Does PR Sculpting Work?

[incrediblehelp]

OK I have been debating this on some other threads recently. Since WPN Video now has a video on the subject I thought I would post something in WPW:

» SMX West 2008: Stephan Spencer WebProNews Videos: Videos from WebProNews.com

It is a simple question. Does PR Sculpting work or not. If so do you have proof of it. Sure conceptually it seems like it would, but I am wondering about those that have tested it out and can prove that it does work. Remember I looking for proof of it working alone, not simultaneously with other changes.

I have never been a big believer in the concept of PR hoarding. I really don’t believe that adding the nofollow attribute can greatly help you r internal OBLs on the page. The biggest argument against this is that millions of websites rank and will always rank without having to worry about implementing the nofollow attribute, thus why would Google allow this simple trick to give our websites the “golden ticket” of ranking higher by implementing it. I believe they don’t.

I am also tired of doing things because it is the hot new thing right now and believe some solid data on using the nofollow should be expressed somewhere. Not simply saying “hey Cutt’s said it should work so we should do it” as was recently heard at SMX.

More on this at Sphinn as well and a more believable thread from one of my favorites Michael Martinez:

SEO Nonsense - Sculpting PageRank Builds Muscle - SEO Theory - SEO Theory and Analysis Blog

[incrediblehelp]

Another post on one believes this PR Sculpting would work:

No Follow Tag | Internal Use of No Follow Tag

[mike]

If Cutts says it's a viable concept (and he has) and somebody Like Stephen Spencer says he's used it, tested it, and found a benefit (and he has)... That's pretty much all I need.

Excerpt from a Rand Fishkin Q&A where this topic is discussed:

"Does Google recommend the use of nofollow internally as a positive method for controlling the flow of internal link love? A) Yes – webmasters can feel free to use nofollow internally to help tell Googlebot which pages they want to receive link juice from other pages
_
(Matt's precise words were: The nofollow attribute is just a mechanism that gives webmasters the ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity. Plenty of other mechanisms would also work (e.g. a link through a page that is robot.txt'ed out), but nofollow on individual links is simpler for some folks to use. There's no stigma to using nofollow, even on your own internal links; for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery. By the way, the nofollow meta tag does that same thing, but at a page level.)"

And a piece of Stephen's reply to Shari Thurow:

Matt Cutts has publicly condoned the use of PageRank sculpting on repeated occasions. Google has even used the technique on their own properties.

So my question to Shari is: "Have you ever conducted any testing of the PageRank sculpting technique?" We at Netconcepts have, and it works.

According to our tests, there are plenty of occasions where it can be a valuable tool, if used wisely. For example, if you have an ecommerce site and the category pages contain 3 links to every single product page -- the product name as a text link, the product image thumbnail as an image link, and the words "View Product" as a text link -- you could nofollow the image and "View Product" links and funnel more PageRank through the much more contextually-relevant product-name-based text links.

"I am always a fan of giving people more flexibility and more tools," Matt said in reference to giving "more flexibility to site owners to sculpt how they want to flow PageRank or to change how the page should be indexed" (quotes from my interview with him at PubCon, published on stephanspencer.com).

So if Shari wrote this piece without any testing, it's just unsubstantiated opinion -- and I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

We did a video about the subject with Stephen essentially explaining and endorsing the concept. I have no reservations about the concept based on the credentials of the folks who are endorsing it. Not just Matt and Stephen... I've also heard from Rand, Michael Gray and several other folks who I have no problem considering authorities.

Nobody's saying you have to use it... nobody's saying you have to necessarily agree with it. But it is a concept that many professionals in this field - who I feel are very knowledgeable and authoritative - have more or less signed off on.

Like most any other SEO tactic, some people will use it, some won't. There are so many pieces of the puzzle in SEO that hardly any one single tactic, tip, or trick is going to make or break any SEO campaign.

Back in school, I'd say you were disputing the concept on the basis that an appeal to authority argument is one of the classic fallacies. ie:

Bob says blue widgets are great.
Bob is a superhero rockstar that everybody loves.
Blue widgets must be great.

