Rel=nofollow: should I do this to the affiliate links?

[ThouShaltSeo]

what would you do?
They don't get PR or linkback credit anyway and the links are masked to begin with. I have other "real" links on the pages but for affil ones, I'm thinking of doing this.

pros, cons?

[Michael Martinez]

You know, there IS such a thing as positioning an affiliate page above other affiliate pages. You guys are so obsessed with Toolbar PageRank and LinkBack counts you don't look at the big picture.

Getting your indexable content to the top of the search results is what should be your top priority.

Not hiding stuff.

Not excluding stuff.

Not being pre-emptive in a way that could substantively alter the inherent value of your indexable content.

[krisval]

I'll answer your question. I do use it for affiliate partners and/or private label partners who have a somewhat less than desireable redirect. In other words, Google, Yahoo, and Ask will index some affiliate links if the affiate advertiser does not setup their tracking URL or landing pages correctly.

I had an issue with a private label - mydomain.advertiserdomain.com. The affiliate program did not use a noindex/nofollow tag. The private lablel pages were indexed and then turned up as supplemental results for dupe content issues - as they should by the way.

I don't believe it can hurt you. If you are concerned about a particular tracking mechanism, search to see if G and Others are indexing the links. If they are, I recommend using it.

[ThouShaltSeo]

wrong assumptions: I have no worry over PR or link counts. I see them mattering much less lately. The reason I posted that is to say that the sites I link will not be hurt by me doing the rel=nofollow thing.

Once decided, this will take me about a minute to implement on my site so I'll have plenty of time to work on content. And as far as "hiding" affil links: go.pl?ID=123 looks much better than some weird and long tracking url.
I think so anyway.


You know, there IS such a thing as positioning an affiliate page above other affiliate pages. You guys are so obsessed with Toolbar PageRank and LinkBack counts you don't look at the big picture.

[seomike]

If it's keeping the engines from figuring out that your site is an affiliate then just cloak the links. For search engines send them to a description page or not show a link at all. For users give them the full freaking affiliate link with the tracking url.

Pros:
1. You'll never get flagged as an affiliate by the SE's.
2. You can redirect an spider to in internal page that only exists for them that is a product or service description.
3. That product or service description may rank so just redirect non search engine visitors to the main affiliate using a redirect with your id in it.
4. The main affiliate will love you for all the leads
5. Description pages add page mass and a better crosslinking structure so you'll own the other affiliates.
6. Better chances to get links because you won't look like an affiliate.

Cons
If you're just making a little extra cash and not a full fledged affiliate site then don't do the spiders to descrption page thingy. Just don't show spider the link at all.
Hmmm can't think of anything else really.


Oh just remember the robots noarchive meta tag on the spider only pages if you do go that route.

[Michael Martinez]

wrong assumptions: I have no worry over PR or link counts.

I assume nothing. You brought them up, not me. They are far from important, where ranking on Google is concerned.

It's all but impossible, these days, to have a meaningful discussion about getting good search result rankings on the various SEO forums because people inevitably bring in PageRank and backlinks.

The first priority for anyone who is having a problem with their rankings should be determining that they are indeed providing indexable, human-readable, on-topic, relevant, optimized textual content.

Just over the past couple of weeks, nearly ever Web site posted to the Search Engine Watch forum alone (where the owner was asking why they have no rankings in Google) has suffered from the same problem: lack of human-readable, indexable, on-topic, relevant text.

And yet nearly every followup to all those pleas for help (barring a few from a couple of other people besides me) has focused on PageRank, backlinks, building reciprocal links, etc.

And a lot of these sites HAVE tons of backlinks, far more than they need.

As far as your original question goes, why did you phrase in terms of PageRank and Backlinks?

I have TONS of affiliate pages that rank highly in search results (higher than the merchant pages for many specific keywords). I get NO backlinks from those merchants. I don't need backlinks for ranking.

I don't need PageRank, either.

I do fine without the merchants' help.

Your question really comes down to, will it hurt anything if you tell search engines to ignore your affiliate links. Affiliate links ARE content. YOU may not think so, but the search engines DO. Content is assessed in many different ways (to determine relevancy).

Hence, you could easily have asked your question without bringing up PageRank and backlinks. That is my point.

