Putting valuable links in posts or at list archives; http prefix or no http prefix?

[Clint1]

Anything that resembles a URL, in text or in code, is treated as a URL.

Ok, but the question is how are they treated differently when one type has a nofollow on it...........

It may not be followed today, but if the document makes it into an index, it will be followed eventually.

Ok, rel=nofollow not followed today, but what do you mean by making it into an index, an SE index? If so, that is what's happening with these archive pages, they do show in the SE indexes. But like I pointed out; those archive pages, with the links in members' emails in them, have the rel=nofollow tag on them when using the http version of a URL/link. So how can the link be followed eventually with that tag on it?

Conjecture? Yes. Is there a more certain answer? Probably.

Indeed. But that's all we can do. That's why I asked to sort of get 'votes' on which is better for the owners of the links.

The way I reason it, anything Outlook can do, an indexing robot can do. Why would one not see the URL?

The question is not whether or not the bot can "see" the URL, we know either way the bots "see" them. The question is how they are treated different after the bots see them. Are the non-clickable, non-http, non-coded, non-href'd links followed? If so, then that version would obviously be better.

Thanks.

[Bernd]

Thanks for the reply. Not sure I follow you Bernd. See my post #3 above: "I don't know if you just threw in the info about the "associated link text" just FYI or not. But what I'm talking about are links with no link text, just the URL alone."

You're the one who doesn't understand.

Archives and email lists are all plain text format, meaning that all emails sent to a list are converted to plaint text ...

So you confirm that your imagined-links are just plain text. And there will never be passed any linkjuice even if the crawlers looks up the URL in text format.

[Fiveonline]

Hi
I completely agree with Colonical. He is absolutely right.

[Clint1]

Hi
I completely agree with Colonical. He is absolutely right.

Thanks for the input.

[Clint1]

You're the one who doesn't understand.

So you confirm that your imagined-links are just plain text. And there will never be passed any linkjuice even if the crawlers looks up the URL in text format.

I fail to see the point in being rude and hostile with smart-ass hostility-provoking remarks that are counter-productive to friendly forum atmosphere....and I'll save my self-defense reply to see first what happens. (Looking at your latest visitors to your WPW page is quite telling indeed).

[claybutler]

Clint, I'll go ahead an chime in one more time just to clarify. Yes, you are trying to game the system. That's not a value judgment. It's a fact. That's the whole premise of the question as it has no relevance in the real world except to increase your chances in the SERP's. Nothing wrong with that. That's the whole point of SEO. We all do it and it's fun and interesting.

Making URL's non-clickable certainly isn't to help users, and will probably have very little effect in your rankings overall either way, so why do it? That's all I was pointing out.

And if it's true that the SE's will start counting non-clicable URL's as hyperlinks you can bet they will shortly begin to treat them all as no-follow by default just to discourage people from throwing URL's all over the place and stuffing them into every space imaginable. It's the never ending battle of SEO versus SE. A lot like Mad Magazine's Spy vs Spy.

And no, a non-clickable link is not a link. It's a just a web address written out. Much in the same way that a painting of a door on a building is not a door and the world "cheese" is not really cheese. This is not to say that a email client, a browser or a search bot couldn't treat it as such, but for a user it it not a hyperlink unless it is clickable.

And you will be surprised how many people can't cut and paste a link. We tend to forget that our normal day to day shortcuts are mysterious to most people. I'm not kidding. My mom just learned this after having a computer for a couple of years. And she was resistant to learning it because it seemed more difficult to her than just retyping something by hand.

Clint, I meant you no ill will and was definitely not implying you were underhanded in any way. Sorry.

[Clint1]

Clint, I meant you no ill will and was definitely not implying you were underhanded in any way. Sorry.

Ok, I'll preface this by saying that I appreciate you clarifying that and clearing that up, thanks. Accepted and in the past.

Clint, I'll go ahead an chime in one more time just to clarify. Yes, you are trying to game the system. That's not a value judgment. It's a fact. That's the whole premise of the question as it has no relevance in the real world except to increase your chances in the SERP's. Nothing wrong with that. That's the whole point of SEO. We all do it and it's fun and interesting.

So then what you're saying is anything that is "SEO" is "gaming" the system? If so, then I guess I accept your definition. I just don't like the word "gaming" because it implies nefarious intent (at least the way I've come to see it used). I don't look at trying to find out what works best for your websites as "gaming". But again if you want to call it that, that's ok and your prerogative.

Making URL's non-clickable certainly isn't to help users, and will probably have very little effect in your rankings overall either way, so why do it? That's all I was pointing out.

Ok I understand that. But the key phrase there is "....and will probably have very little effect in your rankings overall either way". That's not definitive, and, that's one of the questions of this thread that I'm trying to ascertain. "Probably" is not definitive, and "very little" does not mean none at all. So the point is, if there is even a chance it will help a struggling site in the SE's, then it is worth exploring.

