What is Digg?95 Comments
- tomee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+152Here's my idea: if a link survives in the page after 5 different users edited it, the nofollow should be removed from the link. And new and anonymous users don't count. Maybe that wouldn't work though. I only just thought of that idea.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+79not clearly good news. while it stops some spamming, it also stops legitimate scoring.
e.g. if your site is linked as a source on many wikipedia articles, it loses scoring, while it _deserves_ it. - phjr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+62Bad news for legitimate sites being linked to from Wikipedia.
- bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@phjr
Since when were legit sites counting on wikipedia to get them hits? They dont pay wikipedia for advertising now, do they? So it was a free ride while it was present, nothing more nothing less - KineticFlow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow
- evansls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"I still don't understand what NOFOLLOW is - anyone care to enlighten me?"
Spammers like to link to their spam sites by leaving their links in comments on sites like digg.com, wikipedia.com, blog sites, etc. When they create a link to their website, the text that forms the actual link such as this example "Click to buy legal Pharmaceuticals and Viagra" is crawled and indexed by google. Google uses that linked text to help with page rank, which is key to a site getting listed at the top of search results when someone searches for "Pharmaceuticals" or "Viagra" for example. The more a spammer links their sites to places that can enter comments with my example above, the better spammer sites are listed at the top of search results. The NoFollow attribute is the so called key to stop the falsifying of page rank, by dynamically assigning the new attribute to the link when it is created. The user doesn't add it, the site adds it just like wikipedia is now doing. Unfortunately, this will hurt potential sites that are linking to their site for accuracy from proper page rank. - geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Sort of. I have a few (legit) inbound links from Wiki, and get quite a bit of traffic from them. However, when you calculate the outbound page rank benefit, it is actually quite tiny.
Traffic will not be affected - and the SEO impact would be negligable for legit websites.
Only spammers trying to get a short term hit to their sites will suffer. - MikeWeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Here's my idea: if a link survives in the page after 5 different users edited it, the nofollow should be removed from the link. And new and anonymous users don't count. Maybe that wouldn't work though. I only just thought of that idea."
It's a good idea, but probably non-trivial to implement. - icekin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I actually like the fact that Wikipedia has now taken a neutral position by simply being a source of information and not influencing the ranking of sites they link to for information.
- ScottWoodard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'd bet that this slows down spammers as much one beat cop with a whistle could slow down a 10 lane highway. Sure it might remove some of the incentive but how many blogs with rel=nofollow for comments are still attacked daily by comment spammers?
- rolandog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@tomee:
That isn't necessarily feasible: some spammers use 'cloaking' styles (hidden or white text),... and I don't know how many users edit the whole document instead of only a section... - JoeCotellese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So why doesn't the Wikipedia follow it's own article suggestion? It could turn on nofollow for new links and turn them off after the link has been in the system for a few months.
- Jamie314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What broken system? Google already ignores nofollow tags for all intents and purposes.
"In early 2005 Google announced that hyperlinks with rel="nofollow" attribute[2] would not influence the link target's ranking in the search engine's index.[3]"
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow#rel.3D.22nofollow.22 - DiggityDooPoo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Yet again the Spammers have won by denying legitimate sites the rightful benefit from being linked by Wiki
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Finally the weird cabal of wiki editors who control their various fiefdoms will have their comeuppance.
I can't wait to see who abandons their wiki editor post because their little scam is finally up. Why bother checking a page every 12 hours to "revert" the competition from existence when there is no benefit? The user WINS, not loses now that this game is over.
And for those of you who don't think that is how wiki editors sometimes use their power, I have a series of bridges to sell you. - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So now Wikipedia steals information from websites without giving 'back' to them.
Now what would happen if every website that links to Wikipedia put 'nofollow'? - bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You guys are missing the point. The point is not "advertising", the point is having access to effective searches. If a page is linked to in a Wikipedia, then it should receive credit for that link. The page is clearly linked to becaue it contains pertinent information on the subject, making it suitable for high ranking. That's the whole concept of PageRank to begin with.
- AndyBeard, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@daxsymbiont
Google actually use links to determine the original source of a document. Wikipedia in many ways have a moral obligation to link through to any source documents with a followable link. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's funny... I usually google for a phrase and add "wikipedia" into my search terms so that the first link that comes up IS wikipedia.
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Perhaps They should be no-follow on any comment with a negative rating.
