Categories: Chit-chat :

What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate

Showing 1-89 of 89 messages
What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate rickweiss 6/28/12 2:33 PM
I am in the midst of a debate between bloggers and small business owners who get reviewed by these bloggers.

Bloggers have apparently taken the issue of never having a dofollow on any link that is tied to something you are compensated for so seriously that they are putting nofollow on all links in their posts. In other words, the legitimate link to the products page is getting a nofollow.

This has angered the business owners, as they see these as legitimate links that would help their own SEO. 

Personally I don't think these links fit into the category of "link to pass page rank" that is dinged, am I right, or are the bloggers right?

Another way of asking this: is it a paid link when someone gets paid to review a product (or gets the product), and in the review does a dofollow link to that product?

Rick
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate OICWeb 6/28/12 3:02 PM
>Another way of asking this: is it a paid link when someone gets paid to review a product (or gets the product), and in the review does a dofollow link to that product?

Yup. That would be a definition of a paid/unnatural link.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Bens Mom 6/30/12 7:29 AM
So just for clarification here, I want to be sure I understand this issue and I would love for a GOOGLE EMPLOYEE to weigh in on this for definitive closure on the subject. 

If I am a small business owner, and a blogger contacts me and requests a free product to blog about because they really love our product, is Google's official position on this that those links should be rel=nofollow??

The Webmaster Guidelines are NOT clear on this subject. The scenario above is just not addressed there, unless I am mistaken, in which case PLEASE set me straight and point me toward the appropriate page.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate JohnMu 6/30/12 12:20 PM
Hi Rick

If those links are there because of money (or something equivalent) changing hands, then we would consider them to be paid links, and with regards to our webmaster guidelines, we'd recommend adding a rel=nofollow to the link. For more information on this topic, I'd recommend checking out our Help Center: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569 as well as Matt's blog post on the subject of paid posts: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/sponsored-conversations/

Hope it helps!
John
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Bens Mom 6/30/12 12:29 PM
Thanks for the clarification John. Tons of bloggers ask us for free product ALL THE TIME. We get those emails non-stop. We won't be sending out any more freebies to bloggers as a result of this.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate JohnMu 6/30/12 12:42 PM
I'd take a step back and think about why you're sending out these freebies. If the one and only reason that you're doing this is to affect your site's performance in search results, then that would have been a bit problematic from our point of view. 

On the other hand, if you're also doing that to get some publicity for your products and your brand, or if you're doing that to drive traffic to your website, then requesting that the bloggers use a rel=nofollow when you send out your freebies won't change that: your products & services will still be talked about, users will still have the ability to click through to your website. There are many reasons why you might want to have bloggers write about you & your products, and many of those reasons can still be valid even with a rel=nofollow on the links to your website. 

Cheers
John
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 6/30/12 12:46 PM
YOU'RE JOKING!
 
Let me try to explain what a little "Good Will" does for you.
 
Ever use Analytics for data mining?
 
Everr use YouTube for sharing or watching videos?
 
Everr use Google for searching?
 
What would you do if Google took your approach on good will?
 
The value of offering free is good will and that grows your reputation... and it's your reputation that attracts links naturally without any shady reasons to be devalued by Google.
 
I'm not saying it will create links... but wikipedia is absolutely free... and makes $15 million in donations but keeping it free.
 
Good will is worth far more than you give it credit for.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Bens Mom 6/30/12 5:35 PM
Very altruistic, JohnMu. I've been doing this for 6 years now - we have sent out THOUSANDS of dollars worth of free product. Likely tens of thousands over the entire 6 years. All to bloggers who requested it for purposes of a review.

Want to know how much return we've gotten from those reviews? Virtually none. That is not an exaggeration. Readership for most of these blogs has become a crowd of one-time freebie seekers. Where are all those customers who are supposed to remember us later, because of the 'brand awareness' built up by the reviews/giveaways we've done??

