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 ...


14

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 ...


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.


9

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 ...


8

The seo experts told us to put rel="nofollow" to all external links. Trying to massage PR in this way sounds like a very outdated concept to me. Is e-Commerce any different in this respect? If a site is worth linking to it should be "follow". In a broad sense rel="nofollow" should only be used on paid-for or untrusted (ie. user-submitted) links. ...


7

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 ...


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

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 ...


6

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". ...


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

Most commonly mistaken thing about the 'nofollow' tag is that has nothing to do with not indexing content. I recommend you read the true meaning of nofollow. Also technically email addresses and tel links are internal links so there should be no reason to use a nofollow tag on it. Furthermore, mailto and tel are not pages or links to content in any way. If ...


5

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 ...


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

It basically tells the user agent that link should be nofollow'd and also points to an external website. Search engines will know not to pass link juice to the linked-to URL because of the nofollow value. The external value can be used for a variety of things. Often times it is used with JavaScript to automatically provide an icon that indicates the link ...


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 ...


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

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


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

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 ...


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

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

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

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

Instead of using rel="nofollow" you should use rel="me" if you're linking to your own social media pages. This allows you to explicitly tell Google that you're not just linking to those pages, but you actually control them. Here's an article with some good insight on the matter. As the article notes: By placing ‘rel=me’ attributes on all your links to ...


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 ...


4

Don't worry about small things like this. It's perfectly fine to have both links. Don't nofollow either of the links. With regard to the home page links… Having the logo linked to the homepage provides the conventional link to the root. http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/81727/why-is-it-standard-for-a-website-logo-to-navigate-to-the-home-page Having ...


4

What you have to know about rel="nofollow" There are many different opinions, on this question, but the most important thing you need to know about it is that it won't harm your seo if you use nofollow for external resources, also it won't harm your SEO if you don't use them. What is the point of rel="nofollow" This is how page ranking works, the most ...



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