Outstanding blog and report from Danny Sullivan:

Google To Add "Nofollow" Tagging Of Links To Fight Spam? (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050117-205100)
Google, Yahoo, MSN Unite On Support For Nofollow Attribute For Links (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050118-204728)

Has anyone done any testing for this? Any thoughts?

The rumours so far are extremely poor - some bloke says he might be talking to some unnamed important person. The speculation about new tags all sounds completely awful, and one of the most illogical ways to address a problem.

Despite Javascript 1.4 and the availabiliy of jump scripts to cripple links, the blogging world is looking to a third-party search engine to try and solve an issue - that the software developers could have implemented years ago?

More to the point - it would not prevent the practice of automated commenting - and would almost certainly encourage those who practice it to take more aggressive action. Santy has shown the way.

Also - am I the only one to think that a search engine actively trying to encourage people to hide their content from it, isn't going to flaw their main aims?

Even though comment spam is hardly high quality, and although coding exists to prevent indexing (yoo-hoo - blog software developers - you could have generated comments in a new folder, with a <no index> or robots.txt to block spidering of those pages, and defeated comment spam when it mattered), somehow I can't help but see a reaction against Google's authority growing on the web, leading to use of such hypothesised tags to start hiding the net from Google.

That's presuming there's any substance to the chatter.

So far, the idea of Google support nofollow tags in links is about the dumbest approach I can think of to the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the speculation is eventually proved unfounded.

It's now confirmed that the tag will be introduced. Posted this to the blog: New Google Nofollow Link Attribute Is Coming (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050118-140609). More details are supposed to come today on the Google Blog (http://www.google.com/googleblog/).

Wow, but I think it wont matter much.

This should be interesting.... I would like to see more details but since the nofollow option was supposedly already in place I guess this is an admission that Google bots will finally follow it... thus what else are they not really taking notice of?

Going back to the Perseus blog survey (http://www.perseus.com/blogsurvey/), the numbers are still in favor of comment spam and linkpop is a numbers game.

Maybe I'm just an uneducated luddite, but I have yet to see a single high-brow tech guy that's reporting on this issue, actually tell me how this "nofollow" tag is actually going to stop blog spam.

In fact, no one has yet made any suggestion of why this attribute is superior to any number of possible alternatives, that could easily have been implemented by blog software developers - but never were by the majority?

And here's a thought - if such a tag were used widespread against comments and trackbacks, then wouldn't this end up kneecaping blogs, by killing their intricate networks of interlinks?

>wouldn't this end up kneecaping blogs

SHHHhhhh! The bloggers haven't figured that out yet, hhh!

>wouldn't this end up kneecaping blogs

SHHHhhhh! The bloggers haven't figured that out yet, hhh!
I think as a move it will give Google another place to index and have searched... you have Google Search, Google News, Google Directory, Froogle, Google Scholar etc....

COMING SOON - Google Blog a searchable list by blog title and blog content etc.... also creates more places for adwords....

Putting blogs under a tab has been proposed a few times (even reported as a done deal once; The Register : 2003 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/09/google_to_fix_blog_noise/)) but there was something of an outcry by the bloggers about being buried. Frankly, with the rise of other specialized blog search engines over the last year I think it's still a viable solution.

Given that Yahoo & MSN have joined Google in supporting this -- and it's now official -- I've renamed the thread and moved it into link building from the Google web search area. Why link building? Well, it's mostly to do with links, so seemed like the right home.

Actually tell me how this "nofollow" tag is actually going to stop blog spam.
My story will be up shortly and I go into this, but like many others, I agree that it won't. Doesn't mean it's not useful to have. In fact, we'll likely implement it on the forums here, so as to help perhaps ease link spam. It won't solve the problem here, there or anywhere -- but it might deter it.

In fact, no one has yet made any suggestion of why this attribute is superior to any number of possible alternatives
That assumes there's one perfect solution. There's not. This is just another tool.

And here's a thought - if such a tag were used widespread against comments and trackbacks, then wouldn't this end up kneecaping blogs, by killing their intricate networks of interlinks?
It doesn't quite work like that. You can't link to something and "hurt" it, if that's what you mean. My story looks at this more, when it's up.

If bloggers do this to their trackbacks, sure -- those trackbacks won't count. But you can do this for any links you want. In your main post, where lots of bloggers link to each other, you wouldn't do it there. So it wouldn't prevent the crediting that happens in that way.

And the story's now up with many more details: Google, Yahoo, MSN Unite On Support For Nofollow Attribute For Links (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050118-204728)

Our post is up now:
http://www.google.com/googleblog/

This is really starting to gather momentum. Three search engines plus 10+ blogging companies mean this is getting traction. I'm surprised how many people are signing on to cooperate on this. We just heard from MSN Spaces, for example; they're on board too.

It is interesting to see the banding together of the major engines on this.
It gives one hope that BlackKnight's suggestion to elimate the headaches over tracking codes and other dynamic codes may be attainable.

Frankly, anything that gives me more control over how my website interacts with the rest of the web is a good thing.

I don't see how something that is designed to give webmasters and bloggers MORE control over what they do or how they do it as being a bad thing.

If I want to cheat someone over a link, I can robots.txt it, I can database redirect it, I can hide it in java/javascript, I can use a "lucky" google search, and I can nofollow it.

As a method for cheating people out of their links, this is hardly a news flash or the end of the world.

But as a method that allows a webmaster to easily control what happens and how it's a nice tool to have.

What is the problem with more control? Look at what the lack of control has accomlished so far. How many people are designing their websites around how a search engine spiders than around what they want to do?

Can you spam, cheat, misdirect and so forth with this? Sure. I suppose the difference is that it's the owner, not the visitor, that's doing it. This is a bad thing why?

The more control I have over what I do, the better. I don't see a reason to use it on my site, but if I ever do, I'd like to have the option available. I'm really suspicious of anyone arguing that how my site acts and links should be up to someone else. That goes for search engines, programmers, and yes, spammers.

Ian

Appears to be a good move over-all.

However, I'm seeing this from a different angle. I believe it is primarily for the benefits of the SE so it doesn't cost them as much to spider the Web and have their spiders go off on constant tagents.

Also, it could mean that, in the past, forums that were linked to bad neighbouhoods within posts, were exempt from any wrong doing. Perhaps they are now going to stop that?

Or, perhaps they are going to start to pass any/all/more benefits of a link that does not use the new attribute?

On a simliar note, I wonder if forums, that have bought links only for the SE (Jupiter etc) and not their site vistors, be using these in the outbound links?