Customers who purchase through our site are asked how they found us. Again, almost NONE of them tell us it was thru one of those bloggers. Sorry, I'm more than a bit disillusioned with the whole practice and it sure as heck ain't because I didn't give it enough time to take effect. 

Add Analytics data to that, by the way, for HUNDREDS of reviews. They drive almost NO traffic. Usually a handful of visitors, like maybe a few dozen.

And finally, I am incorrect in the belief that having too many rel=nofollow links can actually hurt a site? Because that is the impression I'm under.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Bens Mom 6/30/12 5:37 PM
*am I
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate StevieD_Web 6/30/12 5:59 PM
> I am incorrect in the belief that having too many rel=nofollow links can actually hurt a site? Because that is the impression I'm under. 

No,
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Bens Mom 6/30/12 6:29 PM
No, too many rel=nofollows DO NOT hurt a site, 

OR

No, too many rel=nofollows DO hurt a site?
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate webado 6/30/12 7:00 PM
They do not hurt a site.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Panda_Effects 6/30/12 8:27 PM
I would say that if the rel=nofollow is for "trusted" big brand name sites if they also link to you would hurt.  But if to smaller sites they could if not using rel=nofollow.  But even some smaller good sites maybe could hurt if using that?  But would have to be able to really be sure if could "vouch" for them which is not an easy thing to do as never know what could change, so seems better to use rel=nofollow.

My understanding.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate webado 6/30/12 8:33 PM

A link with rel="nofollow" is not followed. It goes nowhere, for no reason. 
It's like it doesn't exist as far as Googlebot is concerned.  It's not open to any interpretation. It's been that way since times immemorial.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 6/30/12 8:45 PM
YUP there is no question.
 
The link is not included in the link graph. Google will still show it in WMT because it is still a valid link with referral traffic potential.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Panda_Effects 6/30/12 9:44 PM
Ok, I should have explained what I did before more.  I meant if having used the link before and it helped the site, by using rel=nofollow now could hurt some.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate webado 6/30/12 10:03 PM
Not it doesn't hurt. It removes the benefit it had given the site before, not the same thing.


Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate JohnMu 7/1/12 1:06 AM
Hi Bens Mom

I'd like to back up what others said -- having links (even a large number of them) with rel=nofollow pointing to your site does not negatively affect your site. We take these links out of our PageRank calculations, and out of our algorithms when they use links. 

If you've been doing this for a longer time, then it might even make sense to work to clean up those older links, and to have them either removed or the rel=nofollow attached (given that those kinds of paid posts would be against our Webmaster Guidelines). 

Cheers
John
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Phil Payne 7/1/12 5:16 AM
> A link with rel="nofollow" is not followed. It goes nowhere, for no reason.

Experimental evidence suggests to me that the Googlebot DOES follow rel="nofollow" links.  It's an acquisitive little sod and hoovers up every URL it can get its mitts on.

But it may very well be that PageRank is not passed.  I've done some experiments and the results are inconclusive (because of Google's quite deliberate and understandable obfuscation) but I suspect it's the case.

The whole concept of rel="nofollow" worries me a bit, as I've said before.  "There's this site over here but I won't vouch for it?" Then why link to it?

Originally rel="nofollow" was designed for use by bulletin boards and forum software so they could automate disavowal of URLs inserted by posters.  Manual use is perverse.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Bens Mom 7/1/12 7:04 AM
I think what bothers me the most about this whole issue is Google's definition of a 'paid link.' If I contact the blogger and ask them to review a product for us then fine, those links are considered compensated and should be nofollowed.

But I think Google is overstepping its bounds when they say the same should be true for a situation where the blogger contacts us, requesting a product because they like it and want to blog about it. That is the definition of having great content/products and attracting natural interest. The blogger doesn't want to blog about us and link to us without being thoroughly familiar with our product and having it on hand to take pictures of, so they can vouch for the quality of our product and our site to their readers, so why not send them the product to facilitate their post? But Google is saying "No, that is a link for which product has changed hands, and is therefore a paid post."

