Doofollow Vs NoFollow Backlink

[MeAmRussian]

Semper Fi!

This is part of what I was trying to illustrate. It's part of the psychological warefare put on by Matt Cutts/Google.

Props to the reasoning mind of MeAmRussian!

Right back at you buddy

What I don't understand is why people worry about their pagerank so much--it really doesn't mean anything. I've had PR0 sites get to the front page of google that had PR4-PR7 sites on it. It's the results that matter, not how a site looks on the outside.

 

[xfactornos]

Do you guys send the backlinks directly to your money sites or do you do funnel pages?

 

[MisterGemini]

Do you guys send the backlinks directly to your money sites or do you do funnel pages?

Both. Your funnels need backlinks too. It depends on what you want to accomplish. Higher quality links directly to money site while crap links go to the funnel to turn into higher quality through the funnel.

 

[Micallef]

Logically speaking, I really don't think Google completely ignores nofollow links. Since it started in 2005, I'd say much of today's link are nofollow. If Google and others were to ignore them, I'd say they'd miss 85% of the internet's web content.

Far less than 10% of the links out there are nofollow - I would venture perhaps below 5%. It's just the ones you see all the time that are nofollow, giving the impression that nofollow links outnumber normal links. They do not.

And the fact that Matt Cutts said they ignore it does NOT mean this is true. Think about it... Google is trying to prevent spamming. Would they create the nofollow link and then say "Yeah we created nofollow but it still gives SOME link juice" or would they just say "Nope it's no good"? It can't be that they completely ignore it. Sure, they might use nofollow links differently in their algorithm, but it still has some weight nontheless, maybe in sheer volume or something.

Matt Cutts cannot be trusted - but there is not some huge "conspiracy" either like some people here are suggesting. Conspiracy talk sounds appealing but may well be wholly empty.

1. Nofollow may or may not have a part to play in the serps.

2. Nobody can be bothered to try and provide any evidence. Evidence constitutes a massive controlled trial with hundreds if not thousands of websites. Saying "well my site ranked good on nofollow" is not evidence.

3. I abandon nofollow link sources and I consider myself highly able to achieve the rankings I need from backlink strategies I devise.

I cannot prove that nofollow links are useless - but I can say with all honesty that a 100% **************** link profile has never prevented me from being number 1 - 3 in a competitive keyword.

All this talk of a "natural impression" with nofollow sounds impressive and cunning but I've succeeded again and again over the long term and I've done it completely avoiding nofollow links.

I will not rule out that having a natural impression from SN nofollow links could be some sort of bonus for the site (though I've seen no evidence of this) - but the lack of said activity does not constitute a penalty of any sort.

I maintain that it is entirely possible (and my belief) that Google sees but ignores 98% of nofollow links, rendering them useless for serp improvement. I can accept that they might make a special case for some heavily moderated authority cources like wikipedia.

 

[silvertroll]

Interesting, I also think that you shouldn't bother at all with nofollow links.
On the other hand, I am not sure about wikipedia, do you think that wikipedia nofollow links are worth it?

 

[iMechanic]

hi brother,Today is very hard day for me Bcoz i made perhaps 50 Do-follow link PR2~PR5 by manually.But how can i know,this is counted by google.Is any way add those link google as early as possible.....? lane:

 

[MisterGemini]

hi brother,Today is very hard day for me Bcoz i made perhaps 50 Do-follow link PR2~PR5 by manually.But how can i know,this is counted by google.Is any way add those link google as early as possible.....? lane:

You can try pinging the pages they are on. It is very likely you do not have to do this though.

Or do what your mommy told you when you were 11, don't touch it, or you will go blind.

Just wait.

 

[ch8878]

I have a bunch of PR 4, PR 2, and PR 1 sites and nofollow hasnt helped at all I think may have made things worse but do-follow is the reason my sites have PR, so I would just say to you test this method on a bunch of different sites and see for yourself there is always a big debate on this !

Nofollow is you can have a link on a site and people who go to that site can click on your link but it will not show up in search results, this is why I blieve your best bet is do-follow !!

 

[iMechanic]

Everyone know that do-follow is best for Google PR but sometime nofollow also good.I see some website,Their do-follow backlink is very few but google PR is 3.So,i think nofollow can something.I don't say must be done something but sometime may be.:trink26:

 

[ch8878]

Everyone know that do-follow is best for Google PR but sometime nofollow also good.I see some website,Their do-follow backlink is very few but google PR is 3.So,i think nofollow can something.I don't say must be done something but sometime may be.:trink26:

Its because there do-follow links are really good not because of nofollow, trust me don't waste your time with nofollow your better off getting all do-follow !

 

[MisterGemini]

Its because there do-follow links are really good not because of nofollow, trust me don't waste your time with nofollow your better off getting all do-follow !

