digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why NoFollow Links Just Aren't Cool

blogs.webpronews.com — "I would love to acknowledge your existence, but you might be a spammer. Since you might be a spammer, I better not link to you. Google doesn ’t like spammers and… you know, you’re either with Google or you’re against them. So, I can’t really, you know, risk it."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thedefiantone, on 10/11/2007, -17/+6When Wikipedia went nofollow that really F'ed a few of my sites.
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13so don't spam wikipedia...
    • afx1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9if u're primary backlinks are wikipedia then you got bigger problems
  • jstohler, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Amen for the NoFollow attribute. How else could a blogger talk about a crappy site and show their readers where it is without giving them a search boost?
  • Dayyve, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Could one of you guys please explain what this means? The article talks from the perspective that you are a blogger or web developer or something and I am neither. How would Wikipedia going 'nofollow' screw with people's sites? I get the fact that it seems to revolve around comment spam and I'm guessing inflating ad revenue somehow shady? Or is Google the shady ones making 99.9% of the honest people pay for the .01% of the conniving bloggers?
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17He's complaining that it's overused by lazy bloggers who don't take the time to moderate their comments, and because of that they set "nofollow" by default on links in submitted content, which (in the case of primarily-good-comments), means that otherwise useful links are being treated no differently from spam links.

      And then something about how that's just not fair to people who take the time to craft meaningful responses.
    • str3ama, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18@Dayyve
      Wikipedia removed nofollow so as to avoid spammers editing articles and adding their own links in (for a pr boost - pr helps you get better SERPS, or by the very least it helps you gain credability - and you can sell links on your site or whatever else you want to do). Wikipedia was seen as the ultimate in authorithy by Google and getting your link in there was a common practice by SEO and spammers alike. So when Wikipedia made the unilaterial decision to stop this - lots of spammers got screwed over. BUT on the other hand, a lot of legitimate sites that were actually GOOD and that were legitimately posted - no longer recieved the PR boost from the Wikipedia page/articles, and so a lot of good sites lost the PR and some are lost in the Google search engine pages - so technically those good sites are lost because Wiki decided to add nofollow. Either way I don't blame wiki for doing that, since it makes it easier for them since spammers aren't so headstrung on putting their links up.
    • mancat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4I still don't get it.
      • spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6nofollow is a meta tag or linking option that you can optionally put in a web page's HTML code. This tag instructs search engines not to follow links on a web page.

        Often spammers will leave bogus comments on people's blogs and wikis with links to their own for-profit sites. Google determines how "relevant" a web site is in part by the number of other sites that link to it. Sites like Wikipedia and Digg already fare well on Google, so to have such a site link to your own web page is high praise in the eyes of search engines. Thus, your site is deemed more relevant.

        So to discourage spammers from leaving links on your website you would enable the nofollow tag to make sure they don't get credit with Google for linking to their site from yours.
    • Dayyve, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Thanks for all of your help guys. Very cool, now I understand :)
  • str3ama, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9If you take a look at blogs with nofollow enabled and those without, the quality of the comments on the ones without nofollow are usually higher - maybe it has something to do with people posting meaningful comments when they know it could help them with some pr. Or maybe people just subtly internalize nofollow as an aggressive move since the blog owner is trying to gain comments, without having to give out any links
    • iofthestorm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The relationship could go the other way though, i.e. the admin turned on nofollow after realizing that the majority of his comments were spammy ones. I think that makes a lot more sense than nofollow somehow being internalized into people's minds.
  • ddizzle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21this....coming from webtickle, who is neil patel, KNOWN seo (spammer, imo) marketer
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4all SEO douchebags are spammers, you don't need to qualify it
  • topcat31, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Nofollow - the condom of the internet world. And, well, you know... things always feel better au natural ;-)
    • jstohler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Feeling better and being safe are often exclusive. Your analogy is perfect, even if you don't understand it.
  • theantix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9What a load of crap. The only people "screwed over" by having nofollow are the people trying to game search engines by writing comments purely for the sake of getting google juice from it. Adding nofollow works precisely by eliminating these same idiots who now think that it's "rude". In fact, it's plainly obvious that it is the SEO jerks who are the ones being rude, the rest of the civilized world is trying to deal with your spam as best as possible while letting non-spammers leave links that may be interesting to the comment.

    Now, to bury as inaccurate or bury as lame... tough call.
  • ukdave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Although I am not a big fan, the nofollow tag does have it's uses, like when I wake up to ten spam posts on my blog, what if the search engines spidered my website whilst I was in bed and saw me linking to shewillloveyouinthemoring.com/buy-viagara/ or whatever, I think that the only time they should be applied is when a link is not an editorial vote of confidence.
  • ahecht, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3This is BS. Google should judge the value of a site based on how many OTHER people find it worthwhile enough to link to. The fact that you spent the time to comment on someones blog has no effect on the quality of your sites content, and therefore should have to effect on how you rank in google. To suggest that blog owners should somehow reward you at the expense of google searchers is stupid and selfish.
  • daok, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Google use nofollow since 2005 (REF : http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html) May I know why this topic getting popular now?
  • ypSami, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Agreed. Police your own comments.

    On the topic of politeness and NoFollow... I would say it's rude for someone to leave a comment on your site if their intentions are to get another link back to their own site. Also, it's rude for them to take offense to however you set your NoFollow.