What is the difference between a mom who receives our product as a gift from her friend (b/c SHE ASKED FOR IT!!) and then chooses to blog about it, and the same mom asking us for the product and then choosing to blog about it? If she receives the product and doesn't like it SHE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BLOG ABOUT US OR LINK TO US. That is the difference between a compensated post and the scenario I am describing. I am not 'paying her with product' to link to us. If she receives the product and doesn't like it, she doesn't have to blog about it at all.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Panda_Effects 7/1/12 8:01 AM
"The whole concept of rel="nofollow" worries me a bit, as I've said before.  "There's this site over here but I won't vouch for it?" Then why link to it?"

I think part of it has to do with "trusted" sites where they have built enough of a reputation and it is ok if they do not use the rel=nofollow.  Smaller sites while can trust another site to link to them, most times likely cannot vouch for those sites.  For example, what if they hired an SEO who started doing something wrong, or their website got hacked?

The rel=nofollow is just saying do not use the links for any rank benefit.  But those links can still be used by visitors which I believe most people have links for in the first place, not to pass any page rank.  So can still "vouch" for some links, but not if it passes any page rank.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate webado 7/1/12 8:01 AM
Barter is a transaction involving an exchange of goods and services  in lieu of money exchanging hands. 

The "bloggers" who reviewed your product and graced your site with a link would not have done it without receiving their compensation from you. And you'd not have given them the "free" product if they'd not at least promised to review it and link to your site.


Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Bens Mom 7/1/12 9:48 AM
Well I guess if you say so, then that is the way it goes down, huh? For the record I think this stinks, for the small business and for bloggers. Here is where someone will tell me Google is a free service and under no obligation to send traffic my way at all. I understand that, I really do. But I disagree with their policy on this one. One can only write so many guest posts as the owner of an ecommerce site, it's not easy to get them published. And what's to stop Google from deciding that the links within guest posts are unnatural and should get rel=nofollow as well? This is hard to swallow and very discouraging. But I guess I have to make it work.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate vwtom 7/2/12 6:31 AM
So does that go from restaurants too then?  Should restaurants be banned from asking people to rate their experience?  Is it the simple act of asking which is taboo?

What if those restaurant patrons are "given" good service?  Then go home an blog about it...is this review subject to the same scrutiny?
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate webado 7/2/12 6:52 AM
If by rating you mean adding 1-5 stars somewhere, that doesn't  influence rankings in the search results. It may influence visitors, once they've come to the website.

I may blog about my experience with a restaurant, hotel, store, show .... might even provide a backlink that's not nofollowed if I had a good experience, FWIW. But I wouldn't do it because you, business owner, asked me to or enticed me to do it by whatever gift or bonus or discount. And I personally wouldn't do it as a job.

For those who make a living as invited restaurant critics, or reviewers of products, the proper way is to nofollow links to the website or product they review. It is advertising or promotion of sorts, it should not also be a tool to boost rankings.


Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate tim2223 7/2/12 7:50 AM
If by rating you mean adding 1-5 stars somewhere, that doesn't  influence rankings in the search results. It may influence visitors, once they've come to the website.
I may blog about my experience with a restaurant, hotel, store, show .... might even provide a backlink that's not nofollowed if I had a good experience, FWIW. But I wouldn't do it because you, business owner, asked me to or enticed me to do it by whatever gift or bonus or discount. And I personally wouldn't do it as a job.
For those who make a living as invited restaurant critics, or reviewers of products, the proper way is to nofollow links to the website or product they review. It is advertising or promotion of sorts, it should not also be a tool to boost rankings.

So what happens if an inexperienced blogger blogs about your product or service and does not add no-follow to the link ? If there has been no discussion, no offering, no freeby, no payment etc. I as a blogger go to a restaurant and I am so impressed that I get staright home and blog about it and put the link on my blog, I dont know anything about no-follows or stuff like that I just write, does that penalise the site ? How does Google differentiate between that and a "paid" link ? 
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate webado 7/2/12 8:09 AM
Nothing happens. You didn't ask this blogger to do anything. 