Appeal to authority fallacy ( I liked logic class).


However... authority is generally just dandy for propositional and procedural concepts (like SEO for the most part). If Michael Jordan says:
"This is the best way to shoot a free throw" I am thinking, I can probably trust that shooting free throws like that is generally a pretty good idea.

[incrediblehelp]

Michael because people use it does that prove it works??

First off on the topic of Matt and Rand's conversation I will simple quote Michael Martinez comments as he says it better than I ever could on that Q and A thread:

I think Matt is clearly encouraging the SEO community to play with PageRank sculpting, knowing fully well they can’t do it properly.

But what do you think of Matt’s followup to Rand on SEOmoz itself, where Rand went way over the top with his interpretation of Matt’s interview answers?


What do you think of Rand’s own admissions that he screwed up the indexing of more than one site when he tried to implement his own advice?


What do you think of the idea of people not just saying, “Hey! Wow! Great post!” but instead actually TESTING the ideas that are thrown out on SEO blogs before saying anything?


Stopping to test could keep a lot of people from making embarrassing remarks and commitments to clients and employers.

In Stephen's example above are we to believe that this implementation of the nofollow attribute on the image and product view links was done by itself with no other SEO changes? This would be helpful in understanding if the doing this technique actually helped the ranking of the product pages. If so did the product pages then go up in rankings substantially? This would be nice to know.

We need to stop jumping on the bandwagon of SEO techniques so quickly without properly testing this stuff out. Just because conceptually something seems like this should work doesn't mean that it does.

I am asking a simple question. Is this a stand alone technique that can benefit your website? I really have yet to see proof of it, rather just speak of how cool of tool it is.

[crankydave]

You and I have had a couple of conversations about this Jaan. While I have "experimented" with internal nofollow I can't say that I have any definitive "proof" to offer short of my observations and opinions. Based upon those, I've personally chosen not to use them.

I really think that the biggest mistake that gets made when implementing the nofollow internally is that the focus gets put on where to NOT flow PR rather than where, and just as importanly, how to send it. Blocking pages can actually do you more harm than good IMO. An important thing to remember is that every time you block a page using the nofollow you're also lessening the value of all the links that are on the blocked page.

Another thing is that seems to get overlooked is that PR is strictly a Google thing yet the nofollow affects what the other SE's see and do as well. While trying to "sculpt" for Google you can easily negatively affect a site or page with regards to the other SE's.

Personally, I'd rather focus on doing a better job of targeting pages internally, not by restricting access or flow, but by improving the way in which it does flow. Using pages which may not neccessarily be most useful until a visitor actually reaches the site to their benefit and my advantage.

ETA... It is just another tool available and it's not using it that *can* create problems, it's how.

Dave

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by crankydave

ETA... It is just another tool available and it's not using it that *can* create problems, it's how.

I agree Dave and I am in now say saying that using the nofollow is a bad thing. Like Mike said to each his own and you can choose to use it or not. I just wanted to start this discussions on to go over the so-called benefits of the no follow. Mike has pointed out lots of industry experts have said hey this is a good thing. We should use it. Just would like to see more in-action proof of its value that is all.

[crankydave]

I just want to touch on something Mike quoted...

According to our tests, there are plenty of occasions where it can be a valuable tool, if used wisely. For example, if you have an ecommerce site and the category pages contain 3 links to every single product page -- the product name as a text link, the product image thumbnail as an image link, and the words "View Product" as a text link -- you could nofollow the image and "View Product" links and funnel more PageRank through the much more contextually-relevant product-name-based text links.

What if user behavior is a metric? What if visitors to a site follow the image link far more times than the contexual one? Could adding nofollow to the thumbnail acually cause the target page not to receive as much "benefit" as it might otherwise?

I'm certainly not questioning the results, merely asking what if?

Dave

[mpilatow]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I just want to touch on something Mike quoted...



