1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Changing n0-follow to d0-follow

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by jb2008, Dec 22, 2010.

  1. jb2008

    jb2008 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    972
    Occupation:
    Scraping, Harvesting in the Corn Fields
    Location:
    On my VPS servers
    I was baffled as I came across certain blogs where links were n0-follow by default, yet within all those n0-follow comments there would be one or two links in the comments which were painted blue by firefox n0-d0 follo-w .

    So I looked in the source and it was like this

    <a href="http://SPAMMERS-WEBSITE.com" rel="d0-follow" rel="n0-follow">ANCHOR TEXT</a>

    Those sneaky buggers tried to override the n0-follow by putting rel=d0-follow in the link. I know that rel="d0follow" is meaningless, it just doesn't exist, so I decided to drop my own link but instead replace it with rel="shitface" , and lo and behold, the link is colored blue (d0-follow!)

    My question is, is this just a bug in firefox d0-follow plugin, or does having a rel="XXXX" command BEFORE the rel="n0-follow" 'cancel' out the n0-follow? Someone please tell me this is the case, but surely it can't be that easy? Common sense leads me to believe that these links are still n0-follow because G will ignore those nonsense rel="smellyfart" commands, but I just gotta check, ya know? ;)
     
  2. jb2008

    jb2008 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    972
    Occupation:
    Scraping, Harvesting in the Corn Fields
    Location:
    On my VPS servers
    I was baffled as I came across certain blogs where links were n0-follow by default, yet within all those n0-follow comments there would be one or two links in the comments which were painted blue by firefox n0-d0 follo-w .

    So I looked in the source and it was like this

    <a href="http://SPAMMERS-WEBSITE.com" rel="d0-follow" rel="n0-follow">ANCHOR TEXT</a>

    Those sneaky buggers tried to override the n0-follow by putting rel=d0-follow in the link. I know that rel="d0follow" is meaningless, it just doesn't exist, so I decided to drop my own link but instead replace it with rel="shitface" , and lo and behold, the link is colored blue (d0-follow!)

    My question is, is this just a bug in firefox d0-follow plugin, or does having a rel="XXXX" command BEFORE the rel="n0-follow" 'cancel' out the n0-follow? Someone please tell me this is the case, but surely it can't be that easy? Common sense leads me to believe that these links are still n0-follow because G will ignore those nonsense rel="smellyfart" commands, but I just gotta check, ya know? ;)
     
  3. albaniax

    albaniax Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    823
    Location:
    GER - ALB
    No one can tell you that, except of Google itself.

    But I doubt that they are that dumb, you know what I mean :p
     
  4. emailpays

    emailpays Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    2
    I too came across such things recently and was successful in converting nofollow links into ********. I also checked those links with some ******** checking tools. Thank God they showed them as ********.
     
  5. homenet

    homenet Power Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    338
    Location:
    Dimension X
    I wondered this once, but I seriously doubt google are that stupid.. technically speaking though the first tag is always used in html, but I doubt that applies to G's algorithim.
     
  6. jb2008

    jb2008 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    972
    Occupation:
    Scraping, Harvesting in the Corn Fields
    Location:
    On my VPS servers
    Errrr... damn, I wish I could ask matt cutts but then if Google IS that stupid he will just change the algorithm so erm, yeah...

    @emailpays, just because plugins / DF checkers are reading as DF, it doesn't mean they are. DF checkers just look for the first rel= tag as n0-follow, if it isn't then it technically isn't NF, but really, in Google's eyes, what is the answer?
     
  7. madoctopus

    madoctopus Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    3,515
    Occupation:
    Full time IM
    It's a firefox plugin bug. rel="d0follow" followed by rel="n0follow" => rel="n0follow". rel="d0follow n0follow" => rel="n0follow". Last value applies. Plus there is no such thing as rel="d0follow". In conclusion, those links are n0follow.
     
  8. jb2008

    jb2008 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    972
    Occupation:
    Scraping, Harvesting in the Corn Fields
    Location:
    On my VPS servers
    Who said the first value applied? Now it's the last? I'm so confused ;(
     
  9. extremephp

    extremephp BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,274
    Let me correct you! No follow doesnt mean that the Links wont be live! It will still be rendered as a link, and all css effects, or whatever applies to it as they do for any link!

    No follow = ********, other than the search engine spiders would leave them off!


    ~ExP~
     
  10. fab

    fab Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    28
    The correct syntax of the attribute is rel="nofollow". If you find rel="no-follow" in the html code the link is still d.ofollow since rel="no-follow" doesn't exist.
     
  11. tas26

    tas26 Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    276
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    BHW
    Guys are you blaming billion dollar script to be stupid? i dont think so. Big G is much smarter these days
     
  12. banel

    banel Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    16
    You really thing that google didn't think about this before ? :))