|
Posts with tag: nofollow | Return to BloggersBlog.com Homepage
No Love For NoFollow?
Wikipedia recently added no follow tags in a lame spam fighting attempt that has not gone over well. Now Search Engine Journal has a post against no follow that lists 13 reasons why the NoFollow don't work anywhere. The post has been a popular one with over 80 links to it already. Search Engine Journal says NoFollow tags don't even work to stop blog comment spam -- the original purpose of the tags.
NoFollow = NoWorky. Using NoFollow in blog comments, the original intent of the tag, does nothing to discourage comment spammers. Using other anti-spamming tools such as question, math and plugins such as Akismet and SpamKarma for Wordpress is much more effective.
Search Engine Journal also says that some Word bloggers don't even realize they are using the tag.
Since the use of NoFollow in comments on Wordpress blogs is default, many bloggers do not even realize they are using NoFollow.
Apparently, there is a Dofollow Plugin available to remove the tag in Wordpress. Robert Scoble says he used to be a NoFollow supporter but he now finds himself changing his mind. Some of the comments on Scoble's post about NoFollow indicate that a few bloggers still support using NoFollow in blog comments. However, there is very little love out there for the way Wikipedia is using it.
NoFollow graphic above created with ImageChef -- found via the Social Media blog.
Posted on February 16, 2007
Permalink | | | Comments (View)
| |
Wikipedia Applies Nofollow Bandage in Lame Spam Fighting Attempt
Wikipedia has made the decision (thx SEOmoz) to add the nofollow attribute to all external links on the English language Wikipedia site.
At Jimbo Wales' directive, all external links within the English language Wikipedia are now coded "nofollow" -- this should help cut spamming immensely once word gets out in the SEO community.
The nofollow attribute tells search engines not to apply any link energy or value to a link. Google once told bloggers to use it as a way to prevent comment spam. It probably hasn't reduced blog comment spam but that's a different debate and Wikipedia's articles are a lot more significant than comments on blogs.
Nicholas Carr asks if Wikipedia is becoming the link energy equivalent of a black hole -- google juice goes in but never comes back out.
The sources cited in Wikipedia, many of which are original sources, will no longer get credit for their appearance there, which should cause at least a little downward pressure in their own search rankings (hence providing a little more upward pressure, relatively speaking, for Wikipedia's articles). Although the no-follow move is certainly understandable from a spam-fighting perspective, it turns Wikipedia into something of a black hole on the Net. It sucks up vast quantities of link energy but never releases any.
Philipp Lenssen finds Wikpedia's decision very dissapointing. Others dissapointed with Wikipedia's choice include Ross Mayfield, Tech-Buzz and Digital Inspiration.
Some marketers might like the idea of Wikipedia adding nofollow attributes because it tends to be difficult to get websites listed in Wikipedia that are not rich content sources. For some marketers taking a difficult site to get listed on like Wikipedia off the table may make their lives easier. But it sounds like Wikipedia is simply giving up when it comes to spam. Find a way to fight the spam instead of turning all your links to sources into "No Follow" links. Wikipedia editors used these sources to help create the Wikipedia entries. It seems unfair that they are not being rewarded properly. Maybe links to Wikipedia should be designated as "No Follow" links as well like Coversation Rater suggests. Wikipedia needs to try and actually fix its problem instead of slapping a giant "No Follow" band-aid across the entire website. (via Techmeme)
Posted on January 22, 2007
Permalink | | | Comments (View)
| |
|
|
The Writers Write Lifestyle Network
|
|
