I've invented the following nofollow alternative:
What do you think?
Thanks in advance and kind regards
stumbled across this thread:
...where the author proposes the following syntax:
<span hrefs="http://link" rel="nofollow" link="true">Link Name</span>
-"span" with "a"
- "hrefs" with "href"
...for all spans with link set to "true"
If you compare my solution:
<an href="http://link">Link Name</an>
Any kind of feedback at all is greatly appreciated...
Both methods serve different versions for user and google (User sees link, google doesn't). This is against google guidelines. Just use rel="nofollow".
Thanks for your reply!
Sure, it's not there for Google to be all enthusiastic. Google's not supposed to notice a thing. I don't think that Google's current version of nofollow is an option if you care about your PageRank...
The main aim is to increase PageRank of the site in total by reducing outbound links, most notably to higher PR domains like Twitter...
What do you think about the syntax?
Can you think of any better syntax?
Or any other feedback?
Ok, that article you mention is 3 years old. Also, nofollow is supported by google from 2005 and it really does what it says: Doesn't pass link juice (page rank) to linked content.
If you are concerned about the number of the links on your page, you can actually insert the link using JS. Or just a span with onclick="window.location=..."
I'm not OK with the syntax because, first of all, it's not an HTML valid syntax: you don't have the 'an' element and your site may brake in older browsers or text-browsers.
But as I said earlier, google guidelines are there to be respected.
But why do you think " Google's current version of nofollow is NOT an option if you care about your PageRank" ?
Exactly, nofollow increases the number of links on the page without forwarding link-juice. To cut a long story short it leads to PageRank/link-juice evaporation.
I've heard the <span onclick=""> variation before but a search engine could easily parse that one as a link.
It is important for the search engine to have not the slightest clue.
Also, I think that the less customising necessary and the more the new solution resembles a real link, the better.
If you care about your site PageRank you better not use nofollow because of the above effect. (I assume that it is still the state of the current algorithm)
Sorry, I failed to address two more of your issues:
- not an HTML valid syntax: I could argue that "fb:like" is not a valid syntax either, but rather popular
- old browser: I must emphasise that this solution does not rely on JS to work.
The browser only needs to support a redirect in case of <noscript>, just like Facebook does, too.
Anybody else maybe positive on the idea, or got a better solution?
I have an idea.
Stop panicking about your link-juice and just use nofollow.
Ok, if you can tell me what's in it for me...
Nofollow in its present form is a bad deal, as I've made clear before.
Let's be honest Google wasn't amused how popular the old "nofollow" was and "corrected" things rather strangely (for the issuer of "nofollow" - it ricochet's on them)
Why should anyone use "nofollow"?
It's a cheat (nowadays)!
Apart from that you're at the mercy of other search-engines and what they make of "nofollow". They can have their completely individual interpretation at their discretion...
Nofollow was very popular, probably abused. But an alternative to it, that doesn't make too much hastle is attractive.
Read the first, and most popular response, to the post you linked to:
No, it will not help. What you're doing is trying to serve up different content to Google then to your users. That's definitely against Google's terms of service and is a great way to get banned.
There's nothing wrong with outbound links. If you don't want a site to get credit for the link to their site if you are concerned it is spam or otherwise low quality nofollow is exactly what you want. If you're trying to hide these links because you think linking to other sites is bad then you're greatly misinformed. This is doubly so if you are doing it for the sake of PageRank. Outbound links can be a postive ranking factor. Plus linking to other sites is an important tool for search engines to determine what is quality content and what isn't. By breaking this sytem you're breaking web and making search worse for everybody.
Stop sweating the small stuff and start focusing on what matters : quality content. If you spent as much time creating good content as you did manipulating the search results or chasing PageRank you'd have a website that would rank well naturally.
Ok, we're getting to the interesting bits now...
Personallly I don't feel like giving link-juice to PR 9 sites like Twitter or Facebook.
But when I come across a smaller site I like - I would like to give full credit in terms of PageRank, linking etc.
Is that better to understand? Pre-requisite is that I have full control of whether to give credit or not!
Quite clearly - in the case of Twitter or Facebook, I would prefer PageRank to stay on my site!
(nofollow is a "no-go" because it jeopardises the link-giving site)
Get over it. You're not doing anyone any good, yourself included, by worrying about whether facebook or twitter get some pagerank.
Don't try to outsmart the search engines. It's a silly waste of time, and it's ultimately futile. They've each got a myriad of engineers working on algorithms to sift through and categorize the web in the most meaningful way possible. By deviating from the norm in an effort to outsmart them, you're not only preventing accurate cataloging of your site, but you're throwing off their numbers, putting anomalies in their data, impeding improvements to their algorithms, and ultimately putting your site at risk of being blacklisted.
And if that happens, you will have exactly 0 link juice.
ADDENDUM: It's also notable that these engineers are all smarter than you. If there isn't already a trend in hiding links, there will be. And these engineers will not only notice the trend, but they'll promptly adapt to it -- if they haven't already.
Well Svidgen, how can I put it? I think that aspects of the old nofollow were really good - in that you could determine, whether to give credit or not. That was popular!
I will remain that way, claiming that a link-giver should have the right to decide...
Technically, it is of course very important that the search engine doesn't have a hope in figuring out whether this is a link or not.
(As is in the case of my alternative as I think we can agree)
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)