What if user behavior is a metric? What if visitors to a site follow the image link far more times than the contexual one? Could adding nofollow to the thumbnail acually cause the target page not to receive as much "benefit" as it might otherwise?

I'm certainly not questioning the results, merely asking what if?

Dave

I am not sure I follow you Dave. Are you asking if Google considers user behavior a metric on their ranking algorithm? Can you clarify a bit?

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Could adding nofollow to the thumbnail acually cause the target page not to receive as much "benefit" as it might otherwise?

Right that is my question, does it work? I have yet to see that just adding the nofollow substantially adds value to those other pages that you want to rank.

I have tested it on my blog and have seen little value in doing so.

[mpilatow]

I am about to do some testing of my own on another site I am working on. I will let you know what my results are when it has had time to propagate.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mpilatow

I am not sure I follow you Dave. Are you asking if Google considers user behavior a metric on their ranking algorithm? Can you clarify a bit?

Not really asking, just supposing.

Additionally, Stephen indicates is his reply to Shari in the quote, that their testing showed that it "worked". Worked at doing what? Sculpting PR? Improving rankings or visibility? Was there any detrimental effect with regards to any other SE's? What was the net result? If a gain in PR by sculpting it results in net loss in the grand scheme of things, what has been accomplished?

Dave

[mpilatow]

Yeah, other search engines are obviously a consideration but IMO it seems that they either have the same stance as Google or totally ignore it so I don't think it would have a negative effect. I will try to report my findings back about something I am working on when it has to time to have an effect (whether it does or not).

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Worked at doing what? Sculpting PR? Improving rankings or visibility? Was there any detrimental effect with regards to any other SE's? What was the net result? If a gain in PR by sculpting it results in net loss in the grand scheme of things, what has been accomplished?

EXACTLY Dave. What worked? Lets be open and clear here if your going to tell the world it works.

Another big issue is that the SEO community are basically the only people that know about nofollow. Are we to believe Google has gifted only the people who know of nofollow attribute the ability to out-rank others that dont use it? LOL, hardly. In fact even if this PR Sculpting does work, it probably does on such a small level comparable to other SEO techniques it is not even worth doing at all.

[crankydave]

Since I'm a big Michael Jordan fan...

Originally Posted by mike

However... authority is generally just dandy for propositional and procedural concepts (like SEO for the most part). If Michael Jordan says:
"This is the best way to shoot a free throw" I am thinking, I can probably trust that shooting free throws like that is generally a pretty good idea.

True, except if in practice it results in a free throw percentage near the "Shaq Line", or reduces the effectiveness of other aspects of the "game", one might want to rethink whether or not it is indeed a "pretty good idea".

Dave

[mike]

Ah... then maybe it isn't the concept that is flawed but the execution, no?

[Dubbya]

Done correctly, I don't see a problem with applying the nofollow attribute to internal links.

Suppose I've got a product page with three links all pointing to the same url. One, a text link consisting of a product name or number, another link applied to a product image with a fairly good alt attribute and one consisting of a "view more info" text link.

Most would probably agree that, from an SEO standpoint, the single best link would probably be the one consisting of a product name or number.

That being the case, why not reserve the most link juice for the single best link instead of allowing it to seep out through a generic "view more" text link or a generic image with an alt attribute?

While the positive effects might indeed be negligible and therefore difficult to measure, I'm inclined to agree that it's certainly not going to hurt.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, the most efficient thing to do in this situation would be to have a single text link, thereby avoiding the issue entirely.

.02

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Dubbya

While the positive effects might indeed be negligible and therefore difficult to measure, I'm inclined to agree that it's certainly not going to hurt.

Correct never said it would hurt to do, but measuring the success of internal nofollows might be difficult at best.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mike

Ah... then maybe it isn't the concept that is flawed but the execution, no?

Sure it could be.

Could also be that the concept has other ramifications not being taken into account.

If shooting free throws "Like Mike" raises ones free throw percentage but as a consequence lowers one field goal percentage so the the net result is less total points, is it the concept or the execution that is flawed?

