You Might Want Those NoFollow Links Afterall!

[deepsand]

A number of parties have, over the past several years, reported test results showing that anchor text of a nofollow link does show in the SERPs for a given target page when :

• the target page has been previously indexed; and,
• the link is the only, or first of several, on the source page pointing to the target page in question.

[morestar]

A number of parties have, over the past several years, reported test results showing that anchor text of a nofollow link does show in the SERPs for a given target page when :

• the target page has been previously indexed; and,
• the link is the only, or first of several, on the source page pointing to the target page in question.

This sort of falls in line with why I believe it's important to place your links at the top of your content, regardless of whether they're followed or not.

[deepsand]

The salient factor here is not the absolute placement of links, but the ordering of redundant ones.

Example - A given page contains the following links, ordered as shown:

• Link1 (AnchorText1) ---> TargetA
• Link2
• Link3
• ...
• LinkX (AnchorTextX) ---> TargetA

Only Link1 & AnchorText1 will be effective for purposes of indexing IBLs & anchor text for TargetA, regardless of the presence/absence of nofollow.

If TargetA is previously indexed, it will appear in the SERPs for query string = AnchorText1, even if Link1 is nofollow.

[Hamilton]

By the smiley at the end, I seriously hope that was meant as a joke. Google is about as far along in AI as lolcats.com is

Just mean in terms of the direction it is heading in.... granted by their own admission - the linguistic skills of a toddler at present.

[deepsand]

Just mean in terms of the direction it is heading in...

What suggests that AI is here needed, let alone evidence that Google is attempting to develop such?

[Hamilton]

AI is far more than sophisticated algorithms. Despite decades of attempts, we are little closer to designing a true AI agent than we were when we started.

I use the term very broadly - meaning merely that the surface level of intuitive thinking - the capacity to inter-relate concepts is becoming more and more human-esque.

[mjtaylor]

What suggests that AI is here needed, let alone evidence that Google is attempting to develop such?

I'm confused by your comment. Are you saying that AI isn't needed and being developed by search engines?

[deepsand]

AI - The sapience of Homo sapiens simulated by a machine.

Not necessary for solving bounded problems of the sort faced by SEs.

Doubtful if achievable.

[mjtaylor]

I think you might be taking a much more limited view of AI than Google does. http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...920_708019.htm

And certainly 'search' in an even broader sense than search engines is a prime AI topic, isn't it? As is natural language and semantics? I can't imagine that a search engine that can provide truly relevant results wouldn't do so through something most accurately labeled AI.

[deepsand]

I think you might be taking a much more limited view of AI than Google does. http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...920_708019.htm

Not at all; calling a sub-set by the name of the whole does not make it the whole.

And certainly 'search' in an even broader sense than search engines is a prime AI topic, isn't it? As is natural language and semantics? I can't imagine that a search engine that can provide truly relevant results wouldn't do so through something most accurately labeled AI.

AI requires sapience. Specialized algorithms do not.

Would true AI be useful here? Yes. But, it is neither necessary nor likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future.