You guys obsess over the subjects of PageRank and backlinks. There are discussions where it feels (to me) like none of you can breathe if you don't mention PageRank and backlinks in some totally unnecessary way.

If Google REALLY cared a great deal about that stuff, I'd be out there singing the mantra, too. But Google cares about these things far less than most of you realize. Google is concerned first and foremost with RELEVANCE.

Every year I sort of burn out my welcome in the SEO communities because I repeatedly (through lectures like this one) point out the obvious: that people focus on outdated ideas and methodologies. No one likes to be told they are wrong. I understand that. So, eventually, when I've ticked off enough people (and when the screaming dies down enough that I'll know Google has finished making changes), I'll go back lurking.

It just amazes me how much PageRank and backlinks dominate the discussions here at SearchEngineWatch (elsewhere I can understand -- most people don't know as much as Danny Sullivan). And though he DOES talk about PageRank and backlinks, even Danny has tried to warn people not to emphasize them as much as you guys do. He doesn't preach the way I do, but if you read his articles carefully, he strives to emphasize relevance of content over everything else.

Whenever anyone thinks of anything (including your question), their first concern should be, "Will this help or hinder MY relevance in any way?"

Frankly, I think what you propose could indeed HURT your relevance. I don't assume it will, I am just saying that, given what little we all know at this point about the rel=nofollow tag, I would say the probability is higher that you'll be reducing your site's relevance and importance by telling the search engines NOT to follow those tags, because you're saying, "This content is not important to me".

Well, if it's not important to YOU, then why should it be important to your visitors? That is what the search engines assume.

Of course, you may want to say, "But they are just links to my affiliates! They are NOT important to my visitors!"

If you're selling through those links, then I would say they ARE important to your visitors.

More importantly, those links are content on your site. You should maximize your content's potential. Telling a search engine that the content is not important reduces the content to absolute impotency.

I really don't believe many people here understand just how important it is to provide OUTBOUND LINKS as part of your content. It doesn't matter if they are affiliate links. At the very least, you are telling Google and the other search services that you are partnered with one or more merchants, and your site may very well be relevant to anyone who is looking for products to buy. Why? Because an affiliate site MAY offer specific product recommendations. Most large merchants stress the importance of Webmaster recommendations for products.

That makes your links important.

Your site might very well be able to take the hit of losing whatever value those links provide to it in the determination of its relevance to searcher queries. But if you are already where you want to be, why insist on rocking the boat?

And this really has nothing to do with PageRank and backlinks. It's all about what is on your site and what you tell the search engines is important and relevant. If you change that mix today, what guarantee do you have that you'll see improvement, or at least maintain your status?

None.

[seobook]

the problem with some affiliate programs is not that people struggle to outrank the one main site but that if the affiliate program is configured in certain ways and you directly link without using java or nofollow or cloaking you add to their link popularity.

that in and of itself may be insignificant to some search algorithms, but if a program gets thousands of affiliates then it becomes much harder to outrank them since 1,000s of on topic pages from various sites will be linking to them from their affiliate program.

http://www.overthemark.com/seoblog/item/51

[Michael Martinez]

the problem with some affiliate programs is not that people struggle to outrank the one main site but that if the affiliate program is configured in certain ways and you directly link without using java or nofollow or cloaking you add to their link popularity.

Here we go again. If your focus is on relevance, link popularity becomes a secondary issue.

that in and of itself may be insignificant to some search algorithms, but if a program gets thousands of affiliates then it becomes much harder to outrank them since 1,000s of on topic pages from various sites will be linking to them from their affiliate program.

Well, I consistently outrank my merchants for my search terms, and their link popularity is greater than mine, so perhaps there is something to my approach worth considering.

But I ain't gonna force anyone to stop shooting themselves in the foot. If people want to disable their outbound links, thus reducing important content on their pages, fine.

Whatever makes you happy.

[seobook]

Here we go again. If your focus is on relevance, link popularity becomes a secondary issue.
within any industry there are going to me a limited number of market leaders who get links by default.

Well, I consistently outrank my merchants for my search terms, and their link popularity is greater than mine, so perhaps there is something to my approach worth considering.
have you any viagra sites?

But I ain't gonna force anyone to stop shooting themselves in the foot. If people want to disable their outbound links, thus reducing important content on their pages, fine.
there is something bogusly authoritative about this statement.

[Michael Martinez]

within any industry there are going to me a limited number of market leaders who get links by default.

Sure. And there are still sites that outrank them.

have you any viagra sites?

Have you any poster sites?

there is something bogusly authoritative about this statement.

You guys can prattle on about backlinks and PageRank all you wish, but the search engines are pursuing relevance, and relevance comes into Google's search results organizing FIRST. Outbound links are part of your content, and who/what you link to helps determine what your content is relevant to.

A group of equally relevant sites may be ordered according to who has the most inbound links, but sites deemed more relevant will be listed first.

That's a pretty basic principle which is rarely referred to in the SEO communities. I honestly don't wonder any more at why so many people come out of the woodwork every time Google just ups and bounces the box. Relevance has done a pretty good job for keeping my rankings consistent. I haven't obsessed about PageRank, I haven't devoted all my spare time to buildibng up inbound links.

I focus on the relevance. That works well enough.

[dannysullivan]

If you don't want your affiliate links to get any type of search engine ranking credit, sure, use nofollow. That's what it's there for. That's exactly the type of use Google has said to use it for, to provide a link but not let that link gain any credit from your page.

I really don't believe many people here understand just how important it is to provide OUTBOUND LINKS as part of your content.
To me, outbound links are only important if there's a reason you should be showing them to your human visitors. Was there information outside your web site that you should be telling your readers about? If so, then outbound link as appropriate. That's the most important thing I could stress.

Search engine impact? Personally, I don't worry about this. In the "real world," we've had exactly one search engine in the past go public that having an outbound link might be crucial in getting indexed: Inktomi. The idea was that pages with no outbound links might be doorway pages so if a page had no outbound link -- and a host of other factors, such as no inbound links, then it might not get indexed or indexed very slowly.

That's not really been an issue I've seen raised for ages. There is the idea that pages with outbound links are more "normal" than pages that lack them. It's unusual for a web page not to have any link at all on it, either within its own web site or to an external site. So having outbound links might make your page more normal and perhaps help on the decisions of whether it will get indexed or ranked.

Two other main ideas I've seen float out there. First, the idea that if you link to too many pages, you'll "leak" your PageRank and hurt your page. I've never bought into that. Others are free to debate at will. The second is that if you link to a "bad neighborhood," the search engines love to tell you that this could hurt your own page. OK, nofollow is a perfect solution if you want to link to something that you suspect might be a bad neighborhood.

[Michael Martinez]

Search engine impact? Personally, I don't worry about this. In the "real world," we've had exactly one search engine in the past go public that having an outbound link might be crucial in getting indexed: Inktomi. The idea was that pages with no outbound links might be doorway pages so if a page had no outbound link -- and a host of other factors, such as no inbound links, then it might not get indexed or indexed very slowly.

Well, I'm not talking about using outbound links to "get indexed", I am talking about using outbound links as content (because that is what they are). After all, the classic directory structure at Yahoo! and DMOZ is built around outbound links -- a concept which was clearly exploited by some of the more sophisticated link farmers.

However, Google has publicly advised people to be careful about where they link:

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

Source: http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

So, even though you imply some skepticism (see citation of Danny's comment below) about whether linking to a bad neighborhood is really harmful, Google does warn people NOT to do that -- hence, linking MIGHT affect your being indexed (which, again, is not what I was talking about).

And then there is the basic PageRank algorithm itself (which may or may not be in use):

PageRank Technology: PageRank performs an objective measurement of the importance of web pages by solving an equation of more than 500 million variables and 2 billion terms. Instead of counting direct links, PageRank interprets a link from Page A to Page B as a vote for Page B by Page A. PageRank then assesses a page's importance by the number of votes it receives.

PageRank also considers the importance of each page that casts a vote, as votes from some pages are considered to have greater value, thus giving the linked page greater value. Important pages receive a higher PageRank and appear at the top of the search results. Google's technology uses the collective intelligence of the web to determine a page's importance. There is no human involvement or manipulation of results, which is why users have come to trust Google as a source of objective information untainted by paid placement.

Source: http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html

PageRank is clearly affected by both inbound and outbound links. As we have noted in other discussions, early Google models filtered out documents which had no outbound links. While we don't know if that is the case with Google's index, we do know that people are generally advised to have outbound links in Google's guidelines (see page linked to above).