Yes.. do not waste your time with wikipedia links.

Please don't. Leave them for us.

 

[ch8878]

Yes.. do not waste your time with wikipedia links.

Please don't. Leave them for us.

Why do you say that wikipedia does that much for your site ?

 

[MisterGemini]

Why do you say that wikipedia does that much for your site ?

It's only the highest ranked website in the world. If you get any links from there they are nofollow. The impact from a link from an appropriate wikipedia page is tremendous.

Read the rest of this thread to see why.

It's a nofollow link, just like may other high profile sites. You talk about nofollow as though it's useless yet its got impact just as well as d0follows, but in a different way.

 

[danhoff]

It's so funny to see people, who base their SEO on wikipedia and other "experts" .

NoFollow do work ! Maybe they just help your overall link profile to look natural, so your site goes up in the SERPS. I don't care .... i did my tests and ALL links count, no matter what kind.

Pace !

 

[ch8878]

What is Pace

 

[marketeers]

i only use ****************

 

[MisterGemini]

What is Pace

It's sounded-out ebonic/slang for Peace.

 

[MisterGemini]

It's so funny to see people, who base their SEO on wikipedia and other "experts" .

NoFollow do work ! Maybe they just help your overall link profile to look natural, so your site goes up in the SERPS. I don't care .... i did my tests and ALL links count, no matter what kind.

Pace !

I think that's been the winning argument here in this thread overall.

A few people are still insistent on the d0follow or no link at all ideology, but it seems pretty self evident from all the facts presented that all links DO count. Even if they don't include a yummy little number attached to them to keep you running for more like a good google bitch.

 

[MisterGemini]

Sigh - just because google doesn't follow a link doesn't give it no value in serps.

The only thing it impacts is the PR system. We all know the PR system is not the only factor in rankings today (at least I hope we all know). You want to timewarp back to 2006, this is absolutely correct in the statements I quoted. Today though, not so.

If I got a link at say.. Yahoo Answers (they are nofollow) and of course google indexes it and finds my link there with the nofollow, all that happens is PR is not passed onto my site from there in that small peice (today) of ranking. However, google is still going to regard that links as a relevancy to the content/page it is located in to later be processed in its content filters.

If my link appears in YAnswers, wikipedia, and even in googles own knol, you are saying that google will completely ignore that my link is appearing in all these places with what it has determined as good quality content which when compared to my site by it's own relation (not through the nofollow link) then would factor that into account in ranking the information.

It's clear that it's intended purpose and use today of the nofollow is primarily in relation to user generated content. That signal is far strong today in googles serps than it was back when nofollow was first introduced. All current news stories, media buzz, and the like are driven by nofollow.

Get ALL the links you can. Preferably from sources relating to your content/type site, and you are going to be fine nofolllow or d0follow. The only difference between the two, is that the nofollow links are not what are going to be used in calculating the PR of your site, or to 'discover' it. That happens so easily today with rss directories and aggrigators though that it's just not an issue.

No, you're wrong.

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569

How does Google handle nofollowed links?

In general, we don't follow them. This means that Google does not transfer PageRank or anchor text across these links. Essentially, using nofollow causes us to drop the target links from our overall graph of the web. However, the target pages may still appear in our index if other sites link to them without using nofollow, or if the URLs are submitted to Google in a Sitemap. Also, it's important to note that other search engines may handle nofollow in slightly different ways.


They're saying it causes them to drop the link from the overall graph they have of the web. So how exactly are they taking nofollow links into account?

It's saying the only way the pages will appear is if OTHER pages that ARE NOT using nofollow link to them.

You're basically confused about 'users' and 'webmasters'. *Everything* is from the webmaster. It's the webmaster's site. If he allows users to create **************** links then he those links are from HIM, not the users, from HIS site. The algorithm doesn't differentiate between 'users' and 'webmasters'.

People are really not understanding what we're dealing with. This is a compuer running an algorithm. It's not some omnipotent being who has concepts of users, webmasters, spammers or any other sort of category. It ranks pages based on content and their position in the larger network of sites, specifically the networks of related sites. It all basically just comes down to a graph and content. That's it. It's not complicated. Why do you think facebook are taking the approach of a semantic web by having page owners label pages as 'articles', 'books', 'tutorials' or whatever else and having users 'like' pages. Because computers and algorithms are nowhere near the level of intelligence of humans and we can't have programs tell us with any great deal of unmanipulatable accuracy where pages should rank in a social graph of pages with relevance being a high priority.

Anyway google's explanation is pretty damn clear to me. If anyone else still wants to argue that google takes nofollow links into account during serp calculation then go ahead and make a fool of yourself.

 

[J0kerz]

You should try to get way more D0follow link. It's good to mix D0follow and nofollow so it will looks more natural...