I said before if I decide to blog about something I ran into that I liked, I'll link using a regular link, not adding rel="nofollow". This is what constitutes a freely given link, not by request, by barter or payment. This is the kind of link that counts. The destinaiton of that link gets a bit of link juice. My site remains in good standing because I'm not dispensing unprotected paid links. Nor am I writing stuff just to try to attract Adsense with all manner of keywords.

And yes, Google can distinguish all that. For one thing I don't make it a regular feature to blog about stuff, especially not in positive ways (hah, I readily blog about bad experiences and bitch about lousy service and products;) For another if your site starts appearing featured in reviews in several blogs/forums, especially with unprotected links, then a pattern is established. It becomes quite apparent to Google you do procure  reviews and thus backlinks. Any of those backlinks that are unprotected will ding your site. Up to you to watch out for this happening and demanding they either remove the backlink or add rel="nofollow". 

Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate tim2223 7/2/12 8:14 AM
Nothing happens. You didn't ask this blogger to do anything. 
I said before if I decide to blog about something I ran into that I liked, I'll link using a regular link, not adding rel="nofollow". This is what constitutes a freely given link, not by request, by barter or payment. This is the kind of link that counts. The destinaiton of that link gets a bit of link juice. My site remains in good standing because I'm not dispensing unprotected paid links. Nor am I writing stuff just to try to attract Adsense with all manner of keywords.
And yes, Google can distinguish all that. 

Thanks for the reply, I would like to know how Google can distinguish that. I suspect it would be a pattern so experienced bloggers would be doing it all the time so links from their sites would be treated as such. 
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate webado 7/2/12 8:20 AM
I continued my post above to discuss how Google might recognize the situations.

Of course I don't know for a fact that's how they do it, but to me it appears plausible to be something like that. Google has immense computing power and can troll the web and collect all sorts of signals like that and draw conclusions.

I, as a searcher, should I run into too many review sites while looking for a particular product or business, I get rather suspicious when I see reviews on too many sites all pointing to the same site or product. I conclude that's really promotional in nature and, as is my habit, I immediately don't trust any of them to be truthful.



Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate SE spider 7/2/12 11:39 PM
Hi JohnMu,

I had got a webmaster notice of unnatural links in webmaster tools 1 month back, from that day am working to analyze and remove links which are look like unnatural.
I would like to know if some site linking to my site with rel=nofollow is i need to remove those links to file a reconsideration request? 
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate PM Coupry 7/3/12 2:25 AM
Hi Gopi Krishna,

As stated by John Mueller higher in this thread, having a rel=nofollow in the link will neutralize the negative effect of an unnatural link. When reviewing your links that you think might be unnatural, i would recommend you use common sense. Does the page the link is on have relevant & quality information ? Does the link bring extra insight or information for the reader ? If the content is good and the link is going to inform better the reader, then add a rel="nofollow" because the link should drive trafic. If the content is poor (or non existent), if the link is on a page with no relation with it's topic or if it won't give extra information to the readers, remove it because it just never should have existed.


Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/3/12 2:40 AM
I can say "WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER" that using the rel="nofollow" attrubute is as good as deleting a link as it relates to recovery from a Manual Review or a PENGUIN Update as in both instances the link is no longer manipulating PageRank thus no longer UNNATURAL.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Aman Singh SEO 7/3/12 6:26 AM
Thanks for the solution. I believed it before you told me, but now it is official. Many people still think that when dofollow count as a upvote. Nofollow might count as a downvote. But, still this isn't the case. 
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate 1918 (deprecated) 7/3/12 6:33 AM
fathom - I agree that nofollowing a link means it's no longer passing PR, but  do you have expeience that when a site has received an unnatural link notice that adding nofollow to those links has resulted in the penalty being lifted? I'm asking because I have not seen that (yet) so I can't say I'm 100% sure of it. I worry that G takes a snapshot of the unnatural links and waits for them to be removed. I'd love to know for sure.
gregorysmith 7/3/12 10:28 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Sasch 7/3/12 5:22 PM
I will add this to the discussion, especially in view of 1918's post. Regardless of whether nofollow is implemented or not, a bunch of comment-spam links will be noted by Google. 

