no follow

Discussion in 'HTML' started by shapper, Mar 13, 2009.

  1. shapper

    shapper Guest

    Hello,

    I have a few Social Bookmarks on my web site (Digg, Google, ...)
    For all of the links I added the attribiute rel="nofollow".

    I also have a RSS link so the user can subscribe RSS news. It goes to
    the RSS XML file:
    <a href="http://www.mywebsite.com/Subscribe/Rss" title="Subscribe
    Rss">Subscribe</a>

    Should I add rel="nofollow" to this anchor to?

    Thanks,
    Miguel
     
    shapper, Mar 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. shapper wrote:

    > I have a few Social Bookmarks on my web site (Digg, Google, ...)
    > For all of the links I added the attribiute rel="nofollow".


    Why?

    > I also have a RSS link so the user can subscribe RSS news. It goes to
    > the RSS XML file:
    > <a href="http://www.mywebsite.com/Subscribe/Rss" title="Subscribe
    > Rss">Subscribe</a>
    >
    > Should I add rel="nofollow" to this anchor to?


    Why?

    What do you expect the attribute to do?

    There's no published specification. The draft for a sketch of a proposal
    says:
    "By adding rel="nofollow" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the
    destination of that hyperlink SHOULD NOT be afforded any additional weight
    or ranking by user agents which perform link analysis upon web pages (e.g.
    search engines). Typical use cases include links created by 3rd party
    commenters on blogs, or links the author wishes to point to, but avoid
    endorsing."
    http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-nofollow

    So it's a command in disguise, a procedural instruction loosely camouflaged
    as an "attribute" in "(semantic) markup", and oriented towards the needs of
    some companies. You can take it as a fact of life in a world more or less
    dominated by Google and few others in the search engine business - but
    nobody compels you to use it, and it appears to be quite counterproductive
    to use it on your own links.

    It's really meant to work as a feeble method of protection against link
    spamming in blogs and similar material. Its name should really be
    this_link_should_not_be_regarded_as_relevant_when_counting_link_popularity_of_pages

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 13, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jukka K. Korpela"
    <> writing in news:nHwul.305$:

    > So it's a command in disguise, a procedural instruction loosely
    > camouflaged as an "attribute" in "(semantic) markup", and oriented
    > towards the needs of some companies. You can take it as a fact of life
    > in a world more or less dominated by Google and few others in the
    > search engine business - but nobody compels you to use it, and it
    > appears to be quite counterproductive to use it on your own links.
    >
    > It's really meant to work as a feeble method of protection against
    > link spamming in blogs and similar material. Its name should really be
    > this_link_should_not_be_regarded_as_relevant_when_counting_link_popula

    r
    > ity_of_pages
    >
    >


    Right, what we really need is something that would explicitly say "Do
    not follow this link because it essentially goes to the same place, with
    the same content", for example, http://example.com/page.asp?style=red vs
    http://example.com/page.asp?style=blue

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Mar 13, 2009
    #3
  4. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Guy Macon
    <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> writing in
    news:D:

    >
    >
    >
    > Adrienne Boswell wrote:
    >>
    >>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jukka K. Korpela" writing:
    >>
    >>> So it's a command in disguise, a procedural instruction loosely
    >>> camouflaged as an "attribute" in "(semantic) markup", and oriented
    >>> towards the needs of some companies. You can take it as a fact of
    >>> life in a world more or less dominated by Google and few others in
    >>> the search engine business - but nobody compels you to use it, and
    >>> it appears to be quite counterproductive to use it on your own
    >>> links.
    >>>
    >>> It's really meant to work as a feeble method of protection against
    >>> link spamming in blogs and similar material. Its name should really
    >>> be
    >>>

    this_link_should_not_be_regarded_as_relevant_when_counting_link_popul
    >>> a rity_of_pages