That's not really been an issue I've seen raised for ages. There is the idea that pages with outbound links are more "normal" than pages that lack them. It's unusual for a web page not to have any link at all on it, either within its own web site or to an external site. So having outbound links might make your page more normal and perhaps help on the decisions of whether it will get indexed or ranked.

Two other main ideas I've seen float out there. First, the idea that if you link to too many pages, you'll "leak" your PageRank and hurt your page. I've never bought into that. Others are free to debate at will. The second is that if you link to a "bad neighborhood," the search engines love to tell you that this could hurt your own page. OK, nofollow is a perfect solution if you want to link to something that you suspect might be a bad neighborhood.

Yes, but that will most likely lend itself to more biased SEO reciprocal linking. The potential for abuse in this rel=nofollow tag is immense, since some people are apparently already claiming that they reciprocate requested text links only through uncrawlable Javascript links (thus avoiding the "bleed" factor they fear so much).

Now Google has made it even easier for SEOs to dupe innocent Webmasters into exchanging meaningful links for links that won't be crawled.

[Mel]

PageRank is clearly affected by both inbound and outbound links. As we have noted in other discussions, early Google models filtered out documents which had no outbound links. While we don't know if that is the case with Google's index, we do know that people are generally advised to have outbound links in Google's guidelines (see page linked to above).

I assume you are talking about dangling links, since those are the only pages that were dropped out of the calculations, but you seem to have forgotten both the reason for dropping them (In order that the PR calc could reach a minimal error faster) and the fact that these same pages were then added back in after the initial calculations.

Sorry MM but I don't see where in your quoted item Google has advised you to have outbound links, can you kindly be more precise?

[dannysullivan]

While we don't know if that is the case with Google's index, we do know that people are generally advised to have outbound links in Google's guidelines (see page linked to above).
I've never heard Google say you should have outbound links. That implies if you don't, you'll be in trouble. As with Mel, if you've seen this specifically in the guidelines, I'd like to see that quote. I've don't recall seeing anything like this.

Google has said that people should link naturally. So a natural page will have outbound links on some occasions, maybe not in others.

I am talking about using outbound links as content (because that is what they are).
OK, that implies that if people have outbound links, Google will see their pages as better and give them some type of ranking boost. Perhaps, but I don't see it as likely.

In particular, we've long had people who have assumed that if they link to Google or other "important" web sites, they'll be seen as "good" and rank better. It's a silly way to rank pages, because then any porn site can shove a link to Google on their pages and do OK. It's too easily manipulated.

So links as search engine content? Not to me, with the minor exception that Teoma will try to cluster out pages with many directory-like link structures for its "resources" area.

Links as content in other ways? Sure. A good link page on a particular topic is a draw for users. People like organization. And a good directory-style link page may end up getting linked to by many others. In turn, that can help it then do better in search engines. We've long had people talk about how they added a good link page and found that the page ranked well in search engines. But that came because the page was content for humans that effectively voted on it through their own linking, not because the search engine analyzed the pages, said "ah, good links here" and gave it a top rating.

[Marcia]

Obfuscating affiliate links is very widespread, and is a very wise practice, with good reason. Aside from other factors, there's a lot of commission theft going on - stealing income from affiliates that is rightfully theirs. Plus software like Norton kills the cookies. No cookie, no commission, no income.

There are scripts specifically for this purpose, and one out there is even free.

[seobook]

Obfuscating affiliate links is very widespread, and is a very wise practice, with good reason. Aside from other factors, there's a lot of commission theft going on - stealing income from affiliates that is rightfully theirs. Plus software like Norton kills the cookies. No cookie, no commission, no income.

There are scripts specifically for this purpose, and one out there is even free.
what scripts do you recommend

[Marcia]

Don't know Aaron, I'm hunting around myself to make some changes. But someone recommended this one (the price is right) - and the company puts out some fine directory software so this is sure worth a try.

http://www.focalmedia.net/clicktracker.html

[Michael Martinez]

I've never heard Google say you should have outbound links. That implies if you don't, you'll be in trouble. As with Mel, if you've seen this specifically in the guidelines, I'd like to see that quote. I've don't recall seeing anything like this.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I quoted the text and provided a link for easy verification. How could you possibly NOT see what I quoted?