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Dubbya

Suppose I've got a product page with three links all pointing to the same url. One, a text link consisting of a product name or number, another link applied to a product image with a fairly good alt attribute and one consisting of a "view more info" text link.

Most would probably agree that, from an SEO standpoint, the single best link would probably be the one consisting of a product name or number.

That being the case, why not reserve the most link juice for the single best link instead of allowing it to seep out through a generic "view more" text link or a generic image with an alt attribute?

While the positive effects might indeed be negligible and therefore difficult to measure, I'm inclined to agree that it's certainly not going to hurt.

Depends upon results. IF onsite user behaviour is a metric (not saying it is or isn't) and the most followed link is the image link then what? Does the product page rank better, worse or the same if the most clicked on link gets nofollowed?

IF those nofollows affect visibility and placement on any other SE (again not saying it does or dosen't) to what degree and does it offset any potential Google gains?

Is passing "value" through a single link better or is passing value through 2 links better IF that second link passes value? Is the combined value better, worse, or the same?

What is the effect on "value passed" by the other links on the page? If any, is that effect desirable or is more value getting passed where you don't neccessarily need or want it? What is the effect of this with respect to other SE's?

Dave

[Dubbya]

Unless I've missed something, I see the one of biggest issues one might face is an inability to test the effects of implementing the nofollow attribute as mentioned without waiting 3 months for another PR update.

IMHO, I doubt the average person would see any significant benefits unless they're running a large site with hundreds of links per page.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Dubbya

IMHO, I doubt the average person would see any significant benefits unless they're running a large site with hundreds of links per page.

...and if they are doing that I think they have usability issues that need fixed before tabling in nofollow.

[Webnauts]

Recently Adam Lasnik in an interview suggested use of internal site nofollow other than for “PageRank sculpting”:
Video: Interview with Adam Lasnik of Google | Online Marketing Blog

In an interview with Matt Cutts conducted by Eric Enge, Matt said:
“What we’ve been doing is working with clients and telling them to take pages like their about us page, and their contact us page, and link to them from the home page normally, without a NoFollow attribute, and then link to them using NoFollow from every other page. It’s just a way of lowering the amount of link juice they get. These types of pages are usually the highest PageRank pages on the site, and they are not doing anything for you in terms of search traffic.” Matt Cutts Interviewed by Eric Enge on September 24, 2007

Another guy at PubCon had a private discussion with Matt Cutts. End result of conversation was a major change to his site adding nofollow to many pages that aren't really relevant to ranking for anything.
rel="nofollow" for internal links

Contradiction? Confusing? Or did I miss something?

Also Michael Martinez wrote an excellent article about the abuse/wrong implementation of the nofollow attribute and more: Why Rand Fishkin’s nofollow post was wrong - SEO Theory - SEO Theory and Analysis Blog (Very worth reading)

About excluding pages like "Privacy Policy", "TOS", e.t.c just to avoid a PageRank dilution, I do not think that it is a good practice in terms of a site's credibility. I am not sure if that factor might be at some point considered by search engines, but still I would not disallow those pages as they are equally important like all other pages. If they were not, why should I have them there anyway? Or should I add a stamp to those pages that they are not useful, trustworthy or even not safe for web? ME NOT!

Don't miss this thread at Webmaster World too: Using No-Follow on Internal Links Cause a Drop in Rankings?

I must admit that until some time ago I was using on my site the nofollow attribute for external affiliate links only, but I have replaced them after all with 302 redirects! Nofollow? Not for me.

GREAT THREAD BY THE WAY!

PEACE!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Correct never said it would hurt to do, but measuring the success of internal nofollows might be difficult at best.

Since I use this tool PageRankBot - Supplemental Results Detector (SEO Tool) I tend to believe that it is not so difficult.

But again. I do not suggest using the nofollow attribute.

Oh and by the way did someone read this already? You'd Be Wise To "NoFollow" This Dubious SEO Advice This is what I am explaining my customers already since a while now.

PEACE!

[activeco]

I believe I was the first in SEO community to suspect "nofollow" and it's benefits, back in this wmw thread (10:37 pm and later replies).
Since then the word was spread all around.

