Using the rel="nofollow" on website stats

[Clint1]

Hi all. I'm wondering if it would help or be a good idea to use the rel="nofollow" in the codes that go to website stats services? I use SiteMeter, so can it be used on this tag below without affecting the stats? If it can, then where exactly would it be placed?

<!-- Site Meter -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s40.sitemeter.com/js/counter.js?site=s12AccountName">
</script>
<noscript>
<a href="http://s40.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s12AccountName" target="_top">
<img src="http://s40.sitemeter.com/meter.asp?site=s12AccountName" alt="Site Meter" border="0"/></a>
</noscript>
<!-- Copyright (c)2006 Site Meter -->

I would guess before or after the target="_top" ? Or also after the src areas?

On another note, part of that code appears to be in XHTML. That is the way they supply the HTML code. So should that area in red be changed to remove the / ?

Thanks.

[inertia]

Someone correct me if im wrong but isnt the re="no follow" tag an instruction for the Googlebot not to follow and discount the link. If this is the case it should have no effect on your stats code working. Sounds like it might be a good idea if the code is on every page it will save you leaking some page rank.

[mjtaylor]

I would agree; the tag should not interfere with any other function; it should serve to simply not allow PageRank to pass from your page to the stat counter site.

Cheers, MJ

[Dubbya]

Yup, I concur.

The nofollow attribute will not impact your stats in any way.

It's predominantly meant to withhold pagerank, a flag meant for the spiders.

[Clint1]

Ok thanks everyone. So, where do I place it exactly and what about that XHTML part of it? (Please see original post again).

"Inertia", I thought it is for all SE's, not just G.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Ok thanks everyone. So, where do I place it exactly and what about that XHTML part of it? (Please see original post again).

"Inertia", I thought it is for all SE's, not just G.

It is an attribute for the href tag so it can go anywhere here after the URL, for example:

<a href="http://s40.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s12AccountName " target="_top" rel="nofollow">
Or before the target attribute as you said in your original post. But not part of the src tag.

And yes, it is for other SEs as well as G. It certainly works with Yahoo's spider and I am pretty sure with MSN; beyond those, I don't know.

Cheers, MJ

[ldylion214]

I'm glad I read this post, Clint. I've gone back and forth in my head about taking my stat counter off because of the SE's. I'm glad to know there is a way to keep it from effecting my site.
Best, Nicci

[dann]

ldylion214, I think you are on the right track getting rid of it.

Why not use Google Analytics it's free and doesn't have a cheesy box on every page.
Personally I think that box makes sites and blogs look very amateurish.

Just my 2cents.
Dan

[ldylion214]

Hi Dan,
MJ suggested that earlier to me. I'm in the process of adding the google code to my site. Thanks for the input!
Best, Nicci

[parkoskar]

Suppose. If i ma using rel=nofollow for a link on my site.... but after 6-7 months.. i felt that now.. it is ok to pass my PR to that site and i removed the rel=nofollow tag..

I want to know will that effect me in adverse way ? other than passing PR it the other site..

..

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

It is an attribute for the href tag so it can go anywhere here after the URL, for example:

<a href="http://s40.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s12AccountName " target="_top" rel="nofollow">
Or before the target attribute as you said in your original post. But not part of the src tag.

And yes, it is for other SEs as well as G. It certainly works with Yahoo's spider and I am pretty sure with MSN; beyond those, I don't know.

Cheers, MJ

Thanks again everyone for the info. (Glad it helped Nicci).

"Dann", SiteMeter's free service has an option to use many types of visible boxes. The best one is a tiny colored square with no markings, names, text nor numbers on it. Just a sort of purple and blue square which is ok. I lucked out, I don't know how, and got the invisible tracker for free.

I don't trust anything "google", so I've never tried GA.

[Webnauts]

If I was you, I would add the "nofollow" attribute:

<!-- Site Meter -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s40.sitemeter.com/js/counter.js?site=s12AccountName">
</script>
<noscript>
<p><a href="http://s40.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s12AccountName" rel="nofollow" target="_top">Site Meter Stats</a></p>
</noscript>
<!-- Copyright (c)2006 Site Meter -->

As you see my example, would also be better to get rid of the image if you would not mind. That sucks, as others already mentioned above.