My opinions only and only supposed to provoke thought :)

this is actually a great idea for SE.
Now watch people use this on their "links" page and ask for a normal link back

If this is truly to stop "spam" I would hope to see this used on the multitude of link "advertising" sites. If they don't use it, it would seem to me they can longer claim they don't sell PR and link popularity.

The more control I have over what I do, the better. I don't see a reason to use it on my site, but if I ever do, I'd like to have the option available.

I agree, Ian. Another tool in the webmasters toolbox, although I'm not sure it's going to have much impact on blog spamming bots. Just reduce their utility. Very slightly.

Will get a lot of press mileage, tho' ;) The blogsphere will light up.

Will get a lot of press mileage, tho' The blogsphere will light up.
Yep, and one big reason for getting this pushed forward is how the bloggers have been the squeeky wheel. As many know, there were and are other things they could do to combat comment spam. The search engines didn't have to get involved -- but I am very, very glad to have a new tool the control indexing. Which leads me to...

It is interesting to see the banding together of the major engines on this.
It gives one hope that BlackKnight's suggestion to elimate the headaches over tracking codes and other dynamic codes may be attainable.
Agree entirely! And now it's time for web authors in general to be squeeky about these types of things to push forward for other changes. If it can happen primarily for bloggers, other pressing needs can be done for those beyond blogging. That was the purpose of this thread: Time For An Indexing Summit? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?threadid=3612)

So get in there and squeek, roar, whatever -- because we're going to go through some of those ideas at the SES NY show.

From Danny's log: This also means you shouldn't worry that people will link to you and use nofollow as a way to hurt you -- Google says that won't happe

I believe Google said something similar to this when they launched the NoCache tag. Remember what happend? I do! (not that it hit me, but I saw THOUSANDS of my colleagues sites vanish!)

Sorry, but as long as there are no binding agreement between me, as a publisher, and the search engines I am not going to risk my sites by adding this sort of code to any site and the blog software that force it on you I will just drop. I want to see, over some time, what the engines will ACTUALLY do with this.


I Brian: And here's a thought - if such a tag were used widespread against comments and trackbacks, then wouldn't this end up kneecaping blogs, by killing their intricate networks of interlinks?

Danny: It doesn't quite work like that. You can't link to something and "hurt" it, if that's what you mean. My story looks at this more, when it's up.

It looks like you are talking about two different things.

To me the question is how will this kind of "no value linking" influence comminities where users, posters and members has been used to being "paid" for their postings with the link back they get. What are those communities now going to pay such posters now? Will we suddenly see "value link" communities compete with "no value links" communites on this metric? Will posters accept that they won't get paid anymore - or will they just move on to something else?

Comminities are like a living organism. If it is in perfect ballance it works great but if you start messing around with it too much it might get "infected", sick or die.

I believe Google said something similar to this when they launched the NoCache tag. Remember what happend? I do! (not that it hit me, but I saw THOUSANDS of my colleagues sites vanish!)
Fair enough, Mikkel -- this could change down the line. It certainly would make it easy for search engines to decide to use it as a flag for "bad" links and some would argue that "ignore" or "untrustworthy" will be a defacto meaning of bad. It's all the more reason not to use it for your own pages, to be safe at the moment.

But as a site owner, yes -- I like the ability, even small, to control on a page element basis how something gets indexed. I want more of that easily given to me -- I don't want to have to resort to cloaking, redirection, JavaScript, etc. The bloggers cried and yelled and essentially got a pay off through this. But there's more important stuff site owners could use -- and this gives us much more leverage to push for that.

What are those communities now going to pay such posters now? Will we suddenly see "value link" communities compete with "no value links" communites on this metric?
To me, the value of a link in a community to your own resource is the ability to point people directly to your material, to gain visitors that way. Links have always been powerful for this, predating the obsession of getting them for search engien purposes. I think we've already seen search engines devalue links in some circumstances anyway -- so at least as a site owner, I'd like to be in control of it. But more to the point, I disagree that a nofollow link = valueless link. The link has plenty of value, but it just won't contribute on the search engine side of the equation. That isn't, nor should it be, the only consideration.

Now, if Google can get the blog software manufacturers to make the std setup default to "nofollow" on all links - then Google will also have finally solved the "Googlebomb" blogging issue.......

Because, just like most software installs, it will get left at the std default settings "typical user install - click here".

The link has plenty of value, but it just won't contribute on the search engine side of the equation. That isn't, nor should it be, the only consideration.

Your argument is absolutely valid and I know many people would think that way but I also know that many won't. What I am talking about is how communities that have many members that value the linkpop they gain, as a kind of payment for their postings, will react to this. How will it affect the community organism? How will it affect the blogging comminity?

As an example, there are a number of local communities in Denmark where I have posted what I think is highly qualified postings but to be honest I have often done so for the linkpop - and it works great! Now, I am not so sure I will post there with the same frequency if they add this tag. The result is less quality posts there - especially if others follow me (and in the case with this particular forum they will).

don't want to have to resort to cloaking, redirection, JavaScript, etc.

Argh, comon, Danny - why not, it's so much fun :D

On a simliar note, I wonder if forums, that have bought links only for the SE (Jupiter etc) and not their site vistors, be using these in the outbound links?
Missed this earlier Dave. Yes, it's very possible that paid links could be surrounded with these tags. It's something I'm going to suggest Jupiter look at for the internet.commerce program it runs, which you're hinting at. Doing such a thing is exactly why I wished for some type of ignore tag earlier this month -- I specifically mentioned this in that article (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050105-055807).

The only issue is that Google is clear the nofollow attribute should be used for links "not in your control." Paid links on a site are obviously in your control. So if you were to do this, technically you aren't following the guidelines provided. I have asked Google for more about this but haven't heard back.

Similarly, my story on the nofollow attribute I mentioned earlier described how you might possibly use it for links that are in your control. Let's say Microsoft, for example, has a section about using Excel. They might want to link to some resources about Excel. However, they could have fears that some of those resources might be "bad neighborhoods" with search engines. To protect themselves from possibly being associated, they might use nofollow within their own editorially-controlled links.

Doing so would again not follow the guidelines we have so far. But I suspect we'll see this usage expand beyond what Google has set out.

Hi Danny,
I think that the sales dept. is not going to be happy :) and they might have the final say. Money is money and somehow it has to be raised. You know that with the tag most will pull the text "ads" off.

question:
Will these links (with the tag) count regarding PR? Example: you have 10 links on a page, 5 normal, 5 with no follow. Will Google divide that page's PR among 10 or just among the five links it can follow? It would make sense to divide only for the 5 normal links but who knows.