I also have a site with thousands of links where I have employed this technique and yes, my traffic improved for more than 30% based on this alone. However I am not sure about PR benefits as later I made a lot of other changes.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

I also have a site with thousands of links where I have employed this technique and yes, my traffic improved for more than 30% based on this alone. However I am not sure about PR benefits as later I made a lot of other changes.

Now I am seriously curious. Can you please explain how could the nofollow attribute help you to increase your traffic?

Peace!

[activeco]

We cannot explain Google behavior for sure, we can only speculate.

* So, my initial reasoning was that Google introduced something like PR "leaking" to outgoing links. I thought of a percentage of PR, say 10%-20% leaking outside.

* The second suspicion was that too many links on page trigger some negative filter. Earlier, Google stated recommendation about 100 links max per page. I haven't counted mine but it was probably outside the limits.

* And finally, nofollow on particular internal links. Many of the links were to different landmarks on a single page, using named anchors. My theory was that several named anchors could cause multiple indexing of the same page, hence duplicate content issue. Add several different internal anchor text for the same page in a row and you get possible spam issue.

Whether it was a single or multiple issue, adding rel="nofollow" to selected links helped that particular site a lot.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

Whether it was a single or multiple issue, adding rel="nofollow" to selected links helped that particular site a lot.

Well then let me tell you my version:

We were using on our site the "nofollow" attribute for external (affiliate) sites until 5-6 weeks ago.
Then we got rid of the "nofollow" attribute, since we came up with an alternative and legitimate solution (302 Redirects), and if you believe it or not, our traffic is almost doubled.

So what about that? Eliminating the "nofollow" attribute and doubled traffic?

If you or someone else has doubts about our increased traffic, just PM me and I will send you the link to our AWStats.

By the way, how about showing off that site which is successful using the "nofollow" attribute? I am still very curious.

Peace.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So what about that? Eliminating the "nofollow" attribute and doubled traffic?

If you or someone else has doubts about our increased traffic, just PM me and I will send you the link to our AWStats.

I have no reason to doubt your statement. It is well known that missing or no valid links or bad internal links distribution could hurt a site.

By the way, how about showing off that site which is successful using the "nofollow" attribute? I am still very curious.

I am sorry, there was a lot of work involved in it and the optimizing process is not yet finished. I expect it fully optimized at the end of this year.
As I optimize gradually, waiting for two to three months after major change, it is easy to follow, with fair credibility, what works and what not.
It should suffice to say that, in this particular case, adding 'nofollow' to all internal named anchors as well as to some outgoing links produced an increase from 350-400 in January to 500-550 uniques per day in April 2007 and it is not a seasonal behavior. In previous years the traffic was constant in that period.
Today the site averages 900-1,000 unique visitors a day and the goal is 1,500 before December 2008, without ANY content change, which I will start optimizing hopefully in 2009.

For those who cannot follow: What I mean with named anchors is this:
<a href="page-x.html">Anchor text</a><BR>
<a href="page-x.html#2" rel="nofollow">Anchor text b</a><B>
<a href="page-x.html#3" rel="nofollow">Anchor text c</a>
... etc., so effectively linking only one particular url per page.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

For those who cannot follow: What I mean with named anchors is this:
<a href="page-x.html">Anchor text</a><BR>
<a href="page-x.html#2" rel="nofollow">Anchor text b</a><B>
<a href="page-x.html#3" rel="nofollow">Anchor text c</a>
... etc., so effectively linking only one particular url per page.

To be honest, I do not see any effectiveness with that because:

Google will not see the linked page as duplicated if you do not use the nofollow attributes.
Or they will them count them as only 1 internal link, or if they will divide the PR juice though 3, the linked page will get PR of one.

Originally the "nofollow" attribute was implemented for links to non-trustworthy, irrelevant sites.
Don't you think there is a conflict when 3 links are leading to the same page and the one link says that the site is ok, and the other two links say it is not? Don't you see the contradiction there?

