rel=nofollow

Re: rel="nofollow"

"Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer" wrote in message
news:429deabe$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>I just recently learned about how outbound links can affect the total PR
> of a site.

Yeah, not that much though. It all depends how much you have goin g out.

> I realised that most of my pages had several outbound links (several of
> them had more outbound than inbound), and some of
> them are even small webdirectories on different topics built by me.

Do the benefits of the links help your site? Like are they related to the
content?

> Now I have inserted the rel="nofollow" on most outbund links, except for
> the ones I for some reason consider "friends"
>
> 1. Would you consider this an unethical behaviour of me?

Not really, if the links are not giving some back in return.

> 2. Is the use of rel="nofollow" sometimes penalised by search engines?

Nope.

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

"Stacey" skrev i en meddelelse
news:b_lne.24591$Fv.16034@lakeread01...
> "Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer" wrote in message
> news:429deabe$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...[color=green]
>>I just recently learned about how outbound links can affect the total
>>PR
>> of a site.
>
> Yeah, not that much though. It all depends how much you have goin g
> out.[/color]

Quite a lot on some, though not all, pages.
[color=green]
>> I realised that most of my pages had several outbound links (several
>> of them had more outbound than inbound), and some of
>> them are even small webdirectories on different topics built by me.
>
> Do the benefits of the links help your site? Like are they related to
> the content?[/color]

Yes, all of them are. None of them are there for commercial reasons.
(And my site is not commercial of nature even though I do some work for
a not-for-profit Spanish school).

However, I do appreciate that my use of the rel="nofollow" does not seem
bo be compatible with the Kantian categorical imperative... (If all did
as I do, there would be no PageRank - hm... don't know if that would be
good or bad... 😉 ).
[color=green]
>> Now I have inserted the rel="nofollow" on most outbund links, except
>> for
>> the ones I for some reason consider "friends"
>>
>> 1. Would you consider this an unethical behaviour of me?
>
> Not really, if the links are not giving some back in return.[/color]

O.k., none of them are.
[color=green]
>> 2. Is the use of rel="nofollow" sometimes penalised by search
>> engines?
>
> Nope.[/color]

Allright 🙂

Mikkel

Re: rel="nofollow"

Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer wrote:

> 1. Would you consider this an unethical behaviour of me?
>
> 2. Is the use of rel="nofollow" sometimes penalised by search engines?

Imagine people linking to you doing this...

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: rel="nofollow"

"Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer" wrote in message
news:429ded98$0$18645$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> "Stacey" skrev i en meddelelse
> news:b_lne.24591$Fv.16034@lakeread01...[color=green]
>> "Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer" wrote in message
>> news:429deabe$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...[color=darkred]
>>>I just recently learned about how outbound links can affect the total
>>>PR
>>> of a site.
>>
>> Yeah, not that much though. It all depends how much you have goin g
>> out.[/color]
>
> Quite a lot on some, though not all, pages.
>[color=darkred]
>>> I realised that most of my pages had several outbound links (several
>>> of them had more outbound than inbound), and some of
>>> them are even small webdirectories on different topics built by me.
>>
>> Do the benefits of the links help your site? Like are they related to
>> the content?[/color]
>
> Yes, all of them are. None of them are there for commercial reasons.
> (And my site is not commercial of nature even though I do some work for
> a not-for-profit Spanish school).[/color]

Then you get other benefits which sometimes is better. The outgoing links
can help with your ranking. So, I would leave them to be followed.

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

Stacey wrote:

> "Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer" wrote in message
> news:429deabe$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>[color=green]
>>I just recently learned about how outbound links can affect the total PR
>> of a site.
>
> Yeah, not that much though. It all depends how much you have going out.[/color]

I never knew linking was a 'crime'. Pages without links are poorer to the
reader because they are a narrow. Imagine yourself a paper without
citations.
[color=green]
>> I realised that most of my pages had several outbound links (several of
>> them had more outbound than inbound), and some of
>> them are even small webdirectories on different topics built by me.
>
> Do the benefits of the links help your site? Like are they related to the
> content?[/color]

I think that unrealted links should result in no PR gain to the receiver; no
penalty to the linking side...

[color=green]
>> Now I have inserted the rel="nofollow" on most outbund links, except for
>> the ones I for some reason consider "friends"
>>
>> 1. Would you consider this an unethical behaviour of me?
>
> Not really, if the links are not giving some back in return.[/color]

If your site is large enough, I think you might be throwing away valuable
time. You will be better off extending your content or adding sub-pages.

[color=green]
>> 2. Is the use of rel="nofollow" sometimes penalised by search engines?
>
> Nope.[/color]

Never should. Bear in mind that when using rel="nofollow", you prevent the
linked site from knowing about your existence and perhaps giving you
something in return.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com

Re: rel="nofollow"

"Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
news:d7kqqi$2oim$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> Stacey wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer" wrote in message
>> news:429deabe$0$18649$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I just recently learned about how outbound links can affect the total PR
>>> of a site.
>>
>> Yeah, not that much though. It all depends how much you have going out.[/color]
>
> I never knew linking was a 'crime'. Pages without links are poorer to the
> reader because they are a narrow. Imagine yourself a paper without
> citations.
>[/color]

Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related links
going out. Not good for your paper for someone wanting to read it or someone
wanting to publish it.

So, it depends on how much you have going out!

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

"John Bokma" skrev i en meddelelse
news:Xns96687D88DF5Bcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
>
> Imagine people linking to you doing this...

That is why I have left the links to "friends" as they are, but applied
the nofollow to links to larger/commercial sites or even sites that I
regard/mention as "dubious"

Mikkel

Re: rel="nofollow"

Stacey wrote:

> Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related
> links going out.

Uhm, that's not a paper, that's garbage.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: rel="nofollow"

"John Bokma" wrote in message
news:Xns966884C00CEA3castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> Stacey wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related
>> links going out.
>
> Uhm, that's not a paper, that's garbage.[/color]

Of course it is...that is why you don't want to do that. Which is why I
stated as you snipped it off. *Not good for your paper for someone wanting
to read it or someone wanting to publish it.*

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer wrote:
> "John Bokma" skrev i en meddelelse
> news:Xns96687D88DF5Bcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
>[color=green]
>>Imagine people linking to you doing this...
>
>
> That is why I have left the links to "friends" as they are, but applied
> the nofollow to links to larger/commercial sites or even sites that I
> regard/mention as "dubious"[/color]

except maybe for comments/forums nofollow is completely dumb, if the
link merits a nofollow the drop it completely.

Re: rel="nofollow"

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:20:36 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
wrote:

> I never knew linking was a 'crime'. Pages without links are poorer to the
> reader because they are a narrow. Imagine yourself a paper without
> citations.

But - if you analyze PR agorithm - every oubound link decreases
sum of your page PR's. What is more benefcial for the site is up
to you to decide.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions

Re: rel="nofollow"

Stacey wrote:

> "John Bokma" wrote in message
> news:Xns966884C00CEA3castleamber@130.133.1.4...[color=green]
>> Stacey wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related
>>> links going out.
>>
>> Uhm, that's not a paper, that's garbage.[/color]
>
> Of course it is...that is why you don't want to do that. Which is why
> I stated as you snipped it off. *Not good for your paper for someone
> wanting to read it or someone wanting to publish it.*[/color]

That's normally the point of writing a paper. And since "here" we talk
about websites, publishing is implied.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: rel="nofollow"

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:04:56 +0200, "Mikkel M?ldrup-Lakjer"
wrote:

>I just recently learned about how outbound links can affect the total PR
>of a site.
>
>I realised that most of my pages had several outbound links (several of
>them had more outbound than inbound), and some of
>them are even small webdirectories on different topics built by me.
>
>Now I have inserted the rel="nofollow" on most outbund links, except for
>the ones I for some reason consider "friends"
>
>1. Would you consider this an unethical behaviour of me?
>
>2. Is the use of rel="nofollow" sometimes penalised by search engines?

I don't imagine Teoma will be impressed. If you link to a whole lot of
sites that you think will be of value, you get kudos for being a hub
site.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: rel="nofollow"

"John Bokma" wrote in message
news:Xns96688D39294E8castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> Stacey wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "John Bokma" wrote in message
>> news:Xns966884C00CEA3castleamber@130.133.1.4...[color=darkred]
>>> Stacey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related
>>>> links going out.
>>>
>>> Uhm, that's not a paper, that's garbage.
>>
>> Of course it is...that is why you don't want to do that. Which is why
>> I stated as you snipped it off. *Not good for your paper for someone
>> wanting to read it or someone wanting to publish it.*[/color]
>
> That's normally the point of writing a paper. And since "here" we talk
> about websites, publishing is implied.[/color]

No s**t really? Post your c**p to *others* talking about a paper...or follow
the thread and stop twisting the postings around!

Stacey