How could they not be?

We all know that Google utilizes LSI. From there it's not really any step at all to identify where consistently used content lives. Most comment spam runs along very similar lines. Ergo, the pattern coupled with the location will send a clear signal... regardless of how Google considers it in the bigger picture.

Just because nofollow does not pass PR, does not mean that the link and its location are not used for other metrics.

Just my $0.02

Cheers

Sasch
gregorysmith 7/3/12 5:41 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Sasch 7/3/12 6:08 PM
Greg... Panda-Approved SEO... By whom? ;-)
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/3/12 6:11 PM
Hello gregorysmith. :)i

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this but the rel=nofollow was created essentially to STOP the flow of PageRank. Sasch is clearly right according to this publicly-available document.



Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/3/12 6:16 PM
Aaah Sasch - I did not see you posting there.

BTW I totally agree with your previous post. It seems to me that the other poster was confused and misread what John said earlier in this thread. John always takes a lot of care to craft his statements. I think it might have been a bit cavalier of the other poster to ignore a set of words like these "and out of our algorithms when they use links" :)
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate gregorysmith 7/3/12 6:40 PM
I'm not going to get into this dicsucion here, but you or no one else will ever be able to stop the flow of page rank. I recently had this discussion in very in depth form, with "michael martinez", and many others and I'm sure we aren't all wrong. Do you know who I am? Just wondering....

But, like I said, the no follow tag was not created and does have nothing to do with page rank. I strongly advise you to research this much further prior to having this discussion .. I'm only here to help other, I'm not here to argue, nor fight. But what I'm telling you is a fact. There have been thorough case studies to prove what I'm saying.

Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Sasch 7/3/12 6:46 PM
Jim... "and out of our algorithms when they use links"

Right... conjecture alert, backed up by some personal experimentation...

Okidoke... so... No PR is passed by nofollowed links, this is a given... Matt Cutts and others would not have stated so publicly if this was in fact not the case. Google is not into telling lies (maybe not telling the whole truth, but never outright lies). 

While the whole SEO world has been focused on what nofollowed links don't do, everyone seems to have overlooked what they can do.

Greg... sorry, but I'mma call you out. If you have any concrete evidence that nofollowed links do not stop the flow of PageRank, then I ask you very cordially to post it hereafter. Aside from that, and in the framework of this discussion, I'm going to have to draw everyone's attention to the fact that there's a whole plethora of data Google can draw not only from the link and its anchor text, but also from its location, as well as the nature of the text-content preceding and following it.
gregorysmith 7/3/12 6:52 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/3/12 6:58 PM
@gregorysmith

I am sorry, mate, but like the other poster did above, you have misunderstood what Michael said to you.

A NoFollowed link does not pass PageRank.  Zero, Zilch, Nada.

It's written in the Bible - end of story.
gregorysmith 7/3/12 7:04 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Sasch 7/3/12 7:08 PM
Preface: I am located in the eastern Mediterranean (GMT+2... EST+7). It's very late, and I really cannot tolerate foolishness at this time of night.

Greg... (again, sorry for any lack of patience here)... you are a d*ck.

Does Michael at any stage in the proceedings state that the PR actually gets passed through your link? 

Let me ask you a question: "If nobody else at all on the entire planet except for you links to that page you're nofollowing... what happens to that PR?"

Of course PR will be passed if others link to it freely. Does your nofollowed PR aggregate to them?

Don't be a tit...
gregorysmith 7/3/12 7:15 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/3/12 7:15 PM
If you think about it, it's not likely to be possible to determine the source of PageRank with absolute certainty.