I am talking about using outbound links as content (because that is what they are).
OK, that implies that if people have outbound links, Google will see their pages as better and give them some type of ranking boost. Perhaps, but I don't see it as likely.

No, that implies no such thing. Content is assessed as content. Google states specifically that they look at all factors on the page when determining relevance.

Now, elsewhere, I have spoken about the boost a page can enjoy from linking to numerous similar sites. If you want to get into the ins and outs of that, then let's refer to it as "The Directory Page Factor" for ease of reference.

In particular, we've long had people who have assumed that if they link to Google or other "important" web sites, they'll be seen as "good" and rank better. It's a silly way to rank pages, because then any porn site can shove a link to Google on their pages and do OK. It's too easily manipulated.

A lot of things that Google has done through the years are too easily manipulated, but you're way off track with this line of thought.

So links as search engine content? Not to me, with the minor exception that Teoma will try to cluster out pages with many directory-like link structures for its "resources" area.

Well, Danny, all I can say is that a lot of people right now are playing with the Directory Page Factor and they are generating results (at least, I keep running into their pages on my searches, and other people are noticing them, too).

Links have always been part of on-page content, and since Google specifically states they treat them as such, I'm good with that. Your mileage may vary.

Links as content in other ways? Sure. A good link page on a particular topic is a draw for users. People like organization. And a good directory-style link page may end up getting linked to by many others. In turn, that can help it then do better in search engines. We've long had people talk about how they added a good link page and found that the page ranked well in search engines. But that came because the page was content for humans that effectively voted on it through their own linking, not because the search engine analyzed the pages, said "ah, good links here" and gave it a top rating.

Yes. I've been down that road a few times. That is not what I'm referring to, though.

I think, Danny, that as you and your associates explore the world of XML/RSS feeds and how they are being used to impact search engine listings these days, you will begin to see some of what I have been telling you. Although the RSS spammers (apparently still not many) are only demonstrating one aspect of the benefit of using outbound links as content.

As the rel=nofollow tag is more fully assessed by SEOs around the world, my feeling is that many of them will start using it in their reciprocal links in order to "cheat" partners out of PageRank.

Some people are already using Javascript to cheat their link partners, but rel=nofollow would be easier to implement (in my opinion) with a content management system.

If that happens as I think it will, one alternative waiting to be explored will be the RSS/XML spam. I don't say people WILL migrate to it en masse. I cannot predict trends. But it is already being used by some early-adapters, and it may very well catch on as a more attractive technique.

[Marcia]

As the rel=nofollow tag is more fully assessed by SEOs around the world, my feeling is that many of them will start using it in their reciprocal links in order to "cheat" partners out of PageRank.

Some people are already using Javascript to cheat their link partners, but rel=nofollow would be easier to implement (in my opinion) with a content management system.

If that happens as I think it will, one alternative waiting to be explored will be the RSS/XML spam. I don't say people WILL migrate to it en masse. I cannot predict trends. But it is already being used by some early-adapters, and it may very well catch on as a more attractive techniqueNone of that has anything whatsoever to do with affiliate links. This is the topic that the original poster very specifically asked about

Rel=nofollow: should I do this to the affiliate links?
Affiliate links are not the same as other links, and there are very specific issues, unlike other types of links. Therefore, rather than getting into too much topic drift we need to stay with addressing the issue of outbound links as they pertain to affiliate sites and affiliate links. Different issues - different concerns, and they're important ones.

[Michael Martinez]

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with affiliate links. This is the topic that the original poster very specifically asked about

Actually, it DOES have to do with affiliate links. However....

Affiliate links are not the same as other links,

I'm not aware of any papers or statements from the search engines to that effect. Let's take Google, for example. Search their site for the expression "affiliate links" and all you come up with is a discussion about someone's frustration at lost rankings (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.google.com+%2B%22affiliate+links%22). No official declarations from Google that "affiliate links are not the same as other links".