But I also agree with the others here, that Google Analytics is the best way to go.

[dburdon]

For those of you that are interested Statcounter comes with several options.

Most people turn off the the visible link. There's also an option to turn off the link. Statcounter has a visible PageRank of 10. So it seems most people retain this link.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If I was you, I would add the "nofollow" attribute:

<!-- Site Meter -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s10.sitemeter.com/js/counter.js?site=s12AccountName">
</script>
<noscript>
<p><a href="http://s10.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s12AccountName" rel="nofollow" target="_top">Site Meter Stats</a></p>
</noscript>
<!-- Copyright (c)2006 Site Meter -->

Thank you.

....... would also be better to get rid of the image if you would not mind. That sucks, as others already mentioned above.

I think you missed my post above:
"Dann", SiteMeter's free service has an option to use many types of visible boxes. The best one is a tiny colored square with no markings, names, text nor numbers on it. Just a sort of purple and blue square which is ok. I lucked out, I don't know how, and got the invisible tracker for free.

So even through there is an "src", there is no image on my pages. FAIK their "src" for the invisible tag code could be a 1 pixel gif. Yeah, look at this example and do a "select all" and you'll see something.
http://s10.sitemeter.com/meter.asp . At the other src tag (http://s40.sitemeter.com/js/counter.js), is of course JS.

Strange though when I saw my original post in the email this site sends out, the tag code was all messed up and there WAS at least a large blank image placeholder like you see in Mozilla browsers (and in IE you'd see a red X) where an image should be.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by dburdon

For those of you that are interested Statcounter comes with several options.

Most people turn off the the visible link. There's also an option to turn off the link. Statcounter has a visible PageRank of 10. So it seems most people retain this link.

David if your PM to me pertains to this thread, I'm still lost.

I heard that G was the only website with a PR of 10. That's one way to get a high PR, get a free stat service to which everyone will link.

[Clint1]

No one has addressed yet whether or not I should change that XHTML tag to HTML.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Strange though when I saw my original post in the email this site sends out, the tag code was all messed up and there WAS at least a large blank image placeholder like you see in Mozilla browsers (and in IE you'd see a red X) where an image should be.

Clint I have setup a page for testing.

Do you see that red X in IE here too? Site Meter Stats Counter

I could not see it in IE 5, 5.5, 6 and 7. Or am I getting old?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

No one has addressed yet whether or not I should change that XHTML tag to HTML.

It depends on the doctype of your pages. You can change that XHTML tag to HTML, if that is your document type.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by Clint1

I don't trust anything "google", so I've never tried GA.

Ive had GA and Traffic Analyser running on my site for about 6 months and despite some minor differences the results have been the same. I dont think theres any reason for Google to manipulate their analytics.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

I don't trust anything "google", so I've never tried GA.

Why should Google like to hide your real stats since you still can analyze your own blog files?

[dann]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Why should Google like to hide your real stats since you still can analyze your own blog files?

Exactly, that's what I do. I don't use any counters or trackers on my sites, but I have access to my raw log files many people don't.

I use the pro version of WebLog Expert. WebLog Expert - Powerful log analyzer
They have a free version, I went ahead and bought the Pro version. Best $75 I ever spent.
If you are into stats which if you are into SEO you should be, this gives you waaay more information, and it's all done on the privacy of your own computer.

Clint1, I'm also a non Googler, I think my sites began ranking a heck of alot better since making the change(probably just coincidence). Don't let any sort of Google anything on my computer including blogspot, GA and GSyndycation, I'm not a Google hater by any means, just don't trust 'em.
I am a bit paranoid you should know.
I just heard a noise, gotta go!
Dan

[wige]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Why should Google like to hide your real stats since you still can analyze your own blog files?

Or is it a concern about (or desire to) hide data from Google? It has been alleged that Analytics data can actually have a small impact on rankings.

