identical IBL anchor text threshold limits play in.

That if in fact is so.... Cuts a lot of "Crap"! on many fronts. And, if not so yet...How long will it be in coming? IMO - That can already be assumed. It doesn't even require "AI" to handle that mess!

Ken

[drods]

Well, i can see a good reason in using this tag....say if you ran an adult site errr like me, & you have a big list of galleries with the same link name, you could tell google not to include this when ranking your page & not to think it as spam......right????? or wrong?????
well, ima give it a go, but can someone explain this to me.....
heres the link in html....

Free Galleries

now that looks right to me,,, but dreamweaver says its not supported in such & such browsers.....

got any ideas?? or is that not the right way to use the tag??

[greeneagle]

drods,

There are many ways to drum up targeted traffic. You can have a popular Site and completely ignore GOOGLE "PR". Isn't that your game in that industry anyway?

I am not familiar with "promotion" in the various "dark karma'd" industries. Excuse my ignorance here but, that (Dark Karma) is a GOOGLE flag isn't it?

How do you suppose that tag will help vs. content? Is this an attempt to not trip the "Disfavored Site" flag and find a small "crack" to fall in and gain advantage against the fierce competition there?

I hope you take me sincere as opposed to sarcastic here.

Ken

[drods]

dark karma'd....lol

i have no idea how it will help vs content. i was just trying to see if the html was right.
Plus i have nothing to lose seeing as google seems to hate my sites anyway. Yahoo on the other hand loves them.

Forgive me, but when u say flag....please explain....
Ive not been in the seo game long..

We are all in competition here, no matter what you sell or promote...
are we all not here to gain an advantage??

[jseamless]

I think this a good tool for blogger's. I am interested to see if they will come out with a hack for Phpbb.

[Maureen C]

I didn't realize blogging was spam. In my blog, I do tell people mention this blog for a free gift or let them know when I have something new. I have also added my blog to different blog directories, Will I get penilized for doing this?? I hope not. And if so I guess that means blogs or usless?? Please let me know.

Thanks

Maureen C

[mlevenhagen]

I didn't realize blogging was spam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_spam

The blog itself isn't spam.

[bhartzer]

Maureen C, blogs aren't useless. Blogs are good things, and Google (and most other search engines) love them.

This nofollow tag is being put in place to stop blog comment spam. It also includes other sites, as (according to Wikipedia) "any web application that displays hyperlinks submitted by visitors or the referring URLs of web visitors may be a target."

If you look at the archived pages of your blog and places where you allow people to post comments then you're probably going to notice that your blog's readers have posted their link on your blog.

[Maureen C]

No, but if you tell them to mention this blog for a free gift or sometimes I write I will see you at your site link would that be spam???

Maureen

[Maureen C]

Hi bhartzer,
I think we posted at the same time. I see, so it is not so much when I add links on my blog about my website, but others adding their links. Thank you so much.
I was about to close down the bloggen!!!!!

Maureen C

[krishmandal]

I know enough of you folks explained the value of this, but I have to agree with greeneagle here: I think this is useless.

Unless you build your own blog site, or comments area and can introduce the attribute into the dynamically generated link, then anyone can still put in whatever link they want.

Besides that, I don't understand why you would care if a search engine follows a link OFF your site, whether it is or is not something you like others to see. THAT site isn't getting attributed to your site, is it?? So what does it matter if the search engine follows the link.

I just don't get this. Call me stupid.

[mlevenhagen]

It's just designed to prevent spam. If you take away the reason the spammers are spamming in the first place, the spamming will stop.

The whole reason their spamming is to grab some inbound links and improve their PageRank...

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by krishmandal

I know enough of you folks explained the value of this, but I have to agree with greeneagle here: I think this is useless.

Unless you build your own blog site, or comments area and can introduce the attribute into the dynamically generated link, then anyone can still put in whatever link they want.

Besides that, I don't understand why you would care if a search engine follows a link OFF your site, whether it is or is not something you like others to see. THAT site isn't getting attributed to your site, is it?? So what does it matter if the search engine follows the link.

I just don't get this. Call me stupid.

Content spam can be overwhelming if a blog etc. gets "tagged" as an easy mark. The goal is to introduce an outbound link to oneself. This is often done with either completely off topic content or none at all "littering" the topic and flow thereof. Not allowing "content" links to indexed discourages those who simply wish a link without any intent of adding value to the topic, discussion, etc.

This tag has a rather narrow and very specific purpose.

Dave

[rivux]

Originally Posted by krishmandal

I know enough of you folks explained the value of this, but I have to agree with greeneagle here: I think this is useless.

Unless you build your own blog site, or comments area and can introduce the attribute into the dynamically generated link, then anyone can still put in whatever link they want.

Besides that, I don't understand why you would care if a search engine follows a link OFF your site, whether it is or is not something you like others to see. THAT site isn't getting attributed to your site, is it?? So what does it matter if the search engine follows the link.

I just don't get this. Call me stupid.

Um, stupid?

If you read any of the press releases or stories on this topic, most if not all of the major online blogging communities will be including this feature into their services. As well, any of the scripts you download from MovableType, CuteNews etc are all adding it into their next release or are going to put out upgrades for them. So if you are using someone elses service or script, then the option for the feature will be added automatically.

We aren't splitting atoms with the nofollow, this isn't going to stop all spam but its a relatively painless change which garners you a good amouont of benefits. And as I said above, if you are using an online service like blogger.com, livejournal etc, then you wont have to do a single thing for the change to occur it will be done for you.

[alienzhavelanded]

Not to mention the fact that one could easily use the tag on any link they didn't want Googlebot to count toward that (linked) site's Page Rank....