Jun 32008

8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow

This post will explore several arguments against using nofollow for internal PageRank™ sculpting. It is based on a presentation I did at SMX Advanced. You can view my presentation slides here, however the deck is very brief since I only had about 10 minutes to present my position. The bulk of the discussion is treated in this post.

Summary of My Position

Sculpting PageRank™ with nofollow is not going away. Limited use of nofollow is recommended. However, widespread use of the technique is usually a bad idea. I recommend slowing it down.

Nofollow sculpting is a tool to raise search rankings by distributing PageRank™ flow internally. However, PageRank™ is a patented, secret algorithm designed by Google that we can never have access to. Therefore, this technique is dependent on Google and specifically targeting PageRank™ which we cannot know. It's also dangerously granular, largely untested, not standardized across all search engines, focused only on search engines at the expense of users, and vulnerable to abuse.

Each point is covered in more detail below.

1. More Control, not Full Control

I'm not against limited use of nofollow for overhead pages. This argument is focused on deeper applications of the technique that attempt to control the internal PageRank™ flow of a site.

Having a mechanism at the link level to control spider behavior is a powerful tool. It has the potential to give us great control. However, without a full understanding of our sites PageRank™ (PR), we truly don't have an accurate idea of its effects. How much PR does any single link leak off a page? How much PR do we have to work with in the first place? Without knowing, how can we best allocate our domain's PR to the most important pages on our sites?

Rebuttal --> It's just a control mechanism at the link level. It's another tool.

Understood. But that's not getting to the core of the issue. We are attempting to control the flow of PR on a domain or page, but we:

a. Have no idea how much PR we have on the domain
b. Have no idea how much PR we have on a single page
c. Have no idea how much our PR fluctuates
d. Have no idea what a link is "worth" in PR

Using the nofollow attribute to sculpt internal PageRank™ is a little like being given a very precise surgical instrument, and then forced to use it blindfolded.

2. It's a Distraction and Masks Other Issues

Zappos brands page with 2000+ nofollowed links

Many times the deployment of nofollow masks issues such as usability, keyword dilution, and page focus. When you have nearly 1,500 links on a page, all nofollowed, there's a problem and an opportunity to improve the user experience. (Please note I'm not picking on Zappos, who are fully aware of the issue with their old site and addressing it with the kick-ass zeta.zappos.com redesign.)

Using nofollow is also a distraction. There are many other strategies that have a stronger ROI, such as focusing on content development, link building or community. Matt Cutts states that sculpting internal PR is "a second order effect." Make great pages and resources. Don't waste time worrying about sculpting internal links.

3. It Introduces Management Headaches

Large sites in the enterprise are most likely to have wide adoption of nofollow. With many different departments working on different areas of the site, the additional management overhead can be significant. Imagine a situation (which is quite common) where a content team controls what appears on a page (including links), a design team controls copy but also metadata and titles, and a development team controls internal linking and metadata. With so many hands in the cookie jar, things get complicated quickly. Unless there's a very thorough documentation procedure in place, turnover and crossover in job roles can cause issues.

Imagine sitting down to a new position and seeing several nofollowed links on a page. What's the rule that's in place to decide what gets followed, and what doesn't? And what department is in charge? How are nofollow strategies preserved through site updates?

4. It's a Band-Aid™

Fundamentally, we have the most control over crawling behaviour by creating sites architecturally sound. A very granular tool such as the nofollow attribute can aid and assist in some cases, but it's often better to address the cause of problems within a site architecture than to slice it at the link level. Sculpting with nofollow is simply a Band-Aid™ placed on a site to fix a symptom: the cause of the symptom is poor site architecture. When you treat the symptom, you don't address the underlying cause. Sculpting PR is never a replacement for solid IA and design.

5. What About the User?

The user experience is pretty much an afterthought in cases where nofollow is being implemented. Think of a scenario such as this one:

A site with large amounts of domain authority and ability to rank, uses that internal juice to drive PR to average quality internal pages, which in turn gets those mediocre pages ranking above better quality content in the SERPs with less authority. How does that help Google's goal of improving the user experience?

I also fear this technique will grant even more power to authority sites on the web. The gap is already widening between small players and the large, trusted sites. By basing a strategy on the flow of PageRank™ internally, high-authority domains with more PR are more likely to benefit. This puts the balance even further onto those kinds of sites, and the rich get richer.

Rebuttal --> It works well.

It can work well, but be cautious. Keep your users in mind. Maybe your visitors want that privacy policy showing up in search results, maybe they want the contact page findable in Google. There's a reason why those types of pages are linked to from every single page of a site.

Jeremy Zawodny pointed out with nofollow for blog spam, that once you introduce an economic element into the meritocratic web ecosystem, you change the ecosystem. Blog spam is worse than ever, and we don’t need nofollow for something that scripts like Akismet work so well to address. Nofollow took away the link reward of posting a comment and made links even more of a commodity that webmasters should hold onto and dole out based on uncertain thinking.

Nofollow on a site is the same principle. The economic element is PageRank™. You are given an economic alottment by Google - how much you have to spend on your pages depends on factors outside your control. Why focus on that? Why not focus on creating great resources? PR sculpting is not necessary to rank. It can be a competitive advantage but is far too powerful a tool for us to deploy without knowing more about it.

Are we letting the search engines dictate how we design our sites, and how we link internally? They've already put excessive control over link citations on the web and control much of how we link out. Now the same thing is happening with how we link internally. We base it on the idea that we're working with a limited supply of ranking juice; the paranoia of nofollow on outbounds is starting to creep into internal linking. Consider the following comment:

I also link to many web sites as clarification and for definitions, but to keep Google from thinking I’m being paid to link to those sites, I’m going to add rel=”nofollow” to the links. Google might flip the other direction and start punishing me for using rel=”nofollow” so many times, but Google is already punishing me for not using it, so I’m adding rel=”nofollow” to almost all of my external links and I’ll see what happens.

It seems plausible that this kind of misguided thinking will also be applied to internal linking strategies.

6. Here Comes the Abuse

Getting this granular opens new opportunities for abuse, opportunities we haven't even thought of yet. Here's a scenario:

Imagine link injection - an unscrupulous person gains control of a site, inserting her own links into the pages in discrete locations (so as not to alert the webmaster). Every link on the page is nofollow'd except their own inconspicuous text links.

An additional concern is filtering by the search engines. At what point does Google (or any engine) question the implementation of nofollow? When all but 1 or 2 links on a page are followed? When 12 are nofollowed? Never? Always? There is no way to know. Google can and will change the rules at any time. Tag attributes such as nofollow are open to interpretation by each engine, and no standard exists.

Don't become dependent on nofollow or you'll end up regretting it when they decide to start implementing automated filtering on "aggressively nofollowed internal link profiles". Sound plausible to you?

Rebuttal --> Matt Cutts/search engines/Google say it's okay.

There are always good and bad implementations of any single technique. Matt Cutts may tell us a bad implementation is not okay! Do what's right for your visitors too, not just what's right for search engines. This ultimately gives the search engines more control over sites on the web, simply because they have the power to change their minds at any time.

Matt Cutts also stated,

The best-known use for nofollow is blog comment spam, but the mechanism is completely general.

It's a completely general mechanism. Which means, there must be specific implementations of it that Google may not have considered. It’s only a matter of time until it's abused and devalued.

Rebuttal --> It's been done before nofollow existed

Sure has, and it still will. Javascript links have been a tool for a long time, started (I believe) by black hat affiliates cloaking their links. Like every SEO technique apart from web standards and accessibility, there is a good and bad implementation and the black hat stuff trickles into the commonwealth eventually.

To me advanced SEO always balances doing what's right for search engines with what's right for users. Nofollow puts the balance on search engines.

7. Too Much Focus on Search Engines...

Nofollow is a technique specifically for search engines. While much of SEO involves doing things just for search engines, remember the axiom (admittedly now showing its age): create sites for users, not search engines. Other quotes relevant here contained in Google's Webmaster Guidelines document include:

Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?

Rebuttal --> We do plenty of things just for search engines.

We do, and catering to search engines is important. However, it shouldn't be the primary focus and it shouldn't subtract from the target users of a site: your visitors.

Udi Manber tells us that Google's total focus is on the user experience:

...the goal is always the same: improve the user experience. This is not the main goal, it is the only goal.

We must address the question of PR sculpting in this light. Can it artificially raise the ranking of an unimproved and relatively mediocre page at the expense of the user experience? The answer is obviously yes, but the question is rhetorical. There will always be good and bad implementations of any technique. In the case of sculpting PR, I imagine poor adoptions of it are going to be commonplace. The user experience will ultimately be sacrificed, and even if it's in subtle ways you can bet Google will address it. That's a believable scenario for nofollow filtering penalties.

... and Too Much Google

We're primarily focused on Google w/ nofollow sculpting. What does that say about reliance on them for search traffic, when a specific strategy is focused on a single search engine? Last I checked SEO was about internet marketing, not Google marketing. Yes, Google dominates in a way that's never been seen before in the history of the web. But that doesn't mean we should be making our sites for Google.

8. There's No Standard

There are multiple definitions for nofollow, each engine may treat the attribute differently, and there is no set standard. The official and/or original definition of nofollow is, "I don't endorse this page," which is inconsistent with the goals of nofollow as it's used in PR sculpting and may or may not be consistent across all the engines.

Let's not forget that the implementations of nofollow have changed over time:

• First, nofollow was to be used for blog comment spam
--> don't pass reputation, don't endorse

• Next, nofollow was recommended as a signal for paid links
--> don't pass PageRank™ for ranking; declare sponsorships

• Then, nofollow was recommended as a PageRank™ sculpting tool
--> don't leak PR off a page

As has been covered here and also here, there are varying treatments of nofollow depending on what engine is involved. Matt Cutts has stated that he believes,

Yahoo and Microsoft might handle NoIndex slightly differently which is little unfortunate, but everybody gets to choose how they want to handle different tags.

How search engines handle the nofollow attribute

Inconsistencies with tags such as noindex and nofollow highlight the fact that we don't actually know what the behavior of each search engine will be when we deploy them. As Eric Lander points out,

Links are intended to be contextual. Why then do we limit our ability to reason and just assume that the engines see a nofollow and forget all references between two linked pieces of content?

What happens to sites with wide adoption of nofollow (even reliance on it) if the rules suddenly change? It’s already morphed from a comment spam tool that prevents the passing of PageRank™, into a bot control mechanism for crawling. There are too many inconsistencies in its application, and too much variance among the major search engines.


I'm hoping my arguments here will give balance to the issue. I don't feel I have the final answer (by any means), I'm simply looking at the issue from the other side. If we explore the issue from both sides, we'll be able to learn far more than simply jumping on the bandwagon and trusting in the technique because others are doing it, or because Google says it's okay.

Other links of note not already cited:

• Lee Odden interviews Google's Adam Lasnik, and Adam makes some interesting statements about nofollow, including advice to not focus on it:

• Aaron Wall outlines information about nofollow on his membership site. If you're reading this blog, you should be reading Aaron's blog and his membership resources are excellent. You can find Aaron's post on nofollow here: http://training.seobook.com

• This is an interesting and thorough treatment of the subject in an interview format. Ben Welch-bolen asked 10 search marketers their opinion of using nofollow to sculpt PR, and combined it with statements from Matt Cutts: www.searchenginemarketing.co.uk/blog/sem/pagerank-sculpting/

Please let me know if I've missed any worthwhile resources.


Google, Yahoo and MSN announced during our panel that they're striving to standardize on various tag attributes (including rel=nofollow) and robots.txt directives. Interesting development! Here are the pertinent links:

Announcements about robots.txt and the Robots Exclusion Protocol (REP):

Google is providing more information about the nofollow protocol too:

I'm not sure, but I can't help feeling the new nofollow page was partially spurred on by my presentation (since Matt Cutts and Evan Roseman of Google were both in attendance). It had probably been planned for awhile; maybe my addressing it finally pushed them into action.


Thanks to Adria Kyne (good to meet you at SMX) and Linda Bustos for insightful responses, also to Halfdeck and Andy Beard.

Also check out this post on rel=canonical implementation.


