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.
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.
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.
@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?
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...
Thanks for making a suggestion for an alternative but I don't quite think you mean that seriously ;-)
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?
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:
rnd_me maybe? - what's your favorite "nofollow alternative"?
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.
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:
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.