Nothing authoritative comes up regarding Google, "Affiliate links", PageRank, and patents. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2Bgoogle.com+%2B%22affiliate+links%22+%2BPageRa nk+%2Bpatent)

Lots of unauthoritative speculation here, too (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2Bgoogle.com+%2B%22affiliate+links%22+%2BPageRa nk)

Everyone's favorite source of Google information (I like him), GoogleGuy, has his own "fan" site, and there is nothing there which indicates that affiliate links are different:

http://www.markcarey.com/googleguy-says/archives/2004_02_15.html

I've seen literally thousands of forum posts, SEO advice pages, and God knows what else tout the difference between affiliate links and "real" links, but I have never seen anyone demonstrate how that is the case.

How on Earth is Google supposed to know the difference between an affiliate link and a very complex dynamic URL?

There ARE people, right now, who are capitalizing on the fact that Google can NOT tell the difference between affiliate links and regular links. Links are links. I would say that one way Google has managed to defuse affiliate links is to focus more on page-level popularity. No two NATURAL affiliate sites will ever give much of a boost to any affiliate program, because the links will contain unique affiliate ID codes.

Hence, if 2, or 1,000 pages contain identical links, Google might have something. Or not. After all, any content-management-based site can put the same affiliate links on every page. And then Google doesn't know if it's looking at a prolific affiliate link farm or just a very aggressive content aggregator who wants to sell some third-party merchandise.

Either way, though, page-level link popularity defuses the value of affiliate links because they generally won't be the same.

Suddenly, all those tens of thousands of backlinks don't help the vendors any more. Ohmigosh. Maybe I'll get some of my pages to the top on the basis of outbound affiliate links after all.

Wait. I'm doing that already (technically, the links are accompanied by text labels -- so I'm also loading my content gun and firing it).

Once again, I strongly caution people against killing their affiliate links. You hurt nothing by leaving them live. Telling Google NOT to follow them takes them completely out of the equation.

Even if you want to arbitrarily assign a ratio of values of 100 outbound links being worth 1 inbound link, you cut yourself that much competitive value by telling Google to ignore those links.

And there ARE people who are generating thousands of pages of content filled with nothing but affiliate links. Those pages rank very well in many searches. I know that because I have to filter them out of my searches every day.

They ain't getting into the search results on the basis of backlinks.

[dannysullivan]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I quoted the text and provided a link for easy verification. How could you possibly NOT see what I quoted?
I did read what you quoted. The first was from a webmaster guidelines page said don't link to bad neighborhoods. It said nothing about having outbound links to do better, that outbound links were important "content."

The second was a quote about how PageRank works from Google. You said (it didn't) that it's obvious the calculations involve outbound and inbound links. That's not actually what it said.

It said that each page gets a PageRank score based on counting links from across the web. It never, never said that if a page has an outbound link that it will somehow do better with ranking or with getting a PageRank score. It made no issue over whether a link was "inbound" or "outbound."

What you quoted in terms of PageRank also wasn't from a webmaster guidelines page. In short, I saw nothing where Google was saying you should have outbound links. I think people should have outbound links for a variety of good reasons, of course, which I noted in my earlier post. But Google guidelines saying that? Nothing I saw had that. So when you said:

While we don't know if that is the case with Google's index, we do know that people are generally advised to have outbound links in Google's guidelines (see page linked to above).
I haven't seen you actually prove this with a direct quote. If you want to speculate on it, that's fine, especially if you make clear it's your opinion.

I can tell you what I've long heard Google "generally advise" people to do in terms of linking period. That is, link normally. Link to things you think people should know about and get links from places you think you should get links from. I've been on many, many panels with Google when they've talked about this -- or when I've talked about it and they've said that's what you should do. But I have never, never heard them say you should have outbound links, like that is some type of specific requirement to do well for them.

Well, Danny, all I can say is that a lot of people right now are playing with the Directory Page Factor and they are generating results (at least, I keep running into their pages on my searches, and other people are noticing them, too).
If this means that many people are building directory style link pages and doing well, people have been doing well with that since 1997, in my experience. It's hardly new to me, and it flows back from what my own personal view is on that. A good link page gains links and does better. It doesn't just do well because it has a ton of "good" links on it and so the search engines say, "Hmm, yummy, top ranking for you." That's my own personal take; I could be completely wrong.

