Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

No, it will not help. What you're doing is trying to serve up different content to Google then to your users. That's definitely against Google's terms of service and is a great way to get banned. There's nothing wrong with outbound links. If you don't want a site to get credit for the link to their site if you are concerned it is spam or otherwise low ...


12

No, there's no point in trying to sculpt PageRank this way, as Matt Cutts makes clear in the linked blog post. The only reasons to put rel="nofollow" on those pages are if they are paying for the links (could get you penalized in search results) or if you don't trust those sites to not be in "bad neighbourhoods" and harm your reputation by linking to them.


10

The only time that it is mandatory to use rel="nofollow" on a link is if the link is sponsored. If somebody paid you for the link, or if the link is part of an exchange, Google might penalize your site for NOT including a rel="nofollow" on it. You should also apply nofollow to links that are created by your users without review. Otherwise, they have ...


8

NO!! Doing this is SEO suicide. Menu links are great way to channel PageRank to your important pages. Using nofollow would essentially keeping PR from those pages and, even worse, throwing away PR as PR is still "sent" to those links. It's just not used when calculating those page's PR. Don't use nofollow on any internal links unless you don't want search ...


7

Disqus has a blog post about how using there tool helps, http://blog.disqus.com/post/9956511178/disqus-research-how-comments-drive-traffic. In the comments, Rob Webb asks the Disqus team about the SEO drawbacks of using Disqus because of the JavaScript not being seen by search spiders. The response from Disqus says that they aren't even sure if there are ...


6

SEO myths get dumber and dumber with time... The ratio of nofollow and dofollow links is definitely not a factor because: It is an indication of nothing. Really, how does this ratio indicate anything about the page quality? Or page's relevance? It doesn't. "Appearing organic" is such a stupid term. Organic is organic. Everything else is not. Search ...


6

I wouldn't bother and you don't need to look any further then this page to see why. Look at the links to the other StackExchange sites in the footer of this page. It's on every page of every site in the network. If something like this was a problem you can be sure StackExchange, who has direct contact with Google about SEO issues, wouldn't do it.


6

<ul> <li><a href="<?=site_url('terms');?>" rel="nofollow">Terms</a>|</li> <li><a href="<?=site_url('privacy');?>" rel="nofollow">Privacy</a>|</li> <li><a href="<?=site_url('disclaimer');?>" rel="nofollow">Disclaimer</a>|</li> <li><a ...


5

rel="nofollow" does not help with SEO. It was created by Google to combat link spam. Links that have that attribute pass no PageRank and do not count as a backlink in any major search engine. Google may acknowledge that it found a link with nofollow but that link will have no value. Source How does Google handle nofollowed links? In general, we ...


5

I don't see why you need to use nofollow here. Google's examples for using nofollow (link) are: Untrusted content Paid links Crawl prioritization However I can see your thinking behind wanting to use them; your sites are similar in subject and structure. However, linking between your own sites is not a violation of Google guidelines and they ...


5

No this is not good. Google did not intend for nofollow to be used for internal links. It is meant to be used for links that you do not have editorial control over. This is going to hurt you a lot. Your .htaccess code is not adding nofollow to your links. It is not possible for .htaccess to alter your HTML like that. Something else is causing your problem. ...


5

Search engines crawlers follow the most restrictive rule. If you use nofollow in your meta tag, no link will be followed. If you use follow in your meta tag, all links will be followed except those with rel="nofollow". So answer to your question is no, meta tag with follow doesn't override individual rel="nofollow". ...


4

Yes, they will try to post the form. Anyway, the approach you're using could potentially have problems if someone else links to the page. If you don't want a page to be crawled by a responsible bot (like Google/Bing etc) then you should use the robots.txt file to disallow them from crawling it. If you don't have access to robots.txt you can do a similar ...


4

Linking out, unless linking to a "bad neighbourhood" (spam, malware etc), will NOT get you penalized. Only add rel=nofollow to links that you can't vouch for, or that are paid links. Other than that, there is nothing to worry about. EDIT - for people who can't accept #1 http://www.dailyblogtips.com/linking-out-google-pagerank/ ...


