"nofollow alternative"

[arvgta]

reminds me of the technique used in this forum in the editor for QUOTE, CODE, HTML, PHP etc. - is it similar?

[criterion9]

reminds me of the technique used in this forum in the editor for QUOTE, CODE, HTML, PHP etc. - is it similar?

Yes. It is called BBcode.

[arvgta]

Very impressive - I like it. Is it PHP specific or platform-independent at a mid-tier level?

[criterion9]

It is not PHP specific. PHP just has built in translators and such.

[arvgta]

So e.g. Java also has libraries for it.

Nevertheless, just had a look at the HTML of this page.
e.g. QUOTE is expanded to a whole block of HTML.

So it's different to what I'm serving, where HTML is the input and the tags can be seen on "Show Source".

It is normal to place these tags in the mid-tier, no matter what language.
One does not need a single library.

I would regard these tags as completely platform independent, and would thus argue, it's a different cup of tea?

[criterion9]

So e.g. Java also has libraries for it.

Nevertheless, just had a look at the HTML of this page.
e.g. QUOTE is expanded to a whole block of HTML.

So it's different to what I'm serving, where HTML is the input and the tags can be seen on "Show Source".

It is normal to place these tags in the mid-tier, no matter what language.
One does not need a single library.

I would regard these tags as completely platform independent, and would thus argue, it's a different cup of tea?

Modern browsers can show the "adjusted" source when your javascript comes back through and re-translates the content to "prevent" Google from counting your links. This whole effort really isn't the best solution to the "problem" you have presented. If this was a collection of common blocks of code that could be substituted at the server side then this might have some benefit. Otherwise, you are mangling around with content where there is no clear benefit to outweigh the potential issues that could come from your approach. As an example, what will screen readers do with your swap in/out contents?

[arvgta]

Possibly the best "nofollow alternative" is to make the link entirely invisible, while functional to the user, which is demonstrated on my homepage.

So this thread just pertains to standalone links, where one would usually use "nofollow".

Who knows, how the various search engines treat "nofollow" links?
At the end of the day, these are trade secrets and their right to treat them, as they like. It is a known issue, that different search engines treat "nofollow" differently, which puts its user completely at their mercy.
In the case of Google, since 2009, it leads to PageRank evaporation.
I'm not aware of a rectification so far...

It seems, I'm overworried about "SEO hackery". Of course, just looking for more added value of my existing tool. (The primary aim of my tool is not SEO: see http://4nf.org/aim/)

Does this "SEO hackery" lead to penalties whatsoever?

A clear "no", as you can measure by the two sites:

- 4nf.org and
- www.oeko-fakt.de (client page)

On the contrary, the PageRank is admittedly higher than plausible, given the poor backlinks so far.

Let's stick to the core topic. I've shifted to agreeing that one alternative is enough, in the context of my tool.

At the moment, I'm supplying two:

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

and the pure text alternative:

<text node>a! http://facebook.com/ Facebook ...</text node>

I'm contemplating undoing the former because it's not convincing to introduce a new HTML tag as such a small guy.

So what do you think of the latter solution, that is fine for setting up from any mid-tier language programmatically and is completely platform independent, like "nofollow"?

Don't mean to be stubborn, am reading your feedback carefully and would just like to do a good and responsible job of what I'm supplying.

[arvgta]

I've trashed the former in favour of:

<text node>a! http://facebook.com/ Facebook ...</text node>

Just informative, to close this thread.

(I agree, that it is not on to just introduce a whole new HTML tag)