Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
cfpa
Joined: Oct 20, 2006
# Posts: 203
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 15:53
I just found this info about "nofollow" tags but I don't understand why they are so important. Why would Google penalize us for posting our courses on sites as advertising? Why is this so wrong?
It's more work, or rather, more thought of SEO to include these "nofollow" tags. So in an a way Google is punishing people who really have no clue of SEO. I mean I understand SEO but I never knew that to not add "nofollow" would hurt us.
We post hundreds of our courses on dozens of free calendars as well as a few paid ones...so is Google saying that for each and every one I need to add "nofollow" tags? This is absurb. We have a data entry person who just submits our sites on the calendar's form so is Google asking that now our data entry person become schooled in SEO and require that she add tags left and right. This whole thing is frustrating me quite a bit.
So every banner ad and every link into our site must include "nofollow" tags? Or Google penalizing us? Is that everyone's understanding of this blurb?
Comments?
Buying Your Rank
NEVER pay for inclusion in a text-link Pagerank-boosting ring. If you use advertising, the links to your site should include the ‘rel=”nofollow”’ attribute, which informs Google and other engines to not associate the linking page to yours in the calculation of rank. Indiscriminately paying sites to link to yours without including ‘rel=”nofollow”’ on the links is not only wrong (you are attempting to boost your rank above other, more deserving pages), you also risk being penalized by search engines. If a known spam site links to your site, you risk losing your ranking or being “black-holed”.
|
 |
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 17:05
Google wants to rank sites on the basis of 'organic' links, which are seen as a recommendation of the site, rather than paidlinks, which do not necessarily reflect any recommendation.
There's plenty of discussion around on that, and no need to go through it all again in this thread - that's the choice Google has made.
In practice, this means that sites selling links are being downgraded in some way, and eventually the effects will affect the sites that buy paidlinks too.
Google's recommended action is to remove paidlinks, OR make them nofollow - that removes them from the assessment completely.
As Google does not use the 'ban' as part of this process, it is not possible to know if your links have been identified and downgraded, and it is not possible to know if changes in visible page rank also reflect identification of paidlinks.
It would seem wise to assume that such links can be found, and are downgraded; your site needs to be planned on the basis of certainty, not the hope that Google has missed something!
|
|
cfpa
Joined: Oct 20, 2006
# Posts: 203
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 18:12
So should i contact all sites that link to ask and ask for "nofollow" tags? Should our links to sites also contain "nofollow" tags?
|
|
mj1256
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
# Posts: 918
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 19:24
if I read you post correctly, your thinking you need to have nofollow tags to your course offerings. thats not true. you can link internally to your courses(products) with no problem.
|
|
cfpa
Joined: Oct 20, 2006
# Posts: 203
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 19:27
Let me clarify as my post was confusing: If we post courses on free online calendars, would we need to include nofollow tags in the URLS linking to our site? What about sites where we pay to post?
|
|
mj1256
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
# Posts: 918
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 19:29
pay to post yes, but they are really looking for the big offenders.
we discussed some of this several months ago
here is the google page on the nofollow tag
[link]
here's the previous form posting
[link]
|
|
cfpa
Joined: Oct 20, 2006
# Posts: 203
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 19:50
My head could explode with all this stuff. What about a site where they agree to post our links if we agree to link to their site - and the content of both sites directly relates to each other and is a benefit to users of each site. Why should this be penalized? And I believe we were penalized since our Page Rank and traffic dropped.
TGIF!
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Nov-02 20:00
Reciprocal links to related sites are fine by Google - but you need to be sure the site you link to is a Quality site. Else their problems may become your problems.
If you use paidlinks, then Google recommends nofollow.
If you are making a link to a quality site that you recommend, on a related topic, then you do not need nofollow.
The guide to all this is about seeing a link as a recommendation; Google does, and expects you to. So in Google's eyes, you are responsible for the links you make.
Do read the stuff on those links you were given; if you make the effort to understand Google's policies, you are half way to improving your page rank.
|
|
freeflyer
Joined: Aug 06, 2007
# Posts: 211
|
Posted: 2008-Jan-06 13:27
the whole google penalising links from paid sites is open to interpretation, scaremongering, and more in my opinion... who knows if they're actually doing it or not? I cant see how they can enforce it, but SAYING they're going to enforce it is enough to scare some people into not doing it.
ALL sites pass PR (unless using the nofollow), paid or not. So how can they say paid links ONLY are messing with their results, and natural linking isnt? Contradictary and downright daft.
PR ENCOURAGES LINKS, so why and how did they implement something which then inadvertently causes themselvers problems? idiots if you ask me.. but powerful idiots.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jan-06 13:49
So how can they say paid links ONLY are messing with their results, and natural linking isn't?"
It might be contradictary and downright daft if they said that. But they don't.
You'd do well to read what they actually say about paidlinks, not listen to Google-haters who always assume the worst.
I'd warn you against assuming that they cannot detect paidlinks. Aside from the fact that your rivals may report you (most spam reports to google come from rival spammers!), there's also the small detail that Google has amazing computing power, and plenty of experience.
Even I could set up an algo to detect common patterns of links - and there is always a pattern - so I am quite sure Google could do it in their sleep. I'm not saying (and nor is Google) that they can detect every single paidlink. I'm not even sure that they are trying.
From my reading (I guess yours is different), it seems to be link sellers who are the initial target.
Even easier to detect 
If you wish to succeed in Google, you'll find it helps to view their actions as 'trying to improve their search results' rather than 'they're out to get me'; but the choice is yours
|
|
freeflyer
Joined: Aug 06, 2007
# Posts: 211
|
Posted: 2008-Jan-06 15:56
ummmm thats exactly what the above google page is getting at. Paid inclusion on pagerank sites is messing with their natural ranking system, to a point where it has now obviously become uncontrollable to them.
Anyway, i'm not using paid links as a method of promotion, i concentrate on on site optimising and natural linking, but i do sometimes choose paid links for certain sites... for example a holiday cottage benefits massively from a paid inclusion on a 'holiday cottage' website, or there are numerous trade sites that advertise paid linking for their resepctive industry.
But, in the page that is linked above, google is basically saying that paid links are making a mockery of their pagerank system due to the unethical or paid inclusion passings of rank. Well, who saw that coming !!
Regarding them being able to detect all paid link pagerank system - if this is true, why are they so intent on asking people to report them?
[ Message was edited by: freeflyer 01/06/2008 08:46 am ]
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jan-06 16:02
As I said, they can get some, and they can get the sellers.
But the more they can match up reports to algo findings, the more they can fine-tune - and catch out new ideas they hadn't factored in. An algo can detect patterns easily; but since they announced they were going for paidlinks big time, those patterns have begun to change; fewer site-wide links, for example (a dead sheep could spot them!).
Google has always used reports for checking and fine-tuning the algo. And there's plenty of folk lining up to dob in their rivals, so it's probably a sensible policy
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