4

You're actually using the wrong directive. Meta nofollow doesn't do what you think: Originally, the nofollow attribute appeared in the page-level meta tag, and instructed search engines not to follow (i.e., crawl) any outgoing links on the page. What you want is the noindex directive: To entirely prevent a page's contents from being listed in the ...


4

The practice of hoarding "link juice" isn't a valid practice anymore. Google got wise to the whole "PageRank sculpting" game and amended their algorithm accordingly. Any PR that would have passed via a given link, were it not nofollowed, is effectively thrown away. The only likely exception to this is where users are able to post unmoderated links, for ...


4

Matt Cutts recommends against it (and in on other posts/videos as well). Plus Stack Overflow is a very different beast then the average website. I wouldn't say that everything they do is appropriate for all sites. And since he also said linking to external sites can be a positive ranking factor, unless you have a very good reason to do it i would not do this ...


4

It's quite likely that the forum software they are using doesn't really support the mechanisms Google and others need to read the AJAX content - as it's not as simple as just "processing the HTML": Making AJAX Applications Crawlable So the idea would be, the site loads the static HTML that is refreshed with a particular frequency (daily/hourly/etc.) ...


4

dofollow does not exist so I would infer that the link would be considered as nofollow only.


4

Yoast answers this very well in this blog post: A better solution would be to add a <meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow"> tag to those search results pages, as it would prevent the search results from rankings but would allow the link “juice” to flow through to the returned posts and pages. Someone will inevitably link to a page you wish ...


4

Like I said (dramatically and poorly) in my comments, it is not an acceptable practice. nofollow is designed for webmasters to disavow links on their own website that they do not have editorial control over. The best example of this are blogs with links to the websites of commentors. This was a common source of spam and this allows blogs to allow the users ...


3

Even if you use nofollow PageRank is still "lost" to those links even if those pages don't actually get it . So you won't be accomplishing anything by doing this.


3

Should? No. Why would you nofollow your own links to your own site? If you don't want the tag pages indexed(different thing), that's your own choice and you can add the directive as a meta tag on the relevant page template, or you can just do it via robots.txt. Do you have: a tag cloud somewhere on your site, like a page dedicated to it, or a giant ...


3

According to Google: In general, we don't follow them. This means that Google does not transfer PageRank or anchor text across these links. Essentially, using nofollow causes us to drop the target links from our overall graph of the web. However, the target pages may still appear in our index if other sites link to them without using nofollow, or ...


3

Nofollow doesn't stop Google from crawling pages, it stops any 'link juice' being passed to those pages. Robots.txt is what you want to prevent google from crawling pages. http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html


3

The answer is you should allow links that are trusted to not have the rel no follow tag. There are a couple of reasons: Your link juice is always divided between all the links on your page including, the links with the rel no follow tag. The link juice just isn't sent to through the links to the external sites with the no follow tags. The point of rel no ...


3

According to Matt Cutts links to quality external sites is part of Google's algorithm. Not to mention, if every site did this imagine what the state of search engines would be like? Quality of search results would suffer tremendously. Be a good webmaster and help the search engines do a better job.


3

The nofollow links aren't supposed to be used in the calculation of the PageRank that a page receives. However, people commonly mention that some types of social media nofollow links do pass PageRank. My understanding of this is Google does at least use Twitter links but they aren't using the ones they discover via normal web spidering. Google also receives ...


3

Is my juice leaking? From your last question I think that maybe your ideas might be confused regarding link juice leaking. According to my understanding of this Matt Cutts' article (that I suggest you to read): Your link juice leaks out because of any link you place on your page, even if the link uses the rel="nofollow". The only difference using ...


3

What he is referring to is the HTML markup of the page. The nofollow keyword goes into a rel attribute on a tag, usually an <a> tag with an href like so: <a href="/link" rel="nofollow">link</a>. So he is suggesting that if you don't want search engines parsing through your javascript and looking for links you can do this: <script ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible