It makes sense build links to nofollow web 2.0?

This is an old doubt I never solved...

I always thought that nofollow properties are important for have a good variety of backlinks, anyway it makes no sense to build tier and backlinks toward this kind of links because they don't pass any juice (being nofollow).

For example, yahoo answers and youtube are great backlinks, google love them and I can see them on my google webmaster tool a few days after I build them, anyway usually I don't build T2 over them because they don't pass any juice (though for YT can be different, as owned by google).

But I just saw a tutorial were the guy was building tiers directed to nofollow links (eg. web 2.0 like livejournal, fizzlive, squidoo, etc) ...

What do you think?
Thanks

no follow links are accepted by google as a way of traffic to website, and if it is not considered to be a backlinck doesn't mean that better to avoid it. NO!
you have to have both. Google like when backlinks are recieved naturaly and if it is no follow it is also good. if you can see mostly when you put a comment the hyperlink insid is no follow, bcs google undesrtands it like comunity discussion and people talk about that website, so it gives value to that.
I think you should get both, just 70% do follow and 30 % no follow is also okay

Thanks for your reply, anyway that was not my question.

I said I know that nofollow are important, my question was:

when I build tiers of backlinks (with gsa ser) toward my t1 tier (web 2.0), that is a mix of ******** and nofollow, do I have any benefit blasting also the nofollow t1 or it's better only blasting the t1 ********?

Regarding the tutorial (case study?), what were the results after the nofollow properties were blasted with links? Probably none.

Its wastage of time as link juice won't flow.

Absolutely not. Nofollow links have proven to be nothing but a way to make your backlink profile look more diverse.

Thanks a lot!
I was always thinking the same, but sometime when I see some tutorial, they make me confused...

Anyway (for SEO Power) the case study was more complex, it's a way to rank parasite pages, later it's possible to use directly that webs 2.0, so not necessary linking them to a money site. So maybe this is the reason of linking to that type of web 2.0. Just to rank them, and not to pass link juice to a money site.

This is the case study...
(it seems I can't post an url, so if interested, try to search the article: Watch As I Attack A 110,000 A Month Search Term With Parasite Pages, article of Terry Kyle)

Thanks for all your answer, I feel better now

PeterPerseo said:

Thanks a lot!
I was always thinking the same, but sometime when I see some tutorial, they make me confused...

Anyway (for SEO Power) the case study was more complex, it's a way to rank parasite pages, later it's possible to use directly that webs 2.0, so not necessary linking them to a money site. So maybe this is the reason of linking to that type of web 2.0. Just to rank them, and not to pass link juice to a money site.

This is the case study...
(it seems I can't post an url, so if interested, try to search the article: Watch As I Attack A 110,000 A Month Search Term With Parasite Pages, article of Terry Kyle)

Thanks for all your answer, I feel better now

Click to expand...

I've read that case study. If you want to rank a web 2.0 site, it doesn't matter if the outgoing links on it are nofollow or not. But for the purpose of channeling link juice to your money site, they are pretty much useless.