- nils, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is actually bad news because the current search engine tech relies - at least in part - on using links to score a site/document. Legitimate ressources should have normal non-nofollow links. If everybody started to use nofollow, then that part of Google's technology will break down. I can see how, for example, popular blogs may wish to follow this example. Even on legit links - so they do not increase the google rank of what they might view as competition.
- morcheeba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4whoops.
- 5xSTUN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it's a mistake for a legitimate site operator to rely on Wikipedia for search engine ranking in the first place.
At the same time, spammers are really fouling things up by forcing sites to use NOFOLLOW.
Like the vikings in the Monty Python skit, the spam is burying legitimate information under a deafening chorus of pointless nonsense.
We need Terry Jones to bang a spoon on the counter and yell, "Shut up! Shut up, bloody vikings!" - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh grow up, most links on Wikipedia should be going to academic resources anyways (research papers, scientific journals, etc), and should not affect your page (which Wikipedia can't verify the quality of anyways, which is enough reason to remove the link). If your site is *so* dependent on Page Rank traffic generated by linking to Wikipedia, it's most likely your page is irrelevant. Else you'd have a higher PR from everyone linking to you saying "hey, this is a good resource" in their blogs and whatnot.
The real question this article provides is, when will Digg adopt nofollow for user comments? - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@"Bad news for legitimate sites being linked to from Wikipedia."
What? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge for research and personal knowledge growth and not an aid to get your page a better page rank with Google. Just because you are linked on several pages on Wiki doesn't mean you deserve a better page rank with google.
Wiki is a research tool and if someone needs to go to your site they can just do it from Wiki rather than Google. Otherwise you are just gaming Wiki like you would a Livejournal or Blogspot site. - 8177, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If you want to stop the comment spamming. Keep their bloody comments at -5, and don't reply.
- 08x359, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Jamie314
I think you don't understand. They are saying that if you are linked to with nofollow it won't affect your rankings - for better OR worse. Whereas if you are linked without nofollow it will generally help you out.
Not that they ignore nofollow itself, but that they ignore links with nofollow on them. - Scarblac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Links of the form <a href="..." rel="nofollow">...</a> aren't followed by search engines and thus aren't useful for link spammers (but also not for legitimate functions).
- AndyBeard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wikipedia will gain even more traffic even for niche terms they only have a stub for due to a higher position in SERPs. That then increases the value of having a spam link on each page. There are much better ways to handle this
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4update:
Other sites, such as Wikipedia, use rel="nofollow" on all ordinary external links, but do provide a special shortcut syntax for creating "semi-local" links to a limited number of related or otherwise trusted sites. In the past, Wikipedia has also limited the use of rel="nofollow" to only certain parts of the site, although, as of January 2007, this is no longer the case. - memoBug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>Google would not modify their algorithm for specific site...
I don't know why not: Google had no trouble modifying their algorithm for a specific COUNTRY!
/donogoogle - juzzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
This situation is absurd. Wikipedia has overstepped the mark.
Before now:
• 'link spammers' (or their spam links anyway) were dealt with by the moderators, contributors and vandalism bots, and
• genuine links of value (which remained after moderation) duely provided link credit to the linked site, AND value to the wikipedia reader
Yes, I have, from time to time, placed commercial links in Wikipedia articles, but ONLY if they genuinely provide value - so far, none of my links have been removed by the community concerned.
Wikipedia .. get a grip! - clokwise, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Now, when will all DIGG links be NOFOLLOW ???? That would surely cut down the spam here too wouldn't it ??
- Negyxo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ daxsymbiont
Not all people cited as sources of credible information should be on wikipedia for various reasons. On one my sites i used some info from wikipedia for some info.. then a couple months went by and i noticed that i was getting traffic from wikipedia. Obviously i was confused, so i went on wiki and after a little research found that someone cited the info that i used from wikipedia to cite another similar article on wikipedia! I'm sure this has happened to other people. - JRPereira, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3While it's hard to be 100% sure, from what I've seen, geekchic is right. Usually all you can get by exploiting the search engines is a small amount of time higher on the rankings before you drop back to the bottom.
- JurneyAhed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I still don't understand what NOFOLLOW is - anyone care to enlighten me?
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"not clearly good news. while it stops some spamming, it also stops legitimate scoring.
e.g. if your site is linked as a source on many wikipedia articles, it loses scoring, while it _deserves_ it."