    In a metaphorical sense, this article assumes that every friend that comes to your place wants a beer, and that it's only polite to give a beer to everyone who comes to your house. Other people who don't give beers when their friends come over, are not as good of friends, and the friends will think poorly of the people because they did not receive a beer.

    You see the bollocks in this? Your friends end up coming over just for beer.

    There should not be incentive for commenting. Just make it easy.

    And yes, you're a bit hypersensitive to rudeness.
  • chazzbro, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Blog owners appreciate good quality comments, and hate spam as much as you do. NoFollow discourages the time investment involved, robbing us of helpful contributions. I have done away with NoFollow on my blog and encourage others to do the same.

    http://chuckbrown.com/no-nofollow-logo.html
  • chazzbro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I neglected to mention that I manually approve all links...so crap contributions for the sake of links are not approved. And Akismet does most of the Cialis/Viagra/Gambling elimination for me.
  • etnu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The only reason to NOT want nofollow links would be in order to let search engines (especially google) associate the link with your site.

    So, if you're saying "***** you google, I don't care about stopping search engine spam", in the same breath as you're saying "but I really need the page rank", you're an idiot.
    • chazzbro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That's lame. Just because NoFollow is a SIMPLE way of addressing search engine spam doesnt mean that it's the ONLY way. Use your brain.
  • TheShad0w, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't really read blogs unless someone links an interesting post (though most of them are just short wrappers around a link to the true source) To put it honestly. I don't comment on their blogs, I don't think about doing it, and I probably never will. What I don't like is these blogs screwing up my searches cause their comments are nothing but spam. I don't quite care how its taken care of. Either you bloggers need to clean up your code and add tools to filter out bots or be lazy and use nofollow.
  • alrahman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2*****. Its my blog and I can do what I like with it. Dont like it? Dont visit. Simple
  • chazzbro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree that blogs need to add value if they have a reason to exist. But it's silly to say that NoFollow is the only way to do it. I'm not saying that Wordpress should remove it. As has become obvious in this thread, many don't understand the issues involved anyway. So leave it as the default setting, but allow those of us who give a damn about the value and content of our blog to turn it off. And either way, we have the DoFollow plugin now.

    Just like a parent and the shows their children watch, they should be taking the responsibility and asking someone to do it for them.

    Personally I DO read and comment on blogs. It's not uncommon for me to make comments as long as the blog post itself. Do you think I'd bother if the purpose were just a link back to my blog? Hardly. My blog doesn't even have any ads on it. I comment because I appeciate the blog post and want to either challenge the point or elaborate further.

    So these blanket statments are worthless. People need to accept responsibility for their own actions...and that includes bloggers who must be diligent about comment spam. But a link from a valid blog comment should be equal in value to a link in a forum signature, or an email signature, or a blog post itself, or on a web page anywhere else.
  • weebit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1spammers had at one time about taken over the blogger comment section on several websites I had frequented a few years ago. Many gave up trying to keep them off of their website blogs. Keeping up with the deletion of their spam was a tedious job, and required vigilance every day of the week. When the nofollow came along it enabled the blogger to take control again. It is still not fool proof, but it lesson the ones trying to use you as a means to bring up popularity with their spam sites.

    But it also took away from the very good sites that you was blogging in the first place. I noticed it takes longer to get a good rank. I am sure the is the backlash caused from the nofollow. I had checked for the nofollow tag, and the norm is 3 or four tags included in each page of the blog. In the beginning, their was just one tag included in the meta tag of the comments section. But you would be surprised to learn that some blog websites nofollow ALL links on the page now days. Not just comment tags. Perhaps this is the reason as to why some blog sites have a hard time trying to get a good ranking?
  • geofffox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1From a practical standpoint, my blog has gone from a Google PR5 to PR4. I assume the reason is there are now fewer links to me, because my comments are 'nofollow'ed. When I comment, I'm usually speaking where I have some expertise. It seems to be within the spirit of Google's rankings to elevate my site for that reason.

    However, I am being penalized for the sins of others... something posters on this site (and many others) have railed against for years.

    My incoming Google traffic is down enough that my overall traffic has dropped around 35%. My AdSense revenue has gone from a few dollars a day to under $1. Those incoming hits mostly came to my 'inside pages' where I have older content that matches search queries.

    Google and site owners are entitled to act as they wish. Personally, I use a variety of methods to eliminate comment spam and remove the ones that get through as soon as they arrive. I limit comments to posts made within the last week. I'd rather not penalize the people who really do have something to say on my site... and their own.
  • Tinu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The people who want to remove NoFollow actually benefit the least. Those of us who get more comments because of it actually take on more work. To the person who was asking about the NoFollow issue, there's a No "No Follow" community over at bumpzee.com and you'll find way better explanations there. I'm a member, but not involved in any other way.
  • bernzilla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You can be smart about the way you use nofollow, so you don't punish the people who comment legitimately, but you don't reward the people who don't:

    http://www.bernzilla.com/item.php?id=810
  • chazzbro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Here's a link to the No NoFollow community at Bumpzee that Tinu mentioned. I am also a member. And it's the third largest community over there...so conscientious webmasters are grappling with the issue.
    http://www.bumpzee.com/no-nofollow/
  • gmillerd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Worst subby ever
  • googli, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0I think the following link on that site was more interesting:

    buy viagra http://tabletta.com/

    buy cialis http://tabletta.org/

    buy levitra http://youtubuy.org/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.