[Dubbya]

Originally Posted by parkoskar

Suppose. If i ma using rel=nofollow for a link on my site.... but after 6-7 months.. i felt that now.. it is ok to pass my PR to that site and i removed the rel=nofollow tag..

I want to know will that effect me in adverse way ? other than passing PR it the other site..

..

No adverse effects other than passing along a small amount of PageRank. Just consider whom you're passing PR to. Providing a link is like personally endorsing a site, so as long as the site is reputable and worthy of a link, go right ahead.

If they're a little shady, don't provide a reciprocal link and are not related to your site content, why pass along PR?

[ldylion214]

I added GA to each page of my site yesterday. I removed Statcounter. I liked it alot but I have been told more than once to get rid of it due to the visible counter. I know there is an invisible counter too. It does have a PR10.
My host provides SmartStats as part of my package with them. I'm stubborn about using it for some reason. I'm such a creature of habit. Anyway I sit anxiously waiting for Google to begin recording my data.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Clint I have setup a page for testing.

Do you see that red X in IE here too? Site Meter Stats Counter

I could not see it in IE 5, 5.5, 6 and 7. Or am I getting old?

Strange I stopped receiving email notifications.

All I see there is a blank page except for Site Meter. What I was talking about was the WPW newsletter that's sent daily that has some of the newest posts in it. In that newsletter I saw my original post and that code I put in my original post above on this thread had most of it missing in the post in the newsletter, and in the code that was still present in the newsletter had that image placeholder I described. I use OE too. Could be the way the newsletter is written and the code type in it, or it could have been due to some of the code missing.

I don't see anything on my webpage where the SiteMeter code is located, which is the way it's supposed to be.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

It depends on the doctype of your pages. You can change that XHTML tag to HTML, if that is your document type.

My pages are in HTML, so that's why I was asking if I should change that XHTML portion of the code to HTML. Looks like that may be a code error from SiteMeter because I would think the entire tag should be either XHTML or HTML and not a combination of both of them. (The whole code might be XHTML FAIK, I don't know XHTML so I can't say. But I do know enough about it to know that /> is XHTML so shouldn't the rest of the tag be that if they intended the tag to be XHTML?)

The tag code as-is has apparently been working for years because I do get stats emailed to me. But I'm wondering if some SE's or bots could "choke" on that XHTML portion of it because my pages are HTML and I use the HTML doc type on them.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Why should Google like to hide your real stats since you still can analyze your own blog files?

It has nothing to do with thinking they'll hide any stats, it's just that I simply don't trust anything "google". Sort of like what Dan said above. Like for example; they see you are only getting X amount of traffic, then demote and lower your spots in their index. No I'm not saying they do that, that's just an example. When a company does so many bad things to whitehat sites, they're capable of anything. (I don't use blogs BTW).

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by dann

Exactly, that's what I do. I don't use any counters or trackers on my sites, but I have access to my raw log files many people don't.

I use the pro version of WebLog Expert. WebLog Expert - Powerful log analyzer
They have a free version, I went ahead and bought the Pro version. Best $75 I ever spent.
If you are into stats which if you are into SEO you should be, this gives you waaay more information, and it's all done on the privacy of your own computer.

If I ever need raw log info I use cPanel's raw log analyzer area.

Clint1, I'm also a non Googler, I think my sites began ranking a heck of alot better since making the change(probably just coincidence).

Making the change from what, from GA to WebLog Expert?

Don't let any sort of Google anything on my computer including blogspot, GA and GSyndycation, I'm not a Google hater by any means, just don't trust 'em. I am a bit paranoid you should know.

That's along the lines of my thinking as well, (all of their tools are like "big brother"), however I'm not "very fond" of them at all.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by wige

Or is it a concern about (or desire to) hide data from Google?

I wouldn't know how to hide data from them even if I needed or wanted to. Hell, its the other way around, I WANT them to see ALL of my data (pages/content), but they don't!

It has been alleged that Analytics data can actually have a small impact on rankings.

