www.webdeveloper.com
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 68

Thread: "nofollow alternative"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    237
    There's no reason to worry about "blacklisting".

    If I were half as critical toward your approach as you are towards mine all the time , I could easily argue:

    - It increases the number of links on the page (which mine doesn't)
    - It is unpredictable, which way the PageRank will be forwarded, if at all

    i.e. in the worst case the link is counted but the PageRank sickers into the sand because it cannot be forwarded.

    Apart from that - what happens, when JavaScript is disabled?
    What does the user experience?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Quote Originally Posted by arvgta View Post
    There's no reason to worry about "blacklisting".

    If I were half as critical toward your approach as you are towards mine all the time , I could easily argue:

    - It increases the number of links on the page (which mine doesn't)
    - It is unpredictable, which way the PageRank will be forwarded, if at all

    i.e. in the worst case the link is counted but the PageRank sickers into the sand because it cannot be forwarded.

    Apart from that - what happens, when JavaScript is disabled?
    What does the user experience?
    No no ... see, MY approach is not to use any sketchy techniques at all. MY approach is to produce quality content. MY approach is commended by every major search engine -- all of which have Ph.D.'s working 8 hours a day in an effort to surface content produced through MY approach and HIDE content oriented around link juice management.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    Besides -- you're contradicting yourself. What happens to YOUR technique when javascript is disabled. Either there's AJAX interaction, and the user sees a non-functional link of text -- precisely what happens in the "more clever" solution I posted, or there's NO AJAX interaction, and the search engines see the same thing the rest of us see -- thus, no link juice management benefits whatsoever!

    Stop dragging this out. Stop promoting your sketchy practices. If you want to get blacklisted, that's perfectly fine. But, don't advertise your shady practices around here as if they're not utterly abhorrent.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    237
    This is your suggestion, right? (as a different alternative) :

    Code:
    <a href="#http://facebook.com/whatever">facebook</a>
    I'm glad you made a suggestion at all...

    Now, care to defend your approach? :

    - It increases the number of links on the page (which mine doesn't)
    - It is unpredictable, which way the PageRank will be forwarded, if at all
    - What happens, when JavaScript is disabled?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,120
    You are ... completely ignoring the point. Completely ignoring all points.

    ... I am exiting the conversation. Good luck.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    237
    Alright, has anyone else got a suggestion superior to:

    Code:
    <an href="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</an>

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    urbana, il
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by arvgta View Post
    Alright, has anyone else got a suggestion superior to:

    Code:
    <an href="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</an>
    anything would be better.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    urbana, il
    Posts
    2,787
    don't forget; other people linking to your site is more important for page rank than anything on/of/about your site.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    202
    I'll put this simply. Google has no benefit in giving a higher pagerank to pages that don't deserve it. That's why they introduced a system like this in the first place. Trying to create false HTML and manipulate it with JavaScript is just wrong. You might as well make your entire page out of JavaScript and put your links in <noscript> tags. That actually seems like a better solution. Nobody here probably even cares about "pagerank"

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    237
    Thanks for both of your replies!

    @rnd_me: Sure, quality content and backlinks are more important. So this is just about PageRank optimisation internally then - on page SEO, so to say.
    Could you nevertheless nominate your favorite alternative, that provides similar value or say what's particularly ugly to you about my approach?

    @Gray1989:

    PageRank is the algorithm, that originally distinguished Google from other search engines. We seem to agree on that.

    Search engines provide no PageRank-preserving way of NOT giving credit to content linked to, like high PR sites or untrusted links. Using such a technique like the "old nofollow" does indeed lead to higher site PR, in my opinion. That's one reason why the "old nofollow" was so popular...

    "Trying to create false HTML and manipulate in with JavaScript is just wrong"
    - what does Facebook do when introducing their own <fb:like> and then manipulating it with JavaScript a posteriori? How about Google Plus?

    Thanks for making a suggestion for an alternative but I don't quite think you mean that seriously ;-)

    I would like to emphasise that my alternative does not rely on JavaScript to be enabled, an advantage over all pure JavaScript alternatives.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by arvgta View Post
    I would like to emphasise that my alternative does not rely on JavaScript to be enabled, an advantage over all pure JavaScript alternatives.
    So, how does one click on one of the links that is not in an anchor tag, if onclick events are useless and the element type can't be changed? A non-javascript-enabled browser would simply read your "links" and nobody would be able to click them. That introduces the need for workarounds that could be tedious, maybe ending up with huge amounts of unnecessary code, all to fool an algorithm that is probably just trying to cope with all of the "workarounds" like the one you are introducing.

    If you really really want a better alternative, then for all of the links that point to sites like facebook you could use onclick="location.href=''"... I doubt google is willing to decipher JS code in an onclick event in order to find where a link is going... Still poses the problem of being useless without JS enabled, but hey, it's worth it right?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    237
    One clicks on a real anchor tag, as it is substituted in PHP and then routed to the client over AJAX (and injected into the DOM) - if JS is enabled. If JS is disabled, a redirect to the PHP is issued and one clicks on a real link nevertheless.

    The "onclick"-alternative seems to be the most popular one, but I would argue that Google is already able to parse that as a link, as they have announced to parse JS. If not already, they will in the near future, surely.

    So I've still seen no suggestion superior to:

    Code:
    <an href="http://facebook.com/">Facebook</an>
    ?

    rnd_me maybe? - what's your favorite "nofollow alternative"?

    Anyone else?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by arvgta View Post
    If JS is disabled, a redirect to the PHP is issued and one clicks on a real link nevertheless
    I'm sorry I just got back after a long break.

    I don't mean to resurrect this thread, but I do have a suggestion now that it has been mentioned. JavaScript should never be used for workarounds whenever possible. It seems you have just pointed out that you are able to work with PHP, so if you want another suggestion, make PHP redirect the URL of all of your links before the HTML data is even sent to the client, to another PHP page on your server to handle the actual redirection. No JS needed. And if Google has already thought of that (it is likely that Google fully supports many redirection methods), I doubt there would be any method of value for you to use.

    Come to think of it, I don't think it would be hard for them to do basic JavaScript DOM & Algorithm run-throughs either. Maybe something for the near future. lol
    Last edited by Gray1989; 04-10-2012 at 05:55 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    urbana, il
    Posts
    2,787
    use tinyURL or an internal equivalent to avoid linking to other sites.
    also consider a drop-down menu that uses js to redirect upon change.

    i don't think the number of on-page <a> tags has anything to do with your page rank, and google invented rel="nofollow".

    if you get busted by google for pageRank cheating, your site will appear a LOT lower in the list than it would because of "having too many links".

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    237
    Hi Gray1989,

    you've suggested a server side redirection in PHP.
    Must admit, I don't quite get it.
    Maybe you can explain in different words what you mean, and wouldn't one have to detect, whether the link was pressed somehow?
    Or what kind of PHP substitution can I perform server side, to disguise the link:

    Code:
    <an href="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</an>
    Hi rnd_me,

    tinyURL is neat, no doubt about it, but I would argue, that it requires some manual work, whereas my "nofollow alternative" can be used programmatically. Also, it increases the number of <a> tags on the page making it useless in the light of this discussion.

    The number of <a> tags on any given page plays an important role in the PageRank algorithm for assessing the link juice given to any individual link.

    I'm sure, that nobody that uses this will get busted, because it's impossible for Google to detect/parse as it is implemented right now. Crucial bits of logic are on the server side and thus invisible to Google.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles