DoFollow or NoFollow

[Mark Shapiro]

Once again the web is full of videos and advertising about NoFollow or
DoFollow links.

I think the summary is DoFollow when it's your content and NoFollow when
it's an external link or not your content.

But I think the crowd here can explain it a lot better than I find on
the first few pages of Google or Bing's search results.

Examples in html would be appreciated, along with wisdom.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

25.05.2011 18:24, Mark Shapiro kirjoitti:

Once again the web is full of videos and advertising about NoFollow or
DoFollow links.

I haven't noticed such things recently. But generally there is a lot of
marketese around about "search engine optimization".

I think the summary is DoFollow when it's your content and NoFollow when
it's an external link or not your content.

There is no such thing as DoFollow. The attribute rel="nofollow" was
designed to let bloggers, discussion forum maintainers etc. turn URLs to
links in posted texts without thereby giving search engine boosting to
the URLs. That may have been a good idea, though we don't know what
search engines really do.

But using rel="nofollow" just because something is an external link or
not your content is just absurd. If you think some external resource
should not be found via search engines, don't link to it.

(Well, I could imagine myself writing very critically about a web page,
linking to it for reference, but not wishing to promote it in search
engines, so I just might use rel="nofollow" then.)

 

[Brian Cryer]

25.05.2011 18:24, Mark Shapiro kirjoitti:


I haven't noticed such things recently. But generally there is a lot of
marketese around about "search engine optimization".


There is no such thing as DoFollow. The attribute rel="nofollow" was
designed to let bloggers, discussion forum maintainers etc. turn URLs to
links in posted texts without thereby giving search engine boosting to the
URLs. That may have been a good idea, though we don't know what search
engines really do.

I thought it was more for where third parties were allowed to post to your
website - such as when commenting on a blog. So its intended as an anti-spam
measure as some blogs get spammed a lot - as do newsgroups which is why many
websites which farm newsgroup content also use the nofollow attribute on
links.

Its also a way of indicating that a link might be a paid link - something
which google is against, but will tolerate if its flagged as nofollow.

More at: http://everything.explained.at/nofollow

But using rel="nofollow" just because something is an external link or not
your content is just absurd. If you think some external resource should
not be found via search engines, don't link to it.
Agreed.

(Well, I could imagine myself writing very critically about a web page,
linking to it for reference, but not wishing to promote it in search
engines, so I just might use rel="nofollow" then.)

Likewise - I can't think where, but I'm sure I've used it for this purpose
before now.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

The attribute rel="nofollow" was
designed to let bloggers, discussion forum maintainers etc. turn URLs
to links in posted texts without thereby giving search engine boosting
to the URLs.[...]

I thought it was more for where third parties were allowed to post to
your website - such as when commenting on a blog.

I think that's what I wrote about. I have trimmed your quotation of my
words to indicate this. "Posted texts" covers all postings but of course
most importantly those by outsiders - you don't expect yourself or your
coworkers to post crap.

So its intended as an
anti-spam measure as some blogs get spammed a lot

More or less, though it works rather indirectly if at all: it does not
prevent anyone from spamming, just tries to decrease the benefits of
spamming and thereby motivation to spam.

Its also a way of indicating that a link might be a paid link -
something which google is against, but will tolerate if its flagged as
nofollow.

Google cannot really know whether a link is paid or not. It can only
make guesses, based on heuristics. And the idea of using rel="nofollow"
for paid links will probably lose two ways. First, who would pay you for
putting up links if you deliberately tried to prevent the links from
working well (from the payer's perspective)?

Second, do you trust Google? The idea of flagging paid links as paid is
comparable to the idea (suggested as early as 2004-04-01 by a reputable
net personality) of setting up a top-level domain .crime where only
criminal content is allowed, with the promise that crimes made there
will not be investigated and punished.

 

[Brian Cryer]

The attribute rel="nofollow" was
designed to let bloggers, discussion forum maintainers etc. turn URLs
to links in posted texts without thereby giving search engine boosting
to the URLs.[...]

I thought it was more for where third parties were allowed to post to
your website - such as when commenting on a blog.

I think that's what I wrote about. I have trimmed your quotation of my
words to indicate this. "Posted texts" covers all postings but of course
most importantly those by outsiders - you don't expect yourself or your
coworkers to post crap.

Ok. Was just trying to clarify.

More or less, though it works rather indirectly if at all: it does not
prevent anyone from spamming, just tries to decrease the benefits of
spamming and thereby motivation to spam.
Yes.


Google cannot really know whether a link is paid or not. It can only make
guesses, based on heuristics. And the idea of using rel="nofollow" for
paid links will probably lose two ways. First, who would pay you for
putting up links if you deliberately tried to prevent the links from
working well (from the payer's perspective)?

Second, do you trust Google? The idea of flagging paid links as paid is
comparable to the idea (suggested as early as 2004-04-01 by a reputable
net personality) of setting up a top-level domain .crime where only
criminal content is allowed, with the promise that crimes made there will
not be investigated and punished.

I agree fully, but its still what google recommends.