Missed this earlier Dave. Yes, it's very possible that paid links could be surrounded with these tags. It's something I'm going to suggest Jupiter look at for the internet.commerce program it runs, which you're hinting at. Doing such a thing is exactly why I wished for some type of ignore tag earlier this month -- I specifically mentioned this in that article (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050105-055807).

I asked Jim Lanzone why didn't Ask Jeeves jump on board with the others. He told me and I posted in it an thread I posted in the Ask Jeeves / Teoma forum under the name of Ask Jeeves Response to the Nofollow Attribute (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3816). Maybe the response should be merged with this, but I do not want to take away from the general discussion on the tag and focus on the little engine that could (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=3516). :)

Will these links (with the tag) count regarding PR? Example: you have 10 links on a page, 5 normal, 5 with no follow. Will Google divide that page's PR among 10 or just among the five links it can follow? It would make sense to divide only for the 5 normal links but who knows.

That is what I really want to know also.

And I don't want to assume, does this only affect Blogs?

I spent 45 minutes wrapping 22 'helpful' off site links from a client page in a JavaScript. Copy and pasting rel="nofollow" would have been much easier!

But again, does it help that page's PR formula even if it is not a Blog? Where is an Google Guy when you need him? :D

And I don't want to assume, does this only affect Blogs?


I can almost guarantee you that it's not just for blogs. For once, none of the partners in this ever said so and secondly the engines would have no way to know what a blog outside of the major blog systems. The last couple of blogs that I have set up is based on my developed blog software and I don't see how engines could see the difference between that and any other pages.

I agree. if the link has this atribute it will ignored automatically, blog or no blog.

I can almost guarantee you that it's not just for blogs. For once, none of the partners in this ever said so and secondly the engines would have no way to know what a blog outside of the major blog systems. The last couple of blogs that I have set up is based on my developed blog software and I don't see how engines could see the difference between that and any other pages.

yellowwing, those links won't count toward PageRank for Google. So no need to wrap things up in JavaScript--feel free to use nofollow.

GoogleGuy,
to expand on this. Will these links be like they don't exist on the site? For example, would someone get a penalty for linking to a bad neighbohood with nofollow tag?


yellowwing, those links won't count toward PageRank for Google. So no need to wrap things up in JavaScript--feel free to use nofollow.

those links won't count toward PageRank for Google. So no need to wrap things up in JavaScript--feel free to use nofollow.
And so there's the answer -- you can use the tag for links others contribute to your pages (as with forums, comments, guestbooks) or for links you control but for some reason don't want to be counted by search engines for ranking purposes.

So coming back to:

Will these links (with the tag) count regarding PR? Example: you have 10 links on a page, 5 normal, 5 with no follow. Will Google divide that page's PR among 10 or just among the five links it can follow? It would make sense to divide only for the 5 normal links but who knows.
Yes, that's correct the way I read it (and I also addressed this in my story). If you wanted to horde or channel PageRank like this, you could.

Of course, Google itself is likely already discounting some of your links already, say in the nav areas, those repetitive across the site and so on. The oversimplied "Google takes your page PR score and divides it among all your links" is exactly that -- oversimplified. Exactly how they do things we know has changed, and they've dropped plenty of hints that certain types of links are discounted.

As Mikkel noted, this also isn't a blog thing. IT'S NOT A BLOG THING. Folks without blogs, rejoice -- the world does not revolve around them. This is a tool for any type of web author.

Conceivably, Google could try to spot certain links that seem to be on blogs -- major blogging software leaves certain traces -- common URL styles, CGI calls. So down the line, if they wanted to treat "blog" links with nofollow different than non-blog nofollow links, they might. But it would be a guess -- and they'd make mistakes.

I think that the sales dept. is not going to be happy and they might have the final say.
I've done some back story before on those internet.commerce links, but I'll revisit this. They predate Google and reliance on link analysis. Believe me, I know -- back when I used to roll the site myself, it was always a pain having to update them when they came to me.

I don't sell the links nor handle ads on the site, fortunately -- which is nice. But I have checked to see if they are sold with any suggestion that they'll help an advertiser with search rankings. Jupiter has told me emphatically that they are not positioned that way.

Some advertisers might by them for that -- but as I've also posted, it's pretty easy for Google to see the same links, in the same styles and places, across the entire Jupiter network -- and then do discounting as it sees fit -- just as it might with nav elements. So I certainly wouldn't buy them thinking they'd give a ranking boost.

But bringing it back home, what is annoying is that a preexisting ad program suddenly gets called into question because a search engine emerges after the program started, makes noises about "don't buy links" and suddenly, people question if you're doing something shady. As a result, you have to start considering if you need to jump through hoops. Should I redirect all the links so Google -- should it start checking things -- decide that I'm not trying something on.

Please. What a pain. What an annoyance to constantly have to wonder if something you think makes sense might have to have some wider search engine worry. And that's why I did that earlier article about wanting an "ignore" tag. We shouldn't have to be paranoid about what search engines think about our site -- but at least with this new mechanism, I can explicitly say, no -- these links aren't trying to spam you.

So yep, I'll be suggesting to Jupiter they consider this type of thing, if only because if they implement it, I don't have to hear questions about a link program that existed before Google :)

This new tag is pretty interesting in some of the impact it can have but the one thing it will certainly NOT do is stop comment spam. Sorry to say but it won't even slow it down.

All that happens now is that an url in a comment will be tagged NoFollow just prior to the blog owner deleting it anyways. The comment is going to be deleted wether it has the new tag in it or not. Blogspammers don't expect their links to live on in live active blogs so who cares if the link if followable or not?

The worst that I can see happening here is that newly abandoned blogs won't be useful anymore but there are still millions of abandoned MT installs, wikis, et al that can be exploited for months to come.

Prediction: internet.com properties start using the new tag for their text ads and the ad renewal rate drops through the floor. You don't honeslty believe everyone buyin ads here are doing because of real surfer click thru do you? (regardless of how much it predates Google...:))

I gotta hand it to the PR wizards tho - this news is everywhere: my inbox, every news/forum site I visit, IM has been lighting up over it. bakedjake and I even interrupeted SEO Rockstars last night (about click fraud) to address it because it was coming up in the chatroom.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease and nobody can squeak louder than bloggers it would seem.

I'm really greatful for the definative facts! Thank you all.