I think, Danny, that as you and your associates explore the world of XML/RSS feeds and how they are being used to impact search engine listings these days, you will begin to see some of what I have been telling you. Although the RSS spammers (apparently still not many) are only demonstrating one aspect of the benefit of using outbound links as content.
Meaning what? Meaning that using RSS, I can get links to my pages out on many other web sites? If so, that's not really "outbound" linking. If you're meaning that using RSS, I can assemble links on my pages from pages across the web and thus build content solely or largely made up by outbound links, sure. But again, that's not new, nor did it require RSS. RSS just made it easier. But I'd still personally disagree that any pages like this are doing well just because they have a lot of outbound links on them. I think the fact that the outbound links have been assembled into a form of useful content that in turn causes people to link to these pages is the deciding factor. My own view; I could be completely wrong.

[Michael Martinez]

I did read what you quoted. The first was from a webmaster guidelines page said don't link to bad neighborhoods. It said nothing about having outbound links to do better, that outbound links were important "content."

You continue to misconstrue what I have been saying, Danny. I am not implying things. You are inferring them (and inferring incorrectly).

Obviously, I have only compounded your error by following your train of thought and addressing the way Google promotes Web design.

All I said originally was: "I really don't believe many people here understand just how important it is to provide OUTBOUND LINKS as part of your content."

You replied with: "Search engine impact? Personally, I don't worry about this. In the "real world," we've had exactly one search engine in the past go public that having an outbound link might be crucial in getting indexed: Inktomi."

I never said anything about using outbound links to get indexed. YOU did.

And I did say that "I'm not talking about using outbound links to 'get indexed', I am talking about using outbound links as content (because that is what they are)." Clearly, I should have left it at that, but I decided to point out that Google does indeed reward outbound linking because it rewards directory sites. And then I added that that methodology has been exploited.

That was just a tangent.

But then you replied with yet another disconnect: "I've never heard Google say you should have outbound links."

I never said that they DID say such a thing. You just keep putting words into my mouth.

What is indisputably true is that it is implicitly necessary for anyone who wants their page to be included in the classic PageRank calculation to have at leats one outbound link -- since the original Brin/Page paper stipulated that they were throwing out pages which didn't have outbound links. Google doesn't say or imply in their guidelines that you MUST have outbound links to get indexed.

But, again, I never made that assertion anyway. I only pointed out that they treat outbound links as content.

The second was a quote about how PageRank works from Google. You said (it didn't) that it's obvious the calculations involve outbound and inbound links. That's not actually what it said.

See above. It was related to the tangent.

But back to my original point: Outbound links (with anchor text or ALT= tags for images) are indexable content. That means that they are not simply treated as links. They are also treated as text.

Google does this because many outbound links are indeed incorporated into standard text. Here is an example using your own site (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.searchenginewatch.com+%2B%22search+en gine+strategies%22). Google took the ALT= tag from your Search Engine Strategies logo on this page (http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/).

Here is another example:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=site%3Awww.searchenginewatch.com+%2B%22intro+to+ search+engine+submission%22

The second listing shows that same page with the link "Intro to search engine submission" highlighted in the descriptive text.

As for what I subsequently wrote:

While we don't know if that is the case with Google's index, we do know that people are generally advised to have outbound links in Google's guidelines (see page linked to above).
I haven't seen you actually prove this with a direct quote. If you want to speculate on it, that's fine, especially if you make clear it's your opinion.

Let's look at their first suggestion:

Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should be reachable from at least one static text link.

I am pretty sure they are not suggesting that you include on each page only links to itself. They are speaking about normal, everyday, average links to off-page content. Outbound links.

They do talk about HOW you should link and how you should NOT link, so, yes, they are generally (not specifically) advising people to include links in their content.

It appears to me that where I wrote "generally", you feel it equates to "specifically". I'll grant you that many people would probably share that point of view -- but that is not at all what I meant or intended.

I can tell you what I've long heard Google "generally advise" people to do in terms of linking period....

I've read the guidelines and many of GoogleGuy's posts. I've also read a great many of your own articles. I get the gist of what you and they are saying.

But Google shouldn't have to patronize people by coming out and say "We think of links as content".

If this means that many people are building directory style link pages and doing well, people have been doing well with that since 1997, in my experience. It's hardly new to me, and it flows back from what my own personal view is on that. A good link page gains links and does better. It doesn't just do well because it has a ton of "good" links on it and so the search engines say, "Hmm, yummy, top ranking for you." That's my own personal take; I could be completely wrong.

There is no right or wrong about it, in my opinion. I was pursuing the tangential point.