Contrary to popular belief, you cannot build your site or IBL's, or whatever, for users. "Content" is not king. We are all the mercy of the next algo f-up, and that is for which we must design and build, and prepare. You can have the most perfect, flawless, relevant, and compelling content, but if you are one of the countless millions victimized by yet another flawed algo that targets the small "voiceless" mom & pop businesses, all those positives are worthless if you are not in any SE index due to said algo f-ups. Therefore any help you can get, is good.

Therefore, if I can find a (white-hat legit) method that works best, I'm sure as hell going to use it! One would be crazy not to.

And if it's true that the SE's will start counting non-clicable URL's as hyperlinks you can bet they will shortly begin to treat them all as no-follow by default just to discourage people from throwing URL's all over the place and stuffing them into every space imaginable.

Sure, I guess that's a possibility, but I don't know how likely they would be to somehow dynamically put a rel=nofollow tag where one does not exist. And it this point in time that has not transpired, and that's all we (I) can concern myself with now is what they are doing now. We don't know the definitive future behavior of bots. All we can do is do our best with them as the times change.

And no, a non-clickable link is not a link. It's a just a web address written out.

It's still a "link", a URL, but it's not a hyper-link. (As weegillis also touched on).

....but for a user it it not a hyperlink unless it is clickable.

Exactly, a hyperlink. See, I'm not talking about "users", I'm talking about bots.

And you will be surprised how many people can't cut and paste a link. We tend to forget that our normal day to day shortcuts are mysterious to most people. I'm not kidding. My mom just learned this after having a computer for a couple of years. And she was resistant to learning it because it seemed more difficult to her than just retyping something by hand.

Yeah I believe it, I see it a lot. When I "introduce" a customer to the "world of copy 'n paste" you'd think I'd have given them the winning lotto ticket.

Again the basic question here is: how do the bots treat clickable and non-clickable links differently. And, when you add into the equation the clickable links are rel=nofollow, that doesn't look good for the owner of those links--if indeed as most believe that tag does indeed definitely prohibit bots from going past the attribute.

Sure, in my never-ending various online research for my business [sigh], I constantly come across webpages with links on them that are not clickable; and yes, it's rather frustrating to not be able to click them and to have to do a copy 'n paste of them. But if the site owner or the one that posted those type links on these pages was aware of a possible rel=nofollow on the HYPERlinks, and "thought/figured" (still trying to find this out) that making them non-clickable had some added SEO benefit, you cannot fault them for doing it. This is all I'm trying to find out.

Let's really simplify it with the bottom line questions:

1. A bot/spider comes across a webpage with links/URL's on it.

2. The bot then hits on a clickable hyperlink with a rel=nofollow tag on it. What exactly takes place next? Does the bot really "ignore" what's at the link and really does not follow it at all?

3. The same bot on the same webpage then comes across another link/URL, but it's not a clickable hyperlink. Now we now from the examples I cited that the bots still do indeed see, and acknowledge the link, and will index the said webpage and show it in the SERP's when searching for the un-clickable URL that appears on said webpage, and as a URL. But what next? Does it follow this URL?

(2) If the answer there is "yes", it's a total dead end, then that would be a vote against using the http prefixed hyperlinks. On the other hand, if the answer there is "no", or there is at least still some link-owner value, the link is counted in some beneficial way, then that would be vote for the http hyperlinked versions.

(3) If the answer there is "yes", the link is followed and treated as any other link in the end, that's a vote for the non-clickable non-rel=nofollow versions. If the answer there is "no", and it too is a dead end, then all this is moot since it wouldn't matter which link versions were used on the webpages.

I am neither an opponent nor proponent of either method as this juncture. But if the rel=nofollow tag really does what it says it does, then I'm tending to lean more towards the non-clickable links without the rel=nofollow on them, if, in their case they are still followed.

Thanks again for the post.

[claybutler]

Thanks for the clarification Clint. I agree, for bots it's a tough call as they are so finicky. They sort of have rules but they don't always follow them.

For users I prefer a clickable, unless for some reason I want to discuss the url but not make it a hyperlink. I would do that perhaps when discussing a spam site or a something questionable where I want to identify a s specif website but not make it easy for the basic user to click through. Kind of like an obstacle to those less sophisticated, but experienced users can just cut and paste the url.

Perhaps in the future I should refer to SEO as "playing the game" rather than "gaming the system" as that is more accurate.

I wish the SE's really did have artificial intelligence perfected. Then we wouldn't have to even think about these things and content would truly be king.

[Clint1]

....Perhaps in the future I should refer to SEO as "playing the game" rather than "gaming the system" as that is more accurate.

Ahh, there ya go!

I wish the SE's really did have artificial intelligence perfected. Then we wouldn't have to even think about these things and content would truly be king.

That's kind of a scary thought. "Perfected" is the key word there. If not perfected it would end up being another Pandora's Box.