Trying to get paid for guessing or repeating rumours is not a good business model :)

Can you imagine the career of a stock broker if he acted on rumours and hearsay of SEC rules? :eek:

There is potentially another application for the link nofollow attribute, namely if you link to a site that responds with a http error code or does not respond at all. In some applications (for example web directories) it may be of interest to keep the unreliable link for a "probation period" before the link is removed. In these cases a visual cue (for example a different link color) can be used to warn the human visitor that the link is unreliable, but there has been no way to tell the robots about this condition. The nofollow attribute will become very useful in this regard.

>kneecapping

>>It doesn't quite work like that. You can't link to something and "hurt" it, if that's what you mean. My story looks at this more, when it's up.

>>If bloggers do this to their trackbacks, sure -- those trackbacks won't count.

Right, there's where the kneecapping themselves comes in, Danny. Bloggers really don't understand that their built-in "no value linking" system, as Mikkel so aptly puts it, has skewed their position in the serps. When this kicks in bloggers aren't going to like the loss. There is going to be pain with this gain --they just don't know it yet.

As for all the comments about the attribute itself, yeah any tool has its place.

Now watch people use this on their "links" page and ask for a normal link back

This was one of my primary concerns. I'm all for the tag but I can see how link frauders will use this in their link swaps to keep PR to themselves. I did some research and found that in Internet Explorer and Opera, right-clicking on the link and viewing properties will not tell you if the link contains the nofollow tag. On the other hand, FireFox and Netscape do. All our link researchers have just switched to FireFox so we can verify such links accordingly.

So I'll just cloak my pages to show the nofollow tag to the SE but not you. Cached page will look exactly the same. For every link exchange you want to do you'll have to look at the cached page source code on one of the SEs first (our use FireFox etc as already mentioned). Nothing like burdening you with overhead to slow you down.

So I'll just cloak my pages to show the nofollow tag to the SE but not you. Cached page will look exactly the same. ...

Of course doing so would generally run afoul of most SE guidelines and likely be cause for penalties and/or banning if reported by a disgruntled link partner...

Of course doing so would generally run afoul of most SE guidelines and likely be cause for penalties and/or banning if reported by a disgruntled link partner...
I don't think this will get you in trouble with the engines.... more it will lose you credibility with link partners as the word gets out and then you have no inbound links and the whole purpose for this dries up.

Missed this earlier Dave. Yes, it's very possible that paid links could be surrounded with these tags. It's something I'm going to suggest Jupiter look at for the internet.commerce program it runs, which you're hinting at.Subtle aren't I :) That would a HUGE leap forward toward the entire SEO inductry I believe. However, being the cynic I am, I don't hold my breath.

I applaud you if you try and lead the way on this.

You know that with the tag most will pull the text "ads" off. I suspect so too. However, this would be a clear demomstration that the $'s are changing hands for PR and not advertising.

Prediction: internet.com properties start using the new tag for their text ads and the ad renewal rate drops through the floor.
If so, no big deal. Jupiter has hardly built its business around that particular program.

As said, I'm sure some people are buying the links in hopes they are getting some gain out of them. And as said, if so, that's a dumb reason to buy. They are too easily identified by a search engine that might want to take them out.

Anyone seriously wanting to buy links for search ranking reasons needs to find a paid link program that spreads things out. Oilman, any ideas about such programs :)

Or alternatively, heck, just put your link into a press release and push it out through Google News!

The one thing it will certainly NOT do is stop comment spam. Sorry to say but it won't even slow it down.
I think it might deter it a bit -- just a bit. But completely agree with everyone else that this is hardly some silver bullet that will kill the comment spam werewolf. Not at all.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease and nobody can squeak louder than bloggers it would seem
Yep. Believe me, as a site owner, I like having more control. But there are more important things we could have and should move on to. Folks, squeak loudly please. The search engines reacted finally with something that really solves a PR problem more than anything else. There are some serious indexing solutions they could also provide.

When this kicks in bloggers aren't going to like the loss.
Oh, this is dawning on them. Check out Anil Dash's recent post (http://www.dashes.com/anil/2005/01/19/the_social_impa#more). I added a long comment to the end of it.

Basically, it's interesting to hear in it the arguments and fears some bloggers have that they might be entitled to boosts for commenting or that they need those links to be visible.

Oh, so getting into comments is all about being seen in search engines? Ummm -- isn't that what many have been upset about. OK, so they aren't talking about completely offtarget comments and links. But it kinds of sounds a lot like Greg Boser's "we're all manipulators" speech.

I thought blogs were powerful because they had their own self-referential network of linking between themselves on related topics, not because comments give you links to help you get a boost in Google. If that's the case, the blogs become nothing more than dressed-up respectable link farms.

>link farms

I think it will hurt smaller bloggers. I get a fair amount of link karma from links to my site I've put in on-topic comments on relevant posts on other blogs.

http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000069.html

Like Greg says, we all manipulate the system, Danny.

Like Greg says, we all manipulate the system, Danny.If by manipulate you mean 'deviously', 'underhanded', or 'falsely', I dissagree.

>>If so, no big deal. Jupiter has hardly built its business around that particular program.

agreed - I'm just saying it :)

>> Oilman, any ideas about such programs

who? me? ;)

...it's funny ya know - bloggers don't have a problem with the 'miserable failure' Googlebomb stuff - that's all fun and games when they abuse the system but when someone else does it....

bloggers flex their muscles and say "look how powerful we are" with stuff like 'miserable failure'. Now it's gonna be even worse cuz they can say they are responsible for rel="nofollow".

(note: I don't mean all bloggers - just the whiney ones :))

That would a HUGE leap forward toward the entire SEO industry I believe
Hardly. You think if Jupiter surrounds links in its text link program that everyone else is going to do the same? I doubt it. I think Jupiter should do it purely because:

1) I've got nothing to do with the program, but every so often someone likes to bring it up in hopes I'll go, "Oh no, you've discovered the secret link network that the ad side of Jupiter's house hoped would stay secret."

2) It honestly does predate Google and buying and selling links for ad purposes, plus I'm told it isn't sold that way.

3) If it really does have value other than search ranking purposes to advertisers, adding the tags isn't an issue.

4) Doing so will solve the first point, and if I'm wrong about 3, big deal. There are other ad program -- and I don't deal with the ads anyway, which are only one way the site supports itself. Hey, you're all paid members and help contribute to support the site don't you?

But while we're talking link networks and the impact this change might have on them...