To illustrate what I was getting at a little better, I don't remember the name of the program, but you may. A few years ago, someone was selling a link management package that generated boiler-plate reciprocal link directories. They linked to each other. They had unambiguous text links (not redirected text links, such as are found in many directory packages).

People added those reciprocal link directories to their sites rather indiscriminantly. They were linking to each other all over the place.

That is an example of one of the exploits I referred to above. There were others. These early pseudo-directories got some pretty good rankings until Google started filtering them out. They were not doing that because other sites were linking to them. They were doing that because they had a lot of links (with anchor text) organized into specialized categories. Many of the sites being linked to were not easy to find on Google.

Now, that situation changed somewhat as more and more people joined that growing link circle (which is essentially what it became). The sites became visible until Google started filtering out the reciprocal links.

CONTINUED IN NEXT MESSAGE

[Michael Martinez]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGE


I think, Danny, that as you and your associates explore the world of XML/RSS feeds and how they are being used to impact search engine listings these days, you will begin to see some of what I have been telling you. Although the RSS spammers (apparently still not many) are only demonstrating one aspect of the benefit of using outbound links as content.
Meaning what? Meaning that using RSS, I can get links to my pages out on many other web sites? If so, that's not really "outbound" linking. If you're meaning that using RSS, I can assemble links on my pages from pages across the web and thus build content solely or largely made up by outbound links, sure. But again, that's not new, nor did it require RSS. RSS just made it easier. But I'd still personally disagree that any pages like this are doing well just because they have a lot of outbound links on them. I think the fact that the outbound links have been assembled into a form of useful content that in turn causes people to link to these pages is the deciding factor. My own view; I could be completely wrong.

While some people are trying to use RSS/XML feeds to generate links to their pages from other sites (through configurable start pages), that has actually been going on for years. Content aggregators often made that content available for use by third-party Web sites. I used to have an extensive selection of science fiction and fantasy news headlines on one of my Web sites which were driven by RSS feeds (converted to Javascript).

But that is not what I was speaking about.

What you (and others) are going to find is that people are now taking data feeds from anyone who will provide them and constructing link-content-rich doorway pages. I have found three uses for them so far:

1) Traffic hijacking. A few sites I have seen were taking traffic from legitimate sites. Google seems to have addressed that problem. I can no longer find any of those sites. They did this by supplementing their feed content with an extended URL for the Web site whose placement they were taking. They may have employed other tricks I did not detect.

2) Boosting their own link popularity. They use the converted RSS content to mask links to their own sites. So the pages look like normal content (and they are updated so as to appear fresh) but they contain links to a core site whose link popularity is getting a little boost from the pages.

3) Affiliate link farming. This is the oldest application of the mass RSS-driven content that I have seen. Some high-powered Amazon associates have been shoveling out thousands of pages with Amazon content ever since Amazon inrtoduced its datafeed. Since the end of January, it has become more difficult for me to find such pages, so I think Google has started filtering them out. Or maybe Amazon has done something. I don't know why they are vanishing.

But people do not link to any of these pages. All three kinds have achieved high search results.

I suspect that the next generation of RSS spam sites will look more like content aggregators, collecting feeds from multiple sources. They won't look quite so unnatural to the algorithm.

One can only hope that Google (and Yahoo! and MSN) are going to stay on top of that game, but time will tell.

The problem is that more and more software packages are generating RSS feeds. Blogs generate them now, forums generate them now, many news sites are now offering them as direct links to their visitors (ostensibly for personal aggregators that can be downloaded to PCs), and even some mailing list/discussion group service providers (including both Google and Yahoo!) are offering RSS feeds for their content.

The potential for spamming is exploding potentially because the spammers have new resources to draw upon. They'll be able to design dynamic content sites that offer legitimate content "borrowed" from other sources -- and these guys don't care about terms of service. Amazon specifically forbids people from reusing their customer-supplied product reviews, but the spammers were using them across the board.

[ThouShaltSeo]

thank you everyone. I have decided to use the rel="....

1. it's an advertisment
2. the merchant doesn't benefit from the link anyway (CJ links)
3. If there's a penalty for affil. links or something, I will be safer.

I just need an sql command to replace
"target="_blank"> with
"target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
on table "X", field "Y"