53 Responses to "8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow"
Great presentation - great work!
Adria Kyne says:
I have also seen some compelling evidence that Google does (or soon will) use the presence of Privacy Policy, T&C, and About Us pages as a signal for the credibility of a website. It makes sense; a spammy website is not going to have these legitimate types of info available. So, I wonder if that by removing these pages from the index, you may be making your site look spammy.
Carly says:
Firstly i find this post amusing, especially this part "Blog spam is worse than ever, and we don’t need nofollow for something that scripts like Akismet work so well to address" when you have things like comments, pingbacks and even your designer link Nofollowed. But anyhow, I have sites with 1,000's of links Nofollowed and it serves a purpose to users and to my sites "health". Firstly it achieves Link Consensus, when you have multiple URL's with the same content in different flavors such as Print Version, Low Bandwidth versions, in RSS form and the list goes on the last thing you want to do is compete with your own pages or users landing on your page from the SERP's that's devoid of any navigation or visual elements. You want to present the best version, and have all authority going to that version with the alternate versions available to the user at the click of a button if they want it. Have you seen scripts like vBulletin? There's like 10 URL's for every thread, and there's one for every post (showpost.php) which is horribly annoying when clicked on in the SERP's, you don't see the context of the discussion just 1 post and you need to click yet another link to view the thread. These have no value in the SERP's, i have mine Nofollowed and my forum has 4 Million posts so that's 4 Million Nofollow's on one single domain. Secondly is Crawl Budget, Google only allots a certain amount of crawling per domain per day. I don't want Google coming to my domain and crawling 100 print versions of pages that's already indexed when i have fresh killer content just waiting to hit the SERP's. A combination of Robots.txt and Nofollow is the solution. Also just because you Nofollow that Contact or Disclaimer page from your sitewide navigation doesn't mean it can't/won't be indexed and not found via a query. Links from other sites, or within content on your own site will provide enough authority to pull it up on a search if someone's looking for it. You just don't need to slam it with that much Authority that it's Pagerank is 3 points higher than your best bit of content. Some sites i have many thousands of pages Nofollowed, and that's not going to change because i'm doing what's best for my site and my users.
Adam Audette says:
@Adria thanks for the comment. There's the whole issue of using nofollow to prevent passing link juice vs using it to prevent discovery/indexing. But I'd agree things like TOC/privacy are signals of trust, so should be on sites (and are already used in Adwords as a quality signal). @Carly we've used (and will continue to use) nofollow at the link level. Good points about duplicate content, no argument there. Personally I find robots.txt preferable in most cases for handling dupe content though. The whole point of this post is to offer a counter perspective, not to try to give "the final word" on nofollow. For me it's an on-going debate.
One of the better posts on nofollow I have seen. Especially well explained in Point 1.
Linda Bustos says:
Good rationale and thorough, quality information as usual, Adam. I do have to disagree with the blog comment point, Akismet is not bulletproof (we resently switched up Akismet on our Wordpress blog to TypePad Antispam but I digress... Also, if a blog post is really popular and gets over 100 comments, for example, that creates all the more outbound links. Using the commenter's first and last names as the anchor text in links isn't optimal either. As a blogger, I'd rather not dilute the Page Rank for the links in the blog post itself - the ones that are truly editorial, not the links by readers who say "hey man, great post." By the way, did I mention great post? I'd still recommend folks nofollow out Privacy, Contact etc. but you're right, it shouldn't be obsessed over, abused or given too much credit.
Darren says:
Nice exhaustive post on the subject. I especially agree with your overall sentiment that such PR sculpting is just placing way too much emphasis on Google. And let's face it, webmasters today already spend more than their share of resources coddling the Big G. If you spend your time doing PR sculpting and can get a benefit from it, great. But it certainly seems like the typical type of loophole that Google is already seeking to close by the time discussion of it becomes widespread.
Marc says:
I just removed it from the site on my name. It may have helped, buts is a massive pain in the azz I am tired of seeings links nofollowed. Massive sites are doing it now, for even the slightest seo advantage. Sculpting the freaking link structure takes away from content development and usability, which should be paramount.