You might recall that Google has this little thing called AdSense that puts links on people's pages. Google doesn't register the links for PageRank purposes, but it jolly well indexes the text (yeah, I said jolly well. Fit the occasion). I did an article on this last year, about how some pages could show up for terms that only existed in AdSense links. How about blocking that?

Wait a minute, how much was it to get into Yahoo again? $300 per year for a directory that's become more and more invisible except to, um, Yahoo's own crawler? And paid inclusion into the crawler was how much per click again

Yeah, let's talk link networks. Anyone want to go on a scouting mission and come back with some major, prominent companies that are also Yahoo and Google partners and selling text links on their pages?

Hmm, that Vioxx hyperlink over at the Washingtonpost.com? Don't see nofollows yet on that. And oops, it's not a redirect. Wait -- it's both a direct link but also one using JavaScript tracking. Well, it does say advertisement near it, so I'm sure it wasn't purchased by anyone hoping that getting a link from the WPost home page (a proud Google partner) might help with search engines.


Selling links isn't even an "SEO problem." After all, it's not SEOs that are selling them. It's site publishers doing that - and well within their rights to do so.

Google and the other search engines are within their rights to react to link selling however they want, of course -- the SearchKing case proved that (and Bob will be by shortly to chime in now!).

All nofollow does for those selling links to people who really want them for other than search ranking purposes is to have a way to say to the search engines, "Don't shoot! I'm really not trying to harm your index" or to those who might accuse them of trying to spam the search engines to say, "Look, I'm really not."

Like Greg says, we all manipulate the system, Danny.
Yep. To be clear, RC, that was a compliment to Greg. For bloggers to say that nofollow might help them not rank as highly in search engines, because they depend on getting links out of comments. That, as I put on Anil's post, is a distant but still related cousin to those who spam comment area.

In both cases, the concern is over search rankings. Well, sorry bloggers upset that nofollow might harm you getting search juice out of comments. You shouldn't be depending on comments for search rankings in the first place. Or did I miss the amendment that said bloggers had some guaranteed right to fast track top rankings through comment links.

Greg's right -- everyone manipulates to some degree. The intentions can be different. Some running a bot to put off-topic links on a blog is much different than someone who has read the blog and wants to comment and expand on a post. But if that same person is doing so with some hopes that as part of it, they might get a search ranking boost but getting a link in the comments -- sure, that's a form of manipulation.

No, I'm not by any means suggesting that the World will follow anyone elses lead, especially when it's likely VERY damaging to their income.

However, is Jupiter a link network, or an advertising meduim? If the latter, or both, why wouldn't they start using them? If, as you say, Google already discounts, or ignores them, they were there pre PR, most people don't pay their $'s for PR etc, what harm could it do to their business?

If would truly great to see a "link advertising meduim" become open and honest and walk their own talk. Then, all that pay know full well what they are getting for their money and the ROI can be measured.

Greg's right -- everyone manipulates to some degreeBut "we all" is not "everyone".

(3 minutes between your post, oil, and danny's reply. Kind of reminds me of that Martinez long ago --damn, that guy could type!)


>if by

Manipulation comes in all flavors. Scoble, for instance (http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/01/18.html#a9229), on dispensing links while well aware of their boost to the serps. (Or Beattie (http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008253.html), HHH!)

Dave, let me save the back and forth. Greg argues that any type of change to a site is a form of manipulation. I think he's correct, but I have degrees of manipulation that I'd say are widely acceptable versus aggressive. Others completely oppose Greg's notion. Some would say that manipulation only comes into play if you cross certain lines. So fire away your definition of manipulation if you like. That won't change the views of others necessarily -- they may still have the opinion that everyone is indeed we all, even if you and other disagree. It's one of those fundamental issues where folks don't tend to find common ground.

3 minutes between your post, oil, and danny's
C'mon, forum lightning round. Hands on the buzzers...

But seriously, I'm off to sleep. Swore I wouldn't even log in again tonight, but I had to peek at the discussion on the topic. No matter where you stand, it made for an exciting day. BakedJake's IM bleeting off -- I love it!

All nofollow does for those selling links to people who really want them for other than search ranking purposes is to have a way to say to the search engines
Surely it does more than that... In any market, if you remove a portion of the demand, prices invariably go in one direction. Which is good news for anyone that is interested in diversifying their traffic away from a reliance on Search Engines. Less people wanting to buy links for SEo purposes should mean an ROI focus for text link ads, all of which has an upside for at least some online marketers.

To me, a long term question is how this might affect the rest of the web.

I'm concerned that as news of this attribute filters down to the great unknowledgeable, perhaps getting associated with "safe linking," it might become the link condom of choice among, say, institutional webmasters, and end up distorting search results in areas that owe their relevance to the popular vote.

As Mikkel suggests, the web is an organism... and I think this will, over time, churn up the ecosystem. I'd guess that, outside of the blogosphere, it's more likely to be affecting free links than paid ones.

Yes, the customer would finally be able to measure their ROI and decide if the link is really worth the $'s they paid. Now why wouldn't a business want that to happen, if they are, as they say, not selling PR :confused:

Yes, the customer would finally be able to measure their ROI and decide if the link is really worth the $'s they paid. Now why wouldn't a business want that to happen, if they are, as they say, not selling PR :confused:

My point is that the paid links are likely to continue as the links transmitting PageRank... but the free links (those votes of confidence from a website's peers), may be the ones that use the attribute and not transmit PR.

Yes I know and sadly you maybe correct :( My comment was more an extentsion of projectphp's post.

It would a boon to see the SEs enforce the use of this tag to all sites selling links. That is just my wild dream though :) However, all great journeys start with but a single step.

RC wrote:

the link condom of choice

ROTFL

Bet that makes Threadwatch!!

:)

It would appear that Google have overshot their target - while their aim is to be able to recognize links to be of a certain type, they attempt to dictate the behavior of clients encountering the link ("don't follow").

Supposing Google one day might consider adding a category to their own site allowing for searchability on blogs and their posters, this tag would not even make sense to themselves.

What they really should be trying, is to add semantics to the links - like specifying that it is of a certain type (ie. "type=user" or "type=blog"). It has been a longe time, since the W3C initiated the move towards the semantic web: The arguments for it are countless - and this is just an obvious real-world example of why it makes sense.

/Tobias

The problem, however, is people will lie. If putting type=blog does something helpful, then plenty of people will do this. If putting author="bill gates" means you'll rank well for bill gates, then people will do that.