What Michael said was "You can't stop the flow of PageRank" but you've interpreted that to mean  "You can't stop the flow of PageRank to your site".

If you read it again, he has only said that the application of  nofollow does not dissipate PageRank but that does not mean that PageRank is not allocated elsewhere.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/3/12 7:15 PM
I can categorically say without any doubt that you are mistaken.
 
A nofollow link is 100% dropped from the link graph.
 
Any visualizations to the contrary are false positives... e.g. another link (do follow) is creating the value.
 
Additionally, when a nofollow link is used the PageRamk that would have been pass disappears into oblivion.
 

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 11:04:24 PM UTC-3, gregorysmith wrote:
What is confusing about "you can not stop the flow of pagerank" ?

Don't think in terms of how to control PageRank flow.  You really cannot do that.

I hope i'm not misunderstanding, I've taken sites, and used the no follow tag 100% throughout the site, and did the opposite with another site, and both gained PR, upon a PR update.
gregorysmith 7/3/12 7:22 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/3/12 7:23 PM
Actually, it was bad wording that caused the confusion.
 
10 links on a page all do follow all pass PageRank to the destination page.
 
10 links on a page all nofollow all pass PageRank into oblivion... IT IS NEITHER PASSED NOR RETAINED
gregorysmith 7/3/12 7:25 PM <This message has been deleted.>
gregorysmith 7/3/12 7:29 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Sasch 7/3/12 7:31 PM
  1. Unprofessional? I have pointed out I'm a troll?
    Cool... Gimme a sec... http://goo.gl/Dh5jf

    We were talking about the actual flow of PR through the actual nofollowed link, right?

  2. I asked for concrete evidence, not vague insinuations/suggestions... ;-)
gregorysmith 7/3/12 7:35 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Sasch 7/3/12 7:40 PM
Greg... It's rather too late... The Chit-Chat forum now contains a message for Michael Martinez...
gregorysmith 7/3/12 7:43 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate SE spider 7/3/12 9:27 PM
Hi fathom & Coupry,

Thanks for clarification.... 
Shannon... 7/3/12 9:56 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/3/12 10:59 PM
Hello M Gopri Krishna. :)

If you follow their advice given in this thread, you will most likely stumble and fall.

rel="nofollow" is NOT a get-out-jail-free card for artificially-created links and this applies both at the time of creation and the time you are cleaning up unnatural links.

Think about it logically - there is no way that Google would give a green light to blog comment spam and most blogs have been no-following links since the option was available.

A link embeded in comment-spam is an unnatural link. Don't believe anyone who tells you that nofollow changes the nature of comment spam.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate SE spider 7/3/12 11:56 PM
Hi Shopsafe,

I was very much close to your thoughts on nofollow links before Johnmu comments in this thread as below

"having links (even a large number of them) with rel=nofollow pointing to your site does not negatively affect your site. We take these links out of our PageRank calculations, and out of our algorithms when they use links"

Now i got to a conclusion that Google will handle the nofollow link in different manner by where the link is placed "comment, website, wordpress themes, blogs etc..

Any how am working to remove all links which are look like unnatural irrespective of nofollow.

Please correct me if am wrong.


Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/4/12 2:21 AM
Maybe if I copy what you wrote with some colour it might make a difference.

""having links (even a large number of them) with rel=nofollow pointing to your site does not negatively affect your site. We take these links out of our PageRank calculations, and out of our algorithms when they use links""

John may come back and clarify his remark but until he does I'm saying that the above statement should not be interpreted as a green light for nofollowed comment spam links.