True; however, if it's good, it'll likely be reputable outside of the domains of Wikipedia, so hopefully the very negatively affected truly "good" sites from this will be few, and it will then really be about time to find ways of gaining recognition in other means than an encyclopedia in that case. - seanieb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great idea!..really.
- RawkBob, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2Some day in the not too distant future searching will be useless because everyones going to be using these nofollow links except the spammers... therefor all the legit links will be nofollow therefore not indexed... shame. I can understand the decision, but think it's a bad move. A better solution is needed, i don't know what though... prevention is better than cure or something along those lines ^_^
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"and might lose first place because Wikipedia is no longer linking to them"
Yes, possibly lose places -- but ask yourself: "losing to whom"? So they'll lose places to other sites that have better recognition even outside Wikipedia and thus aren't affected? Wouldn't that possibly be a *good* thing? Or are you saying rank pumping through "External links" sections are automatically better than what the rest of the web thinks? - Asianne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@daxsymbiont By legitimate scoring, I'm guessing you are speaking in terms of Google's Pagerank - If I recall correctly per Matt Cutts, "No Follow links will still be found and spidered, but no page rank will be assigned. "
My main problem with all the spam issues that popular websites are experiencing, is that the main fault belongs to Google. In fact, Google has many quotes in the blogoshpere about how links on Wikipedia and Digg can assist your ranking. Unfortunately, those quotes have been pushed out into the Search Engine Marketing industry, and once one of the bigger companies get wind of that tip and push it out - many smaller guys tend to follow and spam the system until it gets to a point such as this. - AndyBeard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gnosaj
Your arguments would be valid if nofollow wasn't something contrived by the search engines as a way of differentiating between the validity of links, and if links were not used heavily as part of attribution, and determining the original source.
Websites that create good original content have a right to make money from it if they wish in whatever way they determine. In some cases they are kind enough to use some kind of "free to use" license, as long as they receive propper credit.
By using nofollow, the attribution chain is broken
If Wikipedia really want to make a change, they should use nofollow on all internal links. That way each page will only be judged on its own merit. - ReyBrujo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A couple of replies
"If so, wouldn't this be an appropriate scenario for those annoying CAPTCHAS?"
A mathematical equation is shown whenever you try to insert a link to some smaller Wikipedias (latin, in example). Bots can solve math equations with little problem. Captchas have been discussed, but with over 30,000 edits per day, generating them would drain CPU resources and bandwidth like mad.
This is a temporary measure. Our spam channel (found at Freenode, #wikipedia-spam-t) discovered there is a certain spam tournament, where the one who gets his domain to rank the highest would get a prize. This measure has been taken because it has been demonstrated that the smaller Wikipedias were being targetted, and with less contributors, they are in as much danger as the English Wikipedia. The announcement is at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html
Of course, people will complain, but it is one of the multiple measures that are being studied in the WikiProject Spam. As stated by others before, this has been studied and rejected in the past, but the situation right now have forced us to do this in order to protect not only the English, but also the smaller Wikipedias. - jmaynardg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The advertising on that blog makes my brain hurt.
- trypnotic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Looks like someone hasn't updated that page yet... here's an excerpt:
In particular, on the English Wikipedia, after a discussion, it was decided not to use rel="nofollow" in articles and to use a URL blacklist instead. In this way, Wikipedia contributes to the scores of the pages it links to, and expects editors to link to relevant pages. However, Wikipedia does use rel="nofollow" on pages that are not considered to be part of the actual encyclopedia, such as discussion pages, and Wikipedia projects in languages other than English also use it in articles. - Vinvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google would not modify their algorithm for specific site and Google by far isn't the only search engine.
Anyway, let's hope for Wikipedia that Wikiseek does not gain ground :D
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikiseek - transeunte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Is Wikipedia spamming done by "robots"? If so, wouldn't this be an appropriate scenario for those annoying CAPTCHAS? (if they're not already there, that is)
- Loudtyper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone made a good point on the searchenginewatch page.
Just make links no follow (60 days/90 days etc) for a certain amount of time - if no one deletes them - then they are there for a purpose. - Koray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No. Digg comment spam is done for traffic, not for SEO.
Edit: Eh, got there before me. - jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This really helps no one. Spam is usually promptly removed from articles, so all this is doing is stopping search engines from creating better results.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is