I'm mildly more positive than meta data than in the past. It usually gets trotted out as a solution to the web's ills but those who aren't familiar to how it is overtly or accidentally abused. Accidentally? Search engines don't depend on language meta tags because quite often, they may say a page is in the wrong language by accident.

link condom

I LOVE that! It will goe straight to my online dictionary :)

The problem I see is that bloggers are being effectively misled - they are told to implement a possible solution to blog-spamming - - - without being told that it will not stop comment spam, merely stop search engines seeing it, and additionally could cripple the publisher's link network to other blogs and kill its visibility on the net.

Of particular concern is that the simplicity of the new tag makes it easier for a whole new tier of technically-inept webmasters to hide links and - ultimately -practice spam techniques on search engines.

Before it required some technical competence with scripts - now all it requires is the most basic level of HTML knowledge. In my opinion, I think that's the most dangerous part of all.

So I'll just cloak my pages to show the nofollow tag to the SE but not you. Cached page will look exactly the same. ...I don't think this will get you in trouble with the engines.... ... because no one has ever gotten in trouble for cloaking, manipulating links, etc.?

If I understand correctly, adding this tag is optional. Why the complaining? If anybody, including bloggers, don't like it, then don't use it.

I would assume that bloggers would have the option of removing this tag from certain comment links, as they see fit.

here's what i see happening: link trades will now get all messed up. savvy link traders may post your link on their site, then wrap your link with <nofollow> and thus not *really* trade with you.

the only way to sniff it out would be pouring over code pages of all your link partners.

am i missing something?

the only way to sniff it out would be pouring over code pages of all your link partners.

You should be doing that already. I look at the code of a linking page before even requesting a free one-way inbound.

>the only way to sniff it out would be pouring over code pages of all your link partners.

they could still cloak the search engines different stuff than they send you, I think you could change your css to make much of it quick and easy to see.

http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-01-19-n34.html

A better idea is to echo the comment attributed to Karl Auerbach in The Register: namely, to (in effect) balkanize the web into trusted communities that follow the original logic of the DNS. That "no follow" tags are irrelevant in a rational name space ought to be obvious because non-sequiturs by definition won't exist so long as people show common-sense restraint when they post their hyperlinks. I can see, for example, hundreds of stand-alone product and service-specific dot-com master channels (as distinct from hundreds of TLDs) indexed by the SEs according to what the generic "name" of the channel represents. I have argued this point about dedicated channels for some time now, while the web cognoscenti laughed as far back as 1997. (Indeed, intimations of this tendency are observable now at ICANN in connection with "sponsored" TLDs, such as the application from Microsoft et-al for the .MOBI top-level domain.) The significance of this tendency can easily be traced back in time. The fact of the matter is that significant media transformations always pour the content of the old into the new. Thus, we can expect the web in terms of its content to transform into vertical (or dedicated) channels inside appropriate name spaces the same way that the cable companies rationalized televison into sports channels, food channels, pay-per-view and so forth. McLuhan to his credit observed that the tendency in the mass media is to walk backward into the future. And, this is precisely what Google and its ilk are about to do, which is to shoot themselves in the foot by killing the goose that laid their golden egg. Instead of "no follow" tags (antilinks), I see a future where the so-called "tragedy" of the commons is, to the extent we wish to do such a thing, replaced by a "triumph" of the commons, which was what the democratic Inter-linked-net was supposedly about. For SE watchers who are interested, hundreds of dedicated generic master channels have been set aside in the dot-com name space for exactly that purpose: rationalization. True, this is a private initiative, but then again so are Google and its contemporaries. Another thing worth mentioning has to do with technical innovation, because uninformed critics complain that if the channels are indeed set aside, why have they not yet appeared. Anyone who understands technological transformation in mass media will know that appropriate content models always follow technical innovation by about a decade. If it were otherwise, the present convergence between photography and wireless would not have occurred. Accordingly, Google and the others will to well to rethink their no-follow tags.

From Google News:

Asian lady bugs were introduced in this country to control pests.
Now they have themselves become a nuisance on golf courses and in homes and gardens around Texas.

I share the same uneasiness mentioned by others --that something just went out of balance.


If you've followed bloggers for a while, then you know Shelley Powers' Burningbird. Her position:

http://weblog.burningbird.net/archives/2005/01/18/the-other-shoe-on-nofollow/

Oh, and Scoble seems to be reevaluating the effectiveness of this:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/01/20.html#a9235

I think the bigger issue here could be cooperation between the big 3. That, to me, means that the introduction of this new attribute is almost soley for their benefit. I truly believe this to be the thin end of the wedge.

However, this doesn't mean it wont also be of long term benefit to all those that stay within the SE guidelines, as it will likely be used to combat SE spam across the Web. I have a hunch, that the day will come where all SE's state "If you sell advertising you must use nofollow in the links". There will be a choice of course and that will be, use it or be dropped from our index.


Let's face it, these big 3 now all know that allowing sites to buy there way up the SERP ladder harms their relevancy and they all now use links as part of their ranking algo.

http://www.linkcondom.com/ :D

the only way to sniff it out would be pouring over code pages of all your link partners.

am i missing something?

in FireFox, simply right click on a link a view properties. It will tell you if the nofollow tag is there.

I like this attribute as a web site owner. It gives me more control on page design. One example. As a publisher, I have a few private label arrangements to link to mywebsite.theadvertiserswebsite .com. In one case, the advertiser that I am working with did not implement NOFOLLOW tag in their subdomain private label headers. Google did index these private label pages for me, but then hit them with a duplicate content penalty. Now, I can use this attribute for examples as listed above.

However, I don't think this will affect SPAM and I agree with many of the comment already on this thread.

I do have one bone to pick about this. In my opinion, Google should practice a bit of what they preach. I know some of you will disagree with me on this. If you have Google Websearch on your site, you are required not to alter the code at all. Every piece of their adsense search code links back to Google. This effectively drives up their own PR. (Also affects Yahoo, MSN, ASK, Gigablast). If Google does't want others to drive up PR artificially by placing links all over the place, shouldn't they place this attribute in their own code and practice what they preach?

OK. Go ahead and hammer me.

Now, I can use this attribute for examples as listed above.

No, the attribute will not tell Google not to index the target page - only not to use THAT link. Google have many other ways of discovering a page - and someone else could be linking to it. That is out of your control. If you do not want a page indexed you should robots.txt it, use META-robots or password protect it.

I think that raises a good question, whether this can be effectively utilized for sites that have affiliates. We had a problem like this recently with a client where the affiliate page was ranking better than the home page of the site because the affiliate was pulling the optimized content as their page.