I'm sure that all of John's statements were perfectly accurate in themselves, just that they were not meant to address every possible condition for impediment.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Lysis 7/4/12 5:48 AM
Freakin another shady SEO who doesn't know what he's talking about, asked 1 question here, and now thinks he's an expert. What the h-e- double hockey sticks is a panda-approved SEO? Buzz words to trick customers? Before you come in like a bull in a china shop (that's reserved for me), you should do your research before proliferating nonsense. Why do you have an SEO company when you don't know the basics? Here is a link from a Google Employee that says nofollow links are taken out of the link graph and PR does not get calculated for the target:


Quote: " I'd like to back up what others said -- having links (even a large number of them) with rel=nofollow pointing to your site does not negatively affect your site. We take these links out of our PageRank calculations, and out of our algorithms when they use links.  "

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 1:28:44 PM UTC-4, gregorysmith wrote:
Thank you @John...#RxSEO
gregorysmith 7/4/12 7:11 AM <This message has been deleted.>
gregorysmith 7/4/12 7:14 AM <This message has been deleted.>
gregorysmith 7/4/12 7:23 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/4/12 7:41 AM
These comments are moot.
 
How and when a nofollow is used once it is use all good and bad links using it are dropped from the link graph. There is no more discussion.
 
John Mu comment fragment "when they use links" cannot be separated from the rest of the statement so to make a completely different meaning.
 
To illustrate... (my quote) "when you don't use links... you cannot use the nofollow attribute"... so pulling those four words out from the quote is meaningless.
 
When you turn off a light... there is no traditional state that allows for any other eventuality... when you turn of links (using nofollow) there are no other possible eventuality.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/4/12 7:50 AM
Gregorysmith, I can appreciate your bewilderment but being right so far as to say you were wrongly guided and thus quoting in error isn't a plus.
 
Michael Martinez did chime in and if you actually read "where he quoted" it was a quote from a commenter that didn't know anything about anything and was asking a question and... it never got answered.
 
But boy did that sound good! ... (subconsciously... let's spin it that way).
 
What was said, wasn't what was said... it was pure speculation that eventually found immortality. (for 3 years)
 
Best to drop it.
 
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 11:14:48 AM UTC-3, gregorysmith wrote:
@Lysis,

Do your research on me before making a public statement. This thread ended long ago, when michael martinez chimed in, stating that I was correct.

I'm not going to stoooooop to yur level, as my reputation doesn't allow, but.. I advise you to subscribe to my blog, and learn a little.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/4/12 7:53 AM
Gibberish.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/4/12 8:10 AM
Shopsafe claims John Mu talking gibberish. July 4, 2012
 
A date that will live in infamy.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Steven Lockey 7/6/12 1:33 AM
Meh, that wouldn't even be the strangest/stupidest thing he's said this week.....
gregorysmith 7/6/12 3:22 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/6/12 6:36 AM
"Shopsafe claims John Mu talking gibberish. July 4, 2012
A date that will live in infamy "

I'd prefer to ignore it but I must correct the misleading statement made above. 


I cannot imagine a time when I would ever feel like disrespecting John Mueller, let alone claim he was talking gibberish. Anyone who knows me know that goes without saying. I set a lot of store by what John Mueller says here. 

John doesn't contradict himself, he's always consistent, and you can take what he says to the bank. His clarifications are a privilege of benefit to us all, don't jeapordise it. 
fathom 7/17/12 4:59 PM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/17/12 7:07 PM

On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:36:54 AM UTC-3, ShopSafe wrote:

I'd prefer to ignore it but I must correct the misleading statement made above. 

 
When you post rherotic... please quote the post you find is most like gibberish.
 
I certainly knew what you meant but you aren't posting for my benefit you ae advising the whole community that you believe this was: 
 
Gregorysmith, I can appreciate your bewilderment but being right so far as to say you were wrongly guided and thus quoting in error isn't a plus.
 
Michael Martinez did chime in and if you actually read "where he quoted" it was a quote from a commenter that didn't know anything about anything and was asking a question and... it never got answered.
 
But boy did that sound good! ... (subconsciously... let's spin it that way).
 
What was said, wasn't what was said... it was pure speculation that eventually found immortality. (for 3 years)
 
Best to drop it.
 
