Putting nofollow on non-important links to save link equity

zokiii · #1 (**permalink**) 06-28-2007, 08:46 AM

Let's say that you have some big business site with lot of pages and you have on all pages links to privacy, contact, terms of use, cart, shipping, guarantee..

What do you think about putting nofollow on these links to save link equity and to identify the most important pages within a web site ?

Dan Thies recommended this and I'm waiting for your opinions...

MattK · #2 (**permalink**) 06-28-2007, 09:07 AM

I think that's going a bit far - and doesn't exactly appear "natural".

Bernard · #3 (**permalink**) 06-28-2007, 01:44 PM

AFAIK, Dan is not one to talk out of his arse. I'm going to guess that he did some testing on the matter before recommending it. I'd ask him if he did some live testing if I were you.

I generally avoid using nofollow on any links I control and my sites/pages are doing fine, but I have never tested a "more aggressive" link structure using nofollow on links to non-desirable pages. Perhaps my sites would rank better.

One thing is for sure, it's possible to take the idea too far. IMO, it's basically what killed seochat (when the owners decided to nofollow every non seochat link on the site - angering the mods and existing community at the time).

peter_d · #4 (**permalink**) 06-28-2007, 07:12 PM

It will look unnatural.

The footprint will scream "Aggressive SEO'd Site".

zokiii · #5 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter_d

It will look unnatural.

The footprint will scream "Aggressive SEO'd Site".

I agree with this.
I would only remove duplicated content from index and that's it.

doctornuke · #6 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 12:50 AM

Better use Javascripts for some links?

potchie · #7 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zokiii

I agree with this.
I would only remove duplicated content from index and that's it.

and how will you remove it?

zokiii · #8 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potchie

and how will you remove it?

With robots.txt or meta noindex option.

Johan007 · #9 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 01:39 AM

I was one of the first to add "nofollow" or robots.txt exclude to my own pages and it helps Search Engines out too

Manish Pandey · #10 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Aggressive SEO'd site!

Peter as you say yourself...do you have a proof..

Well would there be any influence in the Page's ranking...on natural SERPs... Does that influence in increased PR...etc..all these questions needs to be answered...

Bernard · #11 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter_d

It will look unnatural.

The footprint will scream "Aggressive SEO'd Site".

This is why I have not bothered using them.

Google introduced the rel=nofollow with the position that it was to be used to tag links that a webmaster did not vouch for (such as links posted by website visitors [blog comments, etc.]).

I have to wonder about the message it sends when a webmaster is using the attribute to tag internal site links. Who knows how Google is really interpreting / using this attribute (or how long it will be until they change their position).

richrf · #12 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 08:42 AM

This has been a question that I have been wrestling with on my site. Since my site is all about links, I was getting killed before I put nofollow in my posts. Something I really didn't want to do, but I felt I was like Santa clause, providing links to many sites (worthwhile sites in all cases), and getting very little in return. I would go back to the way it was, if there was a good way to do it.

Rich

look4edmund · #13 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 10:00 AM

It has been proven that nofollow links don't really work. Search engines are still credting nofollow links...especially from Blogs. It's definitely not working from Wikipedia though.

Regards,
Edmund Ng

richrf · #14 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by look4edmund

It has been proven that nofollow links don't really work. Search engines are still credting nofollow links...especially from Blogs. It's definitely not working from Wikipedia though.

Regards,
Edmund Ng

Hi,

I definitely saw some effects on my site. I wouldn't call them substantial, but enough that I think it was worthwhile. However, if there are better ways to handle the situation, I would like to know about them so I could consider them.

Rich

khaty · #15 (**permalink**) 06-30-2007, 01:01 AM

their suggestions would be don't put nofollow... i agree to them.

Manish Pandey · #16 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 03:53 PM

Well a latest test shows that link rel="nofollow" does pass some link juice to the links!

Read here about link removed

richrf · #17 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007, 10:58 PM

Thanks for the interesting article.

Rich

Manish Pandey · #18 (**permalink**) 07-04-2007, 07:14 PM

Laura why is the link removed dear??

Well how could one share the articles...

chicgeek · #19 (**permalink**) 07-04-2007, 07:35 PM

Because, dear, it's really link dropping. If you know so much about the topic and have already written on it, surely you can retell your tales here.

peter_d · #20 (**permalink**) 07-04-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Peter as you say yourself...do you have a proof

A fair question, certainly

In the affiliate game, there were people using the same feeds and strategies. Google would identify footprints, and take the whole lot out. Also see DMOZ clones.

These approaches work for a while, but when Goolge identifies a pattern they don't like, it's easy for them to target that pattern.
That's why some of the most experienced SEOs I know avoid footprints.

I'm not saying link hoarding using nofollow will get you taken out, but it will leave a fairly obvious footprint. Even using nofollow outside of blog software sends Google a message that says "this webmaster knows about SEO". Google is not in the business of rewarding SEOs (SEOs compete directly with Google), so put 2+2 together.....