Carly says:
Personally I find robots.txt preferable in most cases for handling dupe content though. If you simply exclude a URL via Robots.txt that URL will still gather Pagerank, as i said i have some domains with over 4 million URL's Nofollowed that are essentially duplicate. Would it make sense to Robots.txt these and pass Pagerank to 4 Million URL's you don't want indexed or appearing in search? Of course not. Marc, can you please explain how adding Nofollow to URL's would impede development or usability in any way? I personally don't see using Nofollow at the link level "Sculpting Pagerank" and in fact i couldn't give a hoot what the Pagerank numbers for any of my URL's are. I see it as putting your best content in the best light, and moving your pages that don't matter back out of the spotlight. If i owned a Ferarri and a beat up Volkswagen, you can bet the Ferrari would be parked out the front and the Volkswagen out the back where it can't be seen. But yes Nofollow can be a powerful tool, and if you don't fully understand what you are doing it's a good idea to leave it alone and just reserve it for outbounds you can't editorially vouch for.
Halfdeck says:
You made some good points - basically the question is do you want to focus on an AdWords that campaign that will increase your annual income by $200,000 or do you want to spend that time increasing the average interest of your Roth IRA by 1%? If you have a ton of investments, a 1% gain could be nice pocket change; if you only got a few K saved then don't worry about interest make more money. "Personally I find robots.txt preferable in most cases for handling dupe content though." Robots.txt is useless because the disallowed URLs will still accumulate PageRank. So if you have 10,000 dupe pages that are disallowed they are still making it difficult for more valuable pages from breaking into the main index and ranking. Of course if your site's only 100 pages big, nofollow is not your friend.
These are pretty nice insights on blogs that have no follow attributes...^^ anyways I have to admit that I love blogs that have follow attributes..just like Andy Beard's site..^^
Marc says:
@Carly Merely wasting one precious thought on using nofollow somewhere takes away from other more important things. If you are linking out to bad stuff, you are kinda f*cked anyway. Duplicate content issues cant be completely eliminated by robots.txt and nofollow at this point. It seems to me like another FUD tactic that started out with good intentions. If your site has a bad linking structure, then implementing nofollows is like putting a band aid on a gaping wound.
Andy Beard says:
Hey Joy, glad you enjoy the juice I am not afraid to share with my valued readers. Good job you commented here as it then popped up in my alerts. Marc the bandaid is really robots.txt for duplicate content. If you have a dynamic website, large swathes of nofollows can be added with very simple changes. You would still want to also add noindex follow to the dupes, and probably ensure that all external links from duplicate content are also nofollowed. Nofollow is essential for affiliate links The one link you should never nofollow is to another blog post - you might end up black flagged for spam in wonderful collective intelligence plugins such as Akismet.
Marc says:
Andy Beard Indeed, I use several of your plugins, like "nofollow dupes" but here is what I failed to explain earlier: the use of nofollow has become shady. take for example, my favorite site, StumbleUpon. Look at your profile page, all outgoing links are nofollowed. this would suggest that none of the outgoing links are relevant to how this page was built. the same is true for del.icio.us those crooked retards at stumbleupon and del.icio.us are not giving credit to the sites that are the basis of ALL their content. from a journalists POV this is crooked. it might be too late at night for me to explain this properly but there must be someone else who has made this connection
Adam Audette says:
@Halfdeck thanks for the comments - good points about robots.txt, but how will excluded pages accumulate pagerank if they're "orphaned" w/ nofollow internally?
Url Posted at C4G Forum... Adam Audette has written a very good article on using the nofollow tag for pagerank sculpting : ...
Halfdeck says:
"how will excluded pages accumulate pagerank if they’re “orphaned” w/ nofollow internally?" If pages are nofollowed internally, they won't accumulate PageRank. Of course if you're going to use internal nofollow, I see no reason to use robots.txt disallow.
Adam Audette says:
@halfdeck because they can still be linked to from external sources and get indexed that way, right? That's why I use the combo - nofollow everything internal to a page and it'll still accumulate PR w/ external links. So if you want it excluded, robots.txt as well.
Andy Beard says:
Adam in that situation you are making a mistake, rather than robots.txt you should meta noindex / follow the page. A page which has been blocked by robots.txt can still appear in the index and rank based upon anchor text You wouldn't believe how many sites use meta noindex / follow (most often All In One SEO Plugin) and then also use robots.txt on duplicate content, and thus end up with 100s of hanging pages leaking juice. Robots.txt I would reserve for files you can't add meta to, such as .pdfs, and only if it really was a major issue that couldn't be solved in an alternate manner.
Halfdeck says:
"So if you want it excluded, robots.txt as well." Robots.txt only tells Google not to crawl a page (i.e. issuing a GET and caching the response). It doesn't tell Google not to index a page. META noindex tells Google not to display a page in the index; it doesn't tell Google not to crawl a page. In fact, if you robots.txt disallow a META noindex page you create trouble because Google will not crawl the page and META noindex tag never gets read. Many people wonder why a noindexed+robots disallowed page shows up in the index; to resolve that, disable robots.txt disallow. I'm sure you know most of this stuff; its just something your readers might find helpful because this stuff can get complicated.
Adam Audette says:
Thanks for the contributions @halfdeck and @andybeard. I added some clean links to you guys in the blog post :)
amelia says:
for other SEO people really is a big deal for them
Halfdeck says:
Thanks for the link Adam. If you got some time to spare, come over to my blog and read my post about third level push (don't miss the comments). I published that post I think a day or two before Matt Cutts' interview about internal nofollow on SEOmoz. It was mentioned later in an SEOmoz interview of Matt Simmonds, an SEO from NYT. That and Dan's posts I think are worth a read. That said, I agree that internal nofollow should not be high up on anyone's todo list. It was a big deal a year ago when people were fixated on supplemental results and desperately looking for a silver bullet.
Qaswer says:
There was a time when people were crazy at PR but thoughts are changing now. I visit many forum and blogs a day and i can feel that thoughts. I could find threads about "when Google PR will Occur" and Blah, Blah but now people says "it is just a green bar".
Robert says:
I agree that we shouldn't be making our websites FOR Google. However as they send me close on 98% of all traffic (based in South Africa) why bother with the rest. It kind of makes me think of all the mailing systems and word processing programs that have been forced into saving for Microsoft word/Express/Outlook. Why should they be forced to work in that format? Because it IS the standard (despite not being standard). I cannot argue that this is a good thing however. Google could choose to change it up again - at any point or even scrap it altogether.
charles says:
Nofollow is destroying the love between websites. If website A knows about nofollow, he will always add nofollow on any outbound link towards website B. And if website B also knows about nofollow, in return he will add nofollow to all outbound links towards website A.
One of the better posts on nofollow I have seen. Especially well explained in Point 1.
MyCommunity says:
Excellent Work. Thanks for giving tips.
I do agree with one of the main underlying themes here - that if you keep focused on white-hat SEO then you will have far fewer serious problems than if you experiment with black-hat. However, the explicit statement is that nofollow shouldn't be used because it is not fully predictable. I don't agree with this per se. Every person ought to try out different strategies to see what works for him. We learn over time things that do and don't work. By just shutting off the possibility of using certain tools, we might lose some easy wins (the duplicate content being an obvious example). We are supposed to be professionals, and so though we can be indignant that the algorithms are not public, we have to do the best we can to understand them - and to understand some of their idiosyncrasies. We might still shoot ourselves in the foot once in ten times, but nine times out of ten we are doing the right thing by learning albeit imperfect knowledge and applying it.
Pratish says:
Ugh! Wish I had read this before I trawled through one of site putting nofollow links onto everything.. could have saved me a weekend!
I've heard that external links don't leak one's PR anyway, so there's really no reason to use nofollow in the first place.
Joe says:
Surely in light of recent changes to Google's Algorithim and their ongoing commitment to producing more high quality, relevant results, no follow links will be an essential part of any backlink profile. A profile with no follows looks less spammy and more natural. The only reason I apply no follow tags to my blog comments is through fear of having delet thousands of spam comments, not fear of leaking PR.
Flights to Australia says:
I think this debate is really a hangover from the days when people tried to manipulate and have PR flow around their site. Luckily practices like this are dying out as the web becomes more influenced by individual users and social signals.