I can only assume, gibberish. I would love to hear PRECISELY why it is gibberish, so I may correct myself... if I need to.
 
Or are you so inept that you can't defend your comments? 
 
Course if you are merely posting for my benefit... don't because I obviously don't trust your advice anyway.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Chris Hunt 7/18/12 2:26 AM
My understanding is that rel="nofollow" on a link means that the link will not pass pagerank, it doesn't mean that the spider won't follow it to see where it leads.
 
Don't confuse it with the meta robots nofollow, which doees tell the robot not to follow the link.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate JohnMu 7/19/12 7:15 AM
FWIW  We treat a "nofollow" robots meta tag the same as a rel=nofollow on the individual links. We don't pass PageRank to those URLs, but it's possible that we may still crawl them (to block crawling, you should use the robots.txt disallow). The difference is subtle, but it's important to remember that a nofollow (of either kind) will not block crawling (sometimes we pick up URLs elsewhere and try them out, for example).

Cheers
John
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/19/12 8:55 PM
If you have time, would you mind elaborating on this please, John, as I may have given bad advice here and would like to correct it if necessary.

The question was asked:

"Does Google count back links from pages with with Meta Tag  <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, FOLLOW"> and show them as backlinks in Google Webmaster tools. Please advise if someone has any experience about it."

I answered:

"I am not an expert but I think if a page is noindexed it does not exist for passing pagerank and probably won't show as the source of a backlink."
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/19/12 10:26 PM
You are still correct.
 
The follow is irrelevant to PAGERANK calculations or showing as a backlink since the page does not exist in the archive.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate SE spider 7/19/12 10:57 PM
Hey Fathom & Shopsafe

In my webmaster tools it's counting internals links from pages where i mentioned Robots  <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, FOLLOW"> but same url's doesn't showing in site:sitename.com means Google may have a separate indexing for webmaster tools and search?


Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/19/12 11:04 PM
Like many blog comment links and say wikipedia links or any rel="nofollow" link - they to will show as backlinks but they are not included in Google link graph which calculates Page\Rank and orders results.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate SE spider 7/19/12 11:11 PM
Do you mean, Meta robot (<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW">) and rel=nofollow deliver same out come? in rel=nofollow case that page has been indexed in Google database but where as META robots we are asking them to do not index means it's no where present in index, so how could google webmaster tool able to show as internal links?

Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Pelagic 7/20/12 3:02 AM
@fathom, that's incorrect, a page that is noindexed can still accumulate and pass PR ;)
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate fathom 7/20/12 8:16 AM
hmmm...

On Friday, July 20, 2012 7:02:10 AM UTC-3, Pelagic wrote:

@fathom, that's incorrect, a page that is noindexed can still accumulate and pass PR ;)

Well oddly enough, it was very difficult to tell ShopSafe he was correct.
 
I stand corrected!
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/20/12 8:12 PM
You can see John's answer on this clip from 33:34 to 36:36

Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Panda_Effects 7/20/12 8:51 PM
Ok, this is one of those issues I wonder if it is still clear.  So a page that is not indexed can still be used to pass page rank?  But why would Google do that?  What would be the purpose of it?  Is the intent to still use it as a form of punishment?  But also could see it could help a site if it is not a punishable offense?  So is it the same for nofollow?
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate ShopSafe 7/20/12 9:02 PM
One thing that is clear is that both the meta tag nofollow and the rel="nofollow" do not pass PageRank to the target site.

fingers crossed, I am not an expert. :)
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Panda_Effects 7/20/12 9:12 PM
That was my understanding but because of the other, that made me wonder.  But just went up and read a couple posts and John said " We treat a "nofollow" robots meta tag the same as a rel=nofollow on the individual links. We don't pass PageRank to those URLs" so it is clear.
Re: What constitutes a "link to pass PageRank" debate Panda_Effects 7/20/12 9:20 PM
I was wondering why anyone would use NOINDEX, FOLLOW and found the answer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjRGkc__FwQ 
More topics »