That's sort of to what I was alluding earlier, and it should not have any impact. Are you saying a negative or positive impact?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

But I'm wondering if some SE's or bots could "choke" on that XHTML portion of it because my pages are HTML and I use the HTML doc type on them.

They sure won't.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

They sure won't.

Ok thank you.

[ldylion214]

Since Clint's issue was resolved I did not think this would be a thread hijack.
Where would the no follow tag go into this code?

<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript">
var sc_project=552166;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=1;
var sc_security="";
</script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter_xhtml.js"></script><noscript>
<div class="statcounter"><a class="statcounter" href="http://www.statcounter.com/"><img class="statcounter" src="http://c2.statcounter.com/552166/0//0/" alt="web page hit counter" /></a></div></noscript>
</font>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code -->

Thanks in advance!
Best, Nicci

[Webnauts]

<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript">
var sc_project=552166;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=1;
var sc_security="";
</script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter_xhtml.js"></script><noscript>
<div class="statcounter"><a class="statcounter" href="http://www.statcounter.com/" rel="nofollow"><img class="statcounter" src="http://c2.statcounter.com/552166/0//0/" alt="web page hit counter" /></a></div></noscript>
</font>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code -->

[ldylion214]

Thanks, John!! Best always, Nicci

[inertia]

Its funny. Im sat here reading this thread whilst 2 GA advert flash in front of me!

[Clint1]

I'm still curious about this Wige.

Originally Posted by Clint1

That's sort of to what I was alluding earlier, and it should not have any impact. Are you saying a negative or positive impact?

[wige]

The theories I have heard involve the effect of user behavior once on your site (only visible to Google if the user uses Google's Toolbar with PageRank enabled, and/or the web site has Google Analytics installed) on rankings. For example, if a page has a high bounce rate, the page may rank lower, and if 90% of the people who come to your site for a specific query immediately go to a particular second page, that second page might move up in the rankings.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by wige

The theories I have heard involve the effect of user behavior once on your site (only visible to Google if the user uses Google's Toolbar with PageRank enabled, and/or the web site has Google Analytics installed) on rankings. For example, if a page has a high bounce rate, the page may rank lower, and if 90% of the people who come to your site for a specific query immediately go to a particular second page, that second page might move up in the rankings.

I believe this to be true with all my mind. It is logical and it's what I would do if I were writing an algo for an SE. We know (as well as we know anything) that Google does this with Adwords; if your site receives more clickthroughs than the site 'above' yours, it will move up despite your relative bid or ad budget being lower than the site with fewer clicks. It is only logical that G would apply this to the free SERPs as well.

Cheers, MJ

[inertia]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I believe this to be true with all my mind.

Hhhm...this all sounds a bit too conspiracy theoryesque to me. If Google used clickthroughs to determine positions then the SERPs would be totally messed up. Has anyone seen a change in positions after signing up for GA?

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by inertia

Hhhm...this all sounds a bit too conspiracy theoryesque to me. If Google used clickthroughs to determine positions then the SERPs would be totally messed up. Has anyone seen a change in positions after signing up for GA?

Google will use all the data at their disposal to make the results better. Easiest way to think about.

[mjtaylor]

If you're interested in this sidetrack from the topic, here's a thread on the topic, thanks to Inertia and an excellent explanation of just how search engines collect information on site traffic, thanks to wige.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Google will use all the data at their disposal to make the results better. Easiest way to think about.

How can they do that if not every site indexed by google does not use GA. That would be a worse issue than Alexa.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Google will use all the data at their disposal to make the results better. Easiest way to think about.

If G wanted to make their results better, there would be no supplemental index, and they would not be deleting relevant, unique whitehat pages (and even entire sites) from their index. Once they stop these evil things, then we can say they want to make their results better.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Clint1

If G wanted to make their results better, there would be no supplemental index, and they would not be deleting relevant, unique whitehat pages (and even entire sites) from their index. Once they stop these evil things, then we can say they want to make their results better.