If the affiliate is linking with an affiliate ID to the main site but that link uses the no follow, will this effectively keep the affiliate pages from ranking well? If not, it should.

If you don't want your affiliates to outrank you with content you give them then you have to put into your terms that they have to block it for engines. You will not be able to do much to the way they rank anyway. This new attribute won't change that.

http://www.linkcondom.com/ :D

I wonder whether this is an example of great minds thinking alike or an example of how fast things spread on the web.

No, the attribute will not tell Google not to index the target page - only not to use THAT link. Google have many other ways of discovering a page - and someone else could be linking to it. That is out of your control. If you do not want a page indexed you should robots.txt it, use META-robots or password protect it.

I understood that with the above example and I believe it still stands. Unless they just want to give me free business, no other web site owner would link to a private label affiliate page specifically for me such as mywebsite.sometravelwebsite .com . Example would be the IAN/Hotels .com network. In all probability, I would be the only web site ever to link to my private label page.

I'll pose a question to see if anyone has an opinion. Will usning this attribute help with text to link ratio? In other words, will google treat these links as "links" or as "content"?

I understood that with the above example and I believe it still stands. Unless they just want to give me free business, no other web site owner would link to a private label affiliate page specifically for me such as mywebsite.sometravelwebsite .com . Example would be the IAN/Hotels .com network. In all probability, I would be the only web site ever to link to my private label page.

I'll pose a question to see if anyone has an opinion. Will usning this attribute help with text to link ratio? In other words, will google treat these links as "links" or as "content"?
Good question...

>and Bob will be by shortly to chime in now!)<

Thank you for the invite !
DING DONG

My opinion is that once again, it is back assward. The answer to superior search services and better relevancy, (or fighting those nasty spammers as "they" like to call it), lies not with trying to provide tools to alter the behaviour of the webmaster. Rather, to allow the webmaster to behave as people do and improve your own system to determine trash from treasure based on that human behaviour.

Developing and releasing tools to aide and empower the humans that actually provide content is a wonderful thing, but when you do it to once again shift the responsibility of your own limitations to those "nasty spammers" , you are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

I can tell the difference between legit comments and spam posts. I've even built spiders to do it. Now, does anyone here think I am smarter than Google/Yahoo/MSN?

Whoa, give me a minute to stop laughing !!

Whew! That's better. Anyway,

Seriously, if I can find the ones that do compared to the ones that don't, doesn't it stand to reason that they could too?

There are people who are going to put up blogs without taking the responsiblity for learning how to control their content. That's what some people do.

There are also people who are going to look for other people who don't take responsiblity for their own content and try to take advantage. That's what some people do too.

People are going to do what people do and I don't think it is ever going to matter much who or why someone develops a tag. Why don't they stop acting like they have no role in the problem and simply build a spider that can separate the dos from the don'ts? Heck, I'd let them use mine if they asked.

We are all free to believe whatever we choose. You can believe the engines are trying to help you or you can believe the engines are trying to get you to help them. Either way, I don't see that it matters much. People are still going to do what people do. And people doing what people do is the definition of relevancy.

Bob chiming out now.

I have been thinking of ways to implement this to my benefit and I just had a thought. Couldn't this have the complete opposite effect of what Google's whole premise is based upon. Originally, their idea was that "because the content of a site is so good", people will link to it. We all know this idea is not truly realized and link popularity has been exploited. Why would a professional publisher pass PR to another site unless it is beneficial to them?

For example, let's say that I run a car enthusiast site with mostly article type content, but I have one page dedicated to what I consider value links. No reciprocation, maybe just manufacturers or other good articles. Why would I want to pass PR to those other websites unless it is going to benefit me?

This seems to open the door to increased value of paid text link ads and possibly pervert Google's original intentions even more....I still like the control myself though. :)

I didn't want to post this originally, but as the horse has pretty much left this stable, I'll repost here for the record the impressions of a number of high-profile bloggers together from my own initial coverage of this:

New nofollow tag cheers bloggers, but fails blogs? (http://www.platinax.co.uk/news/archives/2005/01/new_nofollow_ta.html)




Support for nofollow (http://www.sixapart.com/log/2005/01/support_for_nof.shtml): Six Apart publish blog software, but until now have done precious little indeed to combat comment spam effectively, though options have been available. It was only at the start of this year that the public version of MovableType even defaulted to comments being moderated - which should have been one of the first defences to be implemented long ago. For the most part, the company is upbeat - but perhaps more because it is seen to be acting in some way, even if it doesn't actually address the issue.
The Social Impacts of Software Choices (http://www.dashes.com/anil/2005/01/19/the_social_impa): Anil Dash waxes lyrical about how only "spammers" will suffer from widespread implementation of the links, and suggests are its only real critics. He also cheers Six Apart's implementation of the tag, yet fails to point out that users will still end up with comment spammed blogs - it's simply that search engines won't have to look at the mess.
Google Admitting Defeat over War with Spammers? (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1136): Nick Wilson brings together a number of threads at Threadwatch, and the general tone from experienced SEO's and webmasters - lack of faith that the attribute will combat spam, but instead will be easily abused.
Google, Yahoo, MSN Unite On Support For Nofollow Attribute For Links (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050118-204728): Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Watch enthuses over the fact that search engines are trying to address some webmaster concerns - but he concedes that this move in itself is unlikely to stop comment spam behaviour.
Report: Google to Put Kibosh on Blog Comment Spam (http://www.micropersuasion.com/2005/01/report_google_t.html): Steve Rubel welcomes the move - if it actually addresses the issue.
Fighting blog comment spam – what companies need to know (http://blogs.forrester.com/charleneli/2005/01/fighting_blog_c.html): Charlene Li at Forrester suggests that companies should be safe to turn on comments, and that the nofollow tag should protect - but she fails to mention that just because search engines may not credit a link, does not mean to say that automated spam bots won't leave company blog comments filled with spam hawking adult, pharmaceutical, and gambling services.
Follow On No Follow (http://battellemedia.com/archives/001198.php): John Battelle realises that there are implications way beyond simple elimination of comment spam, and expresses unease - responding to comments on how blog linking may be adversely affected, he ponders that there may be serious consequences for ordinary bloggers if widely implemented.
Fighting blog comment spam (http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/01/18/fighting_blog_comment_spam.html) Silicon Valley reports on its scepticism that the nofollow tag can overcome the greater resourcefulness of comment spammers - and also pauses to express unease
Comment spam - it's going to get a little better (http://weblogs.asp.net/alexbarn/archive/2005/01/19/355877.aspx): Alex Barnett simply welcomes the move - but as a dedicated supporter of RSS marketing, does he realise how badly RSS feeds could be abused by this by provision of content for search engines, without the source site being attributed?
Google to Kill Blog Comment Spam? (http://www.livingroom.org.au/problogger/archives/google_to_kill_blog_comment_spam.php)L Darren Rowse notes that it would require large-scale implementation to have any effect, and also notes that this could serious impact not only how blogs interact, but also kill search traffic to sites that are maintained by links from other blogs.
Winer set to deliver comment spam knockout (http://www.blogherald.com/2005/01/18/winer-set-to-deliver-comment-spam-knockout/): BlogHerald imagines that the announcement will mean that all comment spam will disappear over 12 months - but presumes that all blogs will somehow auto-update to ensure this happens.
More on the Rel=NoFollow Tag... (http://www.seobook.com/archives/000630.shtml): Aaron Wall at SEO Book is resigned to the move being widely applied, and simply points out that comment spam had offered "low-hanging fruit" for people to easily abuse. However, he also points out that where the markets move, so does the money - if "nofollow" is effective, other methods will be applied to achieve similar means.
Massive weblog anti-spam initiative: rel="nofollow" (http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/2005/01/massive_weblog_antispam_initiative_relnofollow): MT-Blacklist recognises the fact that blogs will lose out in popularity - both in terms of linking and traffic - if this method is widely applied. Interestingly enough, the issue is seen as fair-trade for over-valuation of blogs in the first place, which has especially created the problem.
The Spammers have Won (http://www.andywismar.com/archives/themiddle/2005/01/18/the_spammers_have_won): Andy Wismar points out that the blogosphere was created and defined using comments and trackbacks - and if the "nofollow" attribute is used, it effectively means the deconstruction and devaluation of the blogosphere.

