Comments on: “Rel=nofollow” steals from the good, do-follow is robin hood. http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood Not Your Average Geek Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:09:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: JLH http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-456 JLH Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:45:35 +0000 http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-456 I updated my policy, changed my stance on those links :) I updated my policy, changed my stance on those links :)

]]> By: DuckMan http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-223 DuckMan Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:32:33 +0000 http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-223 That's a really interesting article John - i reckon Adam could feel a bit ripped off about the melodramatic title and first few paragraphs - but hey - good link bait.. and interesting to hear the diversity of views on the issue in their comments. You know my views on no-follow - I think similar could be achieved with a much simpler solution that requires no webmaster input - but that's for another article once I've thought it through properly ;) M That’s a really interesting article John - i reckon Adam could feel a bit ripped off about the melodramatic title and first few paragraphs - but hey - good link bait.. and interesting to hear the diversity of views on the issue in their comments.

You know my views on no-follow - I think similar could be achieved with a much simpler solution that requires no webmaster input - but that’s for another article once I’ve thought it through properly ;)

M

]]> By: JohnMu http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-220 JohnMu Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:48:04 +0000 http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-220 Did you see this: http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/googles-lasnik-wishes-nofollow-didnt-exist.html ? :) "Bots should not follow" would be perfect for the obvious endless crawl areas, eg calendar scripts. Ever try to crawl a site with a calendar script? Try it. Good job on implementing JLH's linking policies! It doesn't have to be the same, but it's good to have a policy. Did you see this: http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/googles-lasnik-wishes-nofollow-didnt-exist.html ? :)

“Bots should not follow” would be perfect for the obvious endless crawl areas, eg calendar scripts. Ever try to crawl a site with a calendar script? Try it.

Good job on implementing JLH’s linking policies! It doesn’t have to be the same, but it’s good to have a policy.

]]> By: DuckMan http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-219 DuckMan Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:24:16 +0000 http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-219 Under what circumastances, John, would you think that 'bot should not follow' would be warranted? I'm guessing for testing purposes? Also J, I've taken your suggestion and implemented JLH's do follow policies (except for the bit about no-following developers links in the footer which I had to slap him around a bit over :) ) Current age links on this site for 7 days before they become followable - really keen to get people to link good high quality posts, informational pieces and tools that add to the debate. M Under what circumastances, John, would you think that ‘bot should not follow’ would be warranted? I’m guessing for testing purposes?

Also J, I’ve taken your suggestion and implemented JLH’s do follow policies (except for the bit about no-following developers links in the footer which I had to slap him around a bit over :) )

Current age links on this site for 7 days before they become followable - really keen to get people to link good high quality posts, informational pieces and tools that add to the debate.

M

]]> By: John http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-218 John Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:48:08 +0000 http://www.utheguru.com/relnofollow-steals-from-the-good-do-follow-is-robin-hood#comment-218 How much is a million "bucks" in real world currency? I'd love to take you up on that :D. I have only seen a handful of sites that I could trace back to the Wikipedia nofollow changeover. My only complaint about the "rel=nofollow" is that browsers do not signal it by default. I have no problem with allowing sites to link in a way that does not "vouch" for the link, but this lack of trust needs to be visible to the user. If this were so, then I am fairly sure that the Wikipedia would not have adopted such a wide-spread use of the rel=nofollows. They would have worked on a system to determine the "trustability" of links, either from age or peer review. The same goes for blogs - if your blog is static and just collecting comment spam, it should have nofollows in the comments --- the owner would want to make sure that this is so because users would see that he does not trust those links. If a blog is "living" and properly maintained, then the owner might choose to nofollow the links in the beginning, but allowing them to become static links over time - assuming they are not deleted or manually marked as being "tricky". Once everyone sees the rel=nofollow and knows what it means, people will start to use it in a responsible way. My only other wish is that there be a differentiation between a "bots should not follow" nofollow and an "untrusted link" nofollow. How much is a million “bucks” in real world currency? I’d love to take you up on that :D. I have only seen a handful of sites that I could trace back to the Wikipedia nofollow changeover.

My only complaint about the “rel=nofollow” is that browsers do not signal it by default. I have no problem with allowing sites to link in a way that does not “vouch” for the link, but this lack of trust needs to be visible to the user. If this were so, then I am fairly sure that the Wikipedia would not have adopted such a wide-spread use of the rel=nofollows. They would have worked on a system to determine the “trustability” of links, either from age or peer review.

The same goes for blogs - if your blog is static and just collecting comment spam, it should have nofollows in the comments — the owner would want to make sure that this is so because users would see that he does not trust those links. If a blog is “living” and properly maintained, then the owner might choose to nofollow the links in the beginning, but allowing them to become static links over time - assuming they are not deleted or manually marked as being “tricky”.

Once everyone sees the rel=nofollow and knows what it means, people will start to use it in a responsible way.

My only other wish is that there be a differentiation between a “bots should not follow” nofollow and an “untrusted link” nofollow.

]]>