Using different link text on more links of a page linking to one page is an accessiblity quidelines requirement. So it is not wrong in any case.
I would suggest you to take advantage of that.

Peace.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

To
Originally the "nofollow" attribute was implemented for links to non-trustworthy, irrelevant sites.
Don't you think there is a conflict when 3 links are leading to the same page and the one link says that the site is ok, and the other two links say it is not? Don't you see the contradiction there?

Just a quick point I'd like to make John.

While it is true that nofollow initially was for links to sites you could not, or did not, want to "vouch" for, that has since evolved.

More simply it's "do not consider this link" with no real definition as to "why" you don't want it followed attached.

As I have said, for my own reasons, I've chosen not to use it for internal links at this point. But I don't believe that anyone who does choose to use it for their own reasons, is somehow attaching a "negative" stigma to the target page.

Dave

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

To be honest, I do not see any effectiveness with that because:

It's not what you understand, but what works and what not.

Originally the "nofollow" attribute was implemented for links to non-trustworthy, irrelevant sites.
Don't you think there is a conflict when 3 links are leading to the same page and the one link says that the site is ok, and the other two links say it is not? Don't you see the contradiction there?

That is a common misconception which I debunked here, post #55.
rel=Nofollow is invented for finer granularity and fighting non-trustworthy links is just a good way of using it.

Using different link text on more links of a page linking to one page is an accessiblity quidelines requirement. So it is not wrong in any case.
I would suggest you to take advantage of that.

I would suggest you to try reading carefully. I mentioned different anchor text to a single url, all from ONE single page.
Try it at home.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by activeco

I mentioned different anchor text to a single url, all from ONE single page.
Try it at home.

That is exactly what I met. Maybe my bad English again?

So next:

1. Does Google recommend the use of nofollow internally as a positive method for controlling the flow of internal link love?

   • A) Yes – webmasters can feel free to use nofollow internally to help tell Googlebot which pages they want to receive link juice from other pages
     _
     (Matt's precise words were: The nofollow attribute is just a mechanism that gives webmasters the ability to modify PageRank flow at link-level granularity. Plenty of other mechanisms would also work (e.g. a link through a page that is robot.txt'ed out), but nofollow on individual links is simpler for some folks to use. There's no stigma to using nofollow, even on your own internal links; for Google, nofollow'ed links are dropped out of our link graph; we don't even use such links for discovery. By the way, the nofollow meta tag does that same thing, but at a page level.)
     _
   • B) Sometimes – we don't generally encourage this behavior, but if you're linking to user-generated content pages on your site who's content you may not trust, nofollow is a way to tell us that
   • C) No – nofollow is intended to say "I don't editorially vouch for the source of this link." If you're placing un-trustworthy content on your site, that can hurt you whether you use nofollow to link to those pages or not.

   Source: SEOmoz | Matt Cutts on Nofollow, Links-Per-Page and the Value of Directories

At last, why don't have a look at this excellent article of Michael:
How to screw your Web site with nofollow - SEO Theory - SEO Theory and Analysis Blog

Now you have some cool stuff to read at home.

Peace.

[activeco]

Thanks for the links. It's time for you to reread it again and finally understand the matter, at least partially.

[incrediblehelp]

Funny John both of those links were mentioned in the first couple of posts in this thread.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Funny John both of those links were mentioned in the first couple of posts in this thread.

Sorry bro. I just draw them out of my bookmarks and I did not remember that those links where added in the thread before.

[incrediblehelp]

No big deal John I was really stating that more fro activeco.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

No big deal John I was really stating that more fro activeco.

Is there anything there that contradict my statements?

[Webnauts]

Some additional info for Vanessa Fox:

Q: If I nofollow a substantial number of my internal links to reduce duplicate content issues, will this raise a red flag with the search engines?
The number of nofollow links on a site won't raise any red flags, but that is probably not the best method of blocking the search engines from crawling duplicate pages, as other sites may link to those pages. A better method may be to block pages you don't want crawled with a robots.txt file.

