if (document.getElementsByTagName) {
var aElements = document.getElementsByTagName(”a”);
for (var i=0; i

I’m gonna check it with one of my site.. Thanks a lot dude..
keep up the good work..

Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the web…….

When Google spots a condomized link, the algo tries to figure out the publisher’s intention:
- The publisher is too lazy to moderate user generated links.
- The publisher has no clue that some or all links are condomized.
- The publisher wholeheartedly disagrees with the link destination’s content, or hates its publisher.
- The publisher fell for search engine FUD and nofollow’s everything except google.com and the W3C.
- The link destination is crap.
- What else?

Next the algo looks at the publisher’s authority, editorial competence as well as trust gathered so far, and checks whether the link is somewhat related and how relevant the publisher’s textual contents are for the link destination.

Now if the link destination as well as the source page are not too dubious, none of the two is red flagged for spammy practices or has other negative signals like assumed payment for the hypervote or so on file, the algo starts to distrust the necessity of a link condom.

Of course Matt told the algo that a condomized link must not pass PageRank nor anchor text, but it’s smart. It thinks that even when it doesn’t factor in the PageRank the link could carry, nor the net power of its anchor text, it has spotted a valuable relevancy signal, so why not use it accordingly? Thus the algo scrubs words and phrases which it considers relevant to the link destination from the source page and assigns them along with a scoring to the link destination. It logs a short “bah humbug” note gibing Google’s public rel-nofollow definition and doubles the relevancy score for the phrase the publisher has put in the condomized anchor text.

The algo grins like a Cheshire cat. No harm done to the official nofollow procedure, because neither PageRank nor anchor text were passed (e.g. the link destination’s cached page copy will not show a hint like “the search term appears only in links to this page”), but mission outsmart nofollow for the sake of our search quality accomplished.

Sounds at least somewhat plausible. What do you guys think?

I have to say that the idea of nofollow links and whether or not they are in fact passing authority is probably one of the most hot topics in our field right now. I hope that it gets alot of attention at SMX west. And if you are going to be there is would be great to get a chance to meet you.

However following your idea I did a search for clueless Google Bomb. If you were right and it wasn’t picking direct anchor text we should see the page in the SERPs for other really uncompetitive terms.
Nada I’m all for another explanation and will continue to test various ideas. But thought I would throw the hand grenade into the works
p.s thanks for correcting the previous link

Think outside the box. What if your tiny link grenade worked although none of your links passed PageRank and anchor text? Google found a couple somewhat trusted pages talking about “clueless numpties” and “websearchpr dot com”. The pages on Websearchpr are not indexable and the URI’s linkpop is pretty weak, hence Google needs other signals to figure out what the heck these assclowns do (perhaps they’ve even checked the signals provided by you guys against the crawled but not indexed contents of websearchpr dot com). Like with sterile low-life directory links that some folks suspect to pass imaginary juice, or UGC mentions in sterilized SM environments, this could lead to the SERP you’ve linked. Maybe its the textual content, including condomized anchor text, not the nofollow’ed links that created Websearchpr’s relevance for “clueless numpties”?