I agree, the problem is they dont even realize they are doing these things. The scale that this is happening on is small enough that the little guy gets screwed.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I agree, the problem is they dont even realize they are doing these things. The scale that this is happening on is small enough that the little guy gets screwed.

Oh I think they realize it. There's enough of those type posts in dozens of forums across the web, even their own forums, and they're bound to see and hear about those. Lord knows I've pointed those out to them on numerous occasions, they just don't care about the little guys.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

How can they do that if not every site indexed by google does not use GA.

Extrapolation.

Originally Posted by Clint1

If G wanted to make their results better, there would be no supplemental index, and they would not be deleting relevant, unique whitehat pages (and even entire sites) from their index. Once they stop these evil things, then we can say they want to make their results better.

Evil? How about misguided? Or unable. Providing truly relevant results every time requires the development of Artificial Intelligence beyond the present achievement. Just because they are not successful doesn't mean they don't want to make their results better. Of course, they want to make their results better; that's how they will stay on top of the game and make money.

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I agree, the problem is they dont even realize they are doing these things.

Perhaps, and often likely.

Originally Posted by Clint1

Oh I think they realize it. There's enough of those type posts in dozens of forums across the web, even their own forums, and they're bound to see and hear about those. Lord knows I've pointed those out to them on numerous occasions, they just don't care about the little guys.

I will grant that they care less about the little guy than the bigger picture *and* I doubt they have the manpower and/or technical expertise to be aware *and* fix all the issues in a timely enough manner to suit you.

When *I* look at the big picture as an end user, I see an index that continues to improve and offer me more services and better search results.

Cheers, MJ

[Webnauts]

Great post MJ!

AMEN!

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Evil? How about misguided? Or unable. Providing truly relevant results every time requires the development of Artificial Intelligence beyond the present achievement. Just because they are not successful doesn't mean they don't want to make their results better. Of course, they want to make their results better; that's how they will stay on top of the game and make money.

No, evil. They are not that stupid to be just "misguided", and don't tell me they are unable when none of the other SE's have the SI nor do they delete millions of white-hat unique relevant webpages each day.

Results have nothing to do with them being on top. It's just marketing genius in the form of a name that has become a household name, and even a verb in the dictionary thanks to billions of dollars in free advertising in the media and countless movies and TV shows. It's all in a name. If these outlets knew about the atrocities with the SI, deleting white-hat unique relevant webpages each day, and how screwed up and totally unreliable PR is, they would NOT be using G any longer, for they would realize that G gives tainted biased discriminatory results--something which NO ONE wants.

I will grant that they care less about the little guy than the bigger picture *and* I doubt they have the manpower and/or technical expertise to be aware *and* fix all the issues in a timely enough manner to suit you.

To suit ME?? You think I'm the only one on the planet that is aware of all their BS?? C'mon. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with manpower or any technical expertise to get rid of their SI, PR, and to simply STOP deleting the relevant white-hat webpages from their index. In a nutshell, to do no evil, like they USED to be. Again, the other SE's "manage to somehow" not have these atrocious things.

When *I* look at the big picture as an end user, I see an index that continues to improve and offer me more services and better search results.

Then you are totally in the dark MJ. Services are irrelevant, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about their screwed up index. How can anyone claim that: more and more blatant black-hat chinese spam scam sites and other spam; more and more blatant black-hat pages; and more and more irrelevant results that place all precedence on just a site's name with disregard for content, is an index that's improving??? They are taking steps backwards on a weekly basis.

[Webnauts]

Clint I regret to tell you here, that as I an SEO freak I am observing around the clock the search engines processes, and I can only tell that you honestly don't know what you are talking about.

[SemAdvance]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

How can they do that if not every site indexed by google does not use GA. That would be a worse issue than Alexa.

Google would use their server logs just like the rest of us.

Analytics is for webmasters benefits not Googles

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Clint I regret to tell you here, that as I an SEO freak I am observing around the clock the search engines processes, and I can only tell that you honestly don't know what you are talking about.

200% dead on...not a clue....

I might have to change my name now as hes trashing it terribly.....

Clint "SEO" Dixon