    >>
    >>Right, what we really need is something that would explicitly say "Do
    >>not follow this link because it essentially goes to the same place,
    >>with the same content", for example,
    >>http://example.com/page.asp?style=red vs
    >>http://example.com/page.asp?style=blue

    >
    > Would the rel="canonical" attribute (currently supported by Google,
    > Yahoo, and Microsoft search engines) do what you want?
    >
    > References:
    > http://searchengineland.com/canonical-tag-16537
    > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-

    canonic
    > al.html http://www.cleanseo.net/seo/canonical-url-tag/#more-13
    > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/canonical-link-

    eleme
    > nt-presentation.html
    >
    >


    Oooo... thanks a bunch!


    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Mar 13, 2009
    #4
  5. Adrienne Boswell wrote:

    > Right, what we really need is something that would explicitly say "Do
    > not follow this link because it essentially goes to the same place,
    > with the same content",


    Do we? It would still be a command-like "element". And why would we, as
    authors, give instructions rather than (meta)information to search engines?
    We cannot know whether search engines actually want to crawl, maybe for a
    good reason, different copies of a document.

    In HTML 4.01, there is a sloppily written semi-quasi-normative and
    pseudo-descriptive list of rel attribute values. Among them, the following
    is interesting here:

    Alternate
    Designates substitute versions for the document in which the link occurs.
    When used together with the lang attribute, it implies a translated version
    of the document. When used together with the media attribute, it implies a
    version designed for a different medium (or media).

    Now _that_ would be descriptive. We're not saying what should be _done_ with
    the link. We simply _describe_ the relationship between the linking and the
    linked resource.

    Yet, it says "substitute versions", not "copies". In its vagueness, a <link
    rel="alternate" ...> element is almost useless, except perhaps on advanced
    browsers that give the user optional access to alternate versions via
    browser's interface. But such <link>ing is rather pointless, because most
    users would not be able to make use of them, so explicit <a href> links
    would be needed anyway.

    What _could_ make sense is rel="copy" if it were defined and used as meaning
    that the linked resource is a copy of the linking resource, as regards to
    content, with possible differences in presentation style and format (e.g.,
    Word format vs. HTML format, in cases were such format difference implies no
    difference in content). This would raise the inconvenient question whether
    rel="copy" is to be taken as a commitment of some kind to _keep_ the
    resources identical in content.

    On the other hand, such markup would be fairly useless, since search engines
    need to investigate, and they do investigate, the actual content of pages to
    detect copies.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 14, 2009
    #5
  6. shapper

    Rob W. Guest

    Guy Macon schreef:
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
    >>
    >>> Right, what we really need is something that would explicitly say "Do
    >>> not follow this link because it essentially goes to the same place,
    >>> with the same content",

    >> Do we? It would still be a command-like "element".

    >
    > Looks like Jukka doesn't know about link rel="canonical" (currently
    > supported by Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft search engines)...
    >
    > That's what happens when you killfile someone because you don't like
    > the "From:" line instead of killfiling because of objectionable content.
    >
    > References:
    > http://searchengineland.com/canonical-tag-16537
    > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
    > http://www.cleanseo.net/seo/canonical-url-tag/#more-13
    > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/canonical-link-element-presentation.html
    >



    First: do we really need commercial entities to establish our standards,
    on their own?

    Second: where are the references to the critics?

    Third: I wouldn't be surprised if Jukka knew all about it.

    --
    Rob W.
     
    Rob W., Mar 15, 2009
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,242
    Martin
    Aug 29, 2003
  2. Davef

    Follow up to javascript question.

    Davef, Aug 22, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    654
    Davef
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. Jason MacKenzie

    Dynamic Control Follow Up

    Jason MacKenzie, Nov 26, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    293
    Jason MacKenzie
    Nov 26, 2004
  4. Charles Thomas

    Images from JAR files - follow up

    Charles Thomas, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    348
    Charles Thomas
    Jul 24, 2003
  5. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A0?=
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A0?=
    Jan 10, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page