Source: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Duplicate content summit at SMX Advanced

[activeco]

That just repeats my statements as well as other links YOU posted.
What is your point exactly?

[Webnauts]

For the nofollow followers.

[activeco]

Some behavior is really hard to understand.

The OP asked "Is this a stand alone technique that can benefit your website"?
Well, my experience proved to myself the benefits of the technique although I wouldn't attribute it to widely thought PR reasons. I believe it could be a combination of a slight PR increase and raising of some filters in some particular cases.
And that is it. I shared my experience which could be helpful to someone who can carefully read.

If it is so easy to skip Mike's excellent comments (#3 of this thread), let me partially repeat it:

Stephen from Netconcepts: So if Shari wrote this piece without any testing, it's just unsubstantiated opinion -- and I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

[deepsand]

A common fallacy is to take an observed correlation and ascribe a causal effect; i.e., I did "A" and observed "B," therefore "A" must be the cause of "B." Well, maybe, and maybe not.

Unless and until one understands how "A" might cause "B," and can then prove that "A" must cause "B," and that there is no other possible cause presently in play, one cannot say with certainty that such a causal relationship does in fact exist.

In short, in order to prove a cause and effect relationship between "A" and "B," one must prove that the presence of "A" cannot not result in "B."

So, to say that "I do not under stand how it works, only that it does" does not stand as proof that "it does."

[Peter (IMC)]

Personally I feel like it's just a big waste of time to use the nofollow to try to get more PR to certain pages. But obviously, when you´re working on navigation (hierachy, categories, etc.) what you´re really doing is PR Sculpting. You´re creating the main flow of the link juice through the website.

Then you'll add some additional links to directly link to some pages which basically means you´re channeling extra PR to those pages.

Now you could say that some institutional pages (like a contact page) don't really have that much value but you do need to link to them from the menu. In this case you could reason it is smart to nofollow these links in the menu.

But really, what do you gain with that? 0.001% of extra PR for each of all the other pages? Is there anybody that all the sudden got tons of visitors extra after placing a couple of nofollows to channel PR?

I like the 20 - 80 rule. Spend 20% of your time to gain 80% of the obtainable result. PR sculpting with nofollow definitely sits in the 80% of time that gets the other 20% of the obtainable result. I rather spend that 80% of my time on 4 more projects that can get me 4 times 80% more. Last time I checked 4 x 80% is about 16 times 1 x 20%.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Personally I feel like it's just a big waste of time to use the nofollow to try to get more PR to certain pages. But obviously, when you´re working on navigation (hierachy, categories, etc.) what you´re really doing is PR Sculpting. You´re creating the main flow of the link juice through the website.

Quite correct.

And, from that it follows that use of "nofollow" may in fact yield implications as to relative importance that run contrary to that implied by that structure itself. And, while this will, of course, not cause confusion for the human viewer, it might cause such for the SE's Indexing routines.

[incrediblehelp]

Decent post from Andy beard on the topic:

Site Structure - SEOs Going Fishing Without Any Bait | Andy Beard - Niche Marketing

[activeco]

Originally Posted by deepsand

So, to say that "I do not under stand how it works, only that it does" does not stand as proof that "it does."

Huh? There is no existence without understanding how it works?
A new scientific premise?
Besides I provided a speculation about at least two possible reasons why it works. Is it so difficult to read the whole thread?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by activeco

Huh? There is no existence without understanding how it works?
A new scientific premise?
Besides I provided a speculation about at least two possible reasons why it works. Is it so difficult to read the whole thread?

Existence and Proof of existence are different things. The true or falsehood of the former is wholly independent of the latter.

And, speculation, or conjecture, falls well short of proof.

[activeco]

Jeez. I would have to go some 30-35 years back in time to answer that.
You can have fun with this thread.

[incrediblehelp]

This post says it all nuff said as far as I am concerned:

Yes, Virginia, your contact page DOES need 500 links - SEO Theory - SEO Theory and Analysis Blog

[incrediblehelp]

More on PR Sculpting from Greg Boser at SES NYC