Check out what others are saying...
[...] Two more quick notes on this one… First, it reminded me of an old, controversial post I wrote called NoFollow: An SEO Red Flag? Second, Adam Audette introduced a deeper view of nofollow’s usage than I expected, and he did it wonderfully. He’s already gone to the length to make his thoughts available on his blog, so be sure to read 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow. [...]
[...] Adam Audette has written a well conceived article outlining why online marketers need to step back and think carefully about whether or not trying this new technique is the right thing to do. I think the majority of the points Adam makes are extremely valid, especially the point that if a marketer feels the need to use this technique excessively then there are probably much larger underlying problems, especially with the sites architecture. [...]
[...] Marketing BlogA Virtual Exit » Blog Archive » A realistic valuation model for blogging ventures8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank⢠with Nofollow | AudetteMedia Tags computer based training computer training course computer repair course computer training [...]
[...] search engines, focused only on search engines at the expense of users, and vulnerable to abuse. 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow | AudetteMedia NoFollow Sparks [...]
[...] Nu Google officieel heeft toegegeven dat je de rel=”nofollow” tag kan gebruiken om de linkjuice in je site te ’sturen’ duiken er artikels op met een hoop redenen waarom je het niet zou doen Zo ook het artikel van Adam Audette waarin hij 8 redenen opsomt tegen Pagerank Sculpting. [...]
[...] 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow [...]
[...] Sculpting PageRank I'll often aim my PageRank away from the "contact us" and similar pages on smaller sites using the nofollow tag. But is it a wise idea, especially for larger sites? Adam Audette has written a blog post examining the whole PageRank sculpting thing, arguing against it actually. [...]
[...] The argument against using “nofollow” for the purpose of managing Pagerank burst out into the open again recently when Adam Audette said, “Don’t waste time worrying about sculpting internal links.” [...]
[...] Adam Audette: Don’t use it because who knows how the engines treat them now and how they will treat them in the future?  Here are his thoughts in more detail. [...]
[...] public links >> nofollow What is NoFollow? First saved by lolita82bar | 7 days ago 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow First saved by xoflipflopsxo | 11 days ago who knows this?? (craigslist.org) First saved by [...]
[...] - bookmarked by 4 members originally found by Rotarrius on 2009-01-26 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow http://www.audettemedia.com/blog/arguments-against-nofollow - bookmarked by 6 members originally [...]
[...] I guess over time I would reach a conclusion similar to this seo guru! [...]
[...] those same tests never revealed the changes Google made to protect Websites from the harm caused by PageRank sculpting. Although some of the bad SEOs have learned the errors of their ways today some people in the SEO [...]
[...] from people like Adam Audette and Shari Thurow, two of the leading SEO pundits. Audette’s PageRank sculpting antithesis is considered one of the best responses to the PageRank sculpting movement. Thurow wrote [...]
[...] writer Adam Audette documented several arguments against the use of PageRank Sculpting based on the “rel=’nofollow’” link attribute. This attribute was settled [...]
[...] Pagerank sculpting attempts to hide internal links from search engines. The justifications offered for this radical self-emasculation have varied from “those pages are not important” to “it helps increase your search visibility”. Pagerank sculpting SEOs are notorious for claiming that their tests and studies prove it works but they never publish the information that proves their claims. They always offer excuses. And they have yet to explain why their tests did not reveal changes that Google made two years ago to offset their efforts to sculpt Pagerank. [...]
[...] in fact that it hadn’t worked for over a year. Which was fine with me, since I’d argued against using nofollow for PageRank sculpting in blog posts and at SMX Advanced in [...]
[...] 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow | AudetteMedia 3 Jun 2008. Google can and will change the rules at any time.. Rebuttal –> It's been done before nofollow existed.. so well to address” when you have things like comments, pingbacks and even your designer link Nofollowed.... we might lose some easy wins (the duplicate content being an obvious example)..www.audettemedia.com/blog/arguments-against-nofollow/ - 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow | AudetteMedia [...]
[...] 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow | AudetteMedia 3 Jun 2008. Google can and will change the rules at any time.. Rebuttal –> It's been done before nofollow existed.. so well to address” when you have things like comments, pingbacks and even your designer link Nofollowed.... we might lose some easy wins (the duplicate content being an obvious example)..www.audettemedia.com/blog/arguments-against-nofollow/ - 8 Arguments Against Sculpting PageRank™ with Nofollow | AudetteMedia [...]

Leave A Comment