If blog, forum, guestbook, web stat programs, etc. do incorporate the nofollow attribute, and spammers continue spamming indiscriminantly, after a period of time, there will be a statistically significant set of links (as compared to the total) marked by nofollow which will mark said spammer's sites.

No, I don't beleieve so, because the site owners that are most likeley to use this attribute is the same ones that delete blog spam, or have other protection in place, already.

I did say it would take a period of time. Eventually, there will be enough dead blogs, etc. using the tag just as there are now without.

I have been thinking of ways to implement this to my benefit and I just had a thought. Couldn't this have the complete opposite effect of what Google's whole premise is based upon. Originally, their idea was that "because the content of a site is so good", people will link to it. We all know this idea is not truly realized and link popularity has been exploited. Why would a professional publisher pass PR to another site unless it is beneficial to them?

For example, let's say that I run a car enthusiast site with mostly article type content, but I have one page dedicated to what I consider value links. No reciprocation, maybe just manufacturers or other good articles. Why would I want to pass PR to those other websites unless it is going to benefit me?

This seems to open the door to increased value of paid text link ads and possibly pervert Google's original intentions even more....I still like the control myself though. :)

This can certainly come into play, however Passing PR to a more authoritative site I think has less negative than the simple benefit received from linking to that authoritative site. IMO linking out CAN be just as valuable as getting links in.

IMO linking out CAN be just as valuable as getting links in.
That is a very interesting thought. This may be a good topic for another thread. Is there any proof that linking out to relevant sites actually helps ranking?

I have never seen any evidence or seen any arguments from people in the industry I trust that linking out can be just as valuable as indound links.

There have been many discussions over time about the value - if any - of outbound links to external resources. Personally I am of the believe that it do carrie some value but far from as much as some think or say. One thing I am pretty sure of is that it does absolutely not count as much as inbound links.

If you search this forum and other forums you'll find many discussions on the topic ...

I'm not saying that one outbound link is of equal value as an inbound, just that ouband links can be effective and essential to SEO (perhaphs I should not have said "as effective".)

Here are some resources pertaining to RankSinks:

dblab.ssu.ac.kr/Publication/02-CS.pdf
www.pole-position-web.com/ research/PageRank-Technologies.pdf
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=13055

If people haven't noticed yet, we mentioned more companies adding support for nofollow in an update to our post: http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html

That makes 30 companies that I know of so far. And several sites such as Dreambook are going to go back and retroactively add nofollow to the comments in their guestbooks, which is nice. Actions like that start to address the concern that people who are lazy or abandon their site might leave out enough sites to abuse.

GoogleGuy, do you expect/want any of the BIG forum developers to join this?

Dave, yes i would expect Google, Yahoo and MSN would want the forums to use this in the areas where they see it can be useful.

after a period of time, there will be a statistically significant set of links (as compared to the total) marked by nofollow which will mark said spammer's sites.

Yea, lets use the no follow attribute as a spam detection tool. All the push button marketers are praying that Google would be so stupid.

i hate to dredge up old posts, but...

on my site, since we don't have a shopping cart, i've implemented a form that receives a productid parameter to automatically fill in some details on the form for the user. i'm afraid that google will follow this link (as it is dynamically created for each product page) and consider the page to be duplicate content, since nothing changes except for the text in one box. would this be considered a correct time to add a rel="nofollow" to that link so SEs don't ban my site for duplicate content?

Thanks guys.

The site is http://www.columbussupply.com if you're interested.

Jason

i hate to dredge up old posts, but...

on my site, since we don't have a shopping cart, i've implemented a form that receives a productid parameter to automatically fill in some details on the form for the user. i'm afraid that google will follow this link (as it is dynamically created for each product page) and consider the page to be duplicate content, since nothing changes except for the text in one box. would this be considered a correct time to add a rel="nofollow" to that link so SEs don't ban my site for duplicate content?

Thanks guys.

The site is http://www.columbussupply.com if you're interested.

Jason

Unless your name is extraordinarily branded in your area I would change your title tags... but
in your case the no follow works well.

Unless your name is extraordinarily branded in your area I would change your title tags... but
in your case the no follow works well.

you mean take the "columbus supply" out of the title tag on the product pages and such? i was thinking that too, but i couldn't decide between having the name of the company show up in the taskbar at the bottom or just the product. and thanks, i will put the nofollow in tonight

Read some of the basics articles here and follow a few threads great learning tools.
But you should start with keywords for content of pages.

Read some of the basics articles here and follow a few threads great learning tools.
But you should start with keywords for content of pages.

I agree with you. I took out all the references to columbus supply in all the product pages (i love dynamically generated anything!). i will leave it in the peripheral pages because i'll go for user experience and branding vs. SEO, as they're not what i'm hoping people will find in a search.

thanks for the quick responses :)