Comments on: How to handle a machine-readable pandemic that search engines cannot control

By: aimClear’s 2009 Daily Training Link Library » aimClear Search Marketing Blog

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:30:50 +0000

[…] NoFollow Funeral Party […]

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:40:41 +0000

Daniel, although Google can and does interpret JavaScript to some extent, especially onclick trigger code, I consider “strong links” safe (of course you can abuse any other X/HTML element allowed within a P element too). By avoiding the A element the “linking” site makes perfectly clear that it doesn’t vouch for the link. I assume that Google doesn’t count such artificial links in their link graph. Also, the “strong link” is in fact a client sided redirect, equivalent to a 302 HTTP response code. Thus, even when counted in any way, Google should index the issuing URI. Of course all that is theory, and HTML5 providing proper syntax for such stuff will shredder it once the engines will have completely implemented HTML5.

As for cloaking, the answer is no. Of course technically that’s cloaking, but not deceptive cloaking in the lines of search engine quality guidelines. Usually I would quote some search engine policies to back up my allegation, but I’m kinda sick of search engines trying to rule the Web. Therefore, inspired by Edward, I’ll bring my point home by calling a higher instance, the W3C:

Content is “equivalent” to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user [emphasis mine]. In the context of this document, the equivalent must fulfill essentially the same function for the person with a disability (at least insofar as is feasible, given the nature of the disability and the state of technology), as the primary content does for the person without any disability. For example, the text “The Full Moon” might convey the same information as an image of a full moon when presented to users.

Well, a search engine crawler’s disease is that it’s just another algo faking a human user. As long as robots aren’t more savvy than humans, there’s nothing wrong with feeding them with what they can actually digest, instead of the real and high sophisticated stuff aiming at a human audience.

A search engine shouldn’t penalize a site for user agent optimization. There’s not much difference to serving browser optimized code and contents as well. So, as said before, my suggestion is not meant to get implemented across the boards, but it’s quite safe with the engines. The real shame is, that search engines force webmasters to bother with their faulty algos at all.

By: Daniel Martin

Daniel Martin — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:47:56 +0000

Hmm, I agree with most of this, but I have some worries.

First of all, you hack together your own nofollow link using strong. Given that Google seems to be able to interpret javascript to some extent is this a good idea? Might it be considered spammy? What is wrong with using a nofollow link in this case?

Secondly, you suggest that people redirect GoogleBot away from forums and guestbooks etc… Is this not a form of cloaking? Could you not get penalised for this?

Interesting article though…

By: Michael Thomas

Michael Thomas — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:07:43 +0000

I thought no follow links were so we don’t lose any valuable link juice??

By: Spamming Assclown

Spamming Assclown — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:44:58 +0000

I completely agree with your point that all blogs should become moderated ones and should be do follow, which would keep spammers in the bay and help people who chip in with quality comments. It should be a win-win game isn’t it?

[Unlinked “Yuva_payday@moerpoundstillpayday.co.uk” spamming me from 203.76.139.118. The same goes for Joan Loan, Ben Mortgage and the whole McViagra family as well. Don’t bother.]

By: I Guess We Are A Dofollow Blog Again (Sort Of…) | Hobo

I Guess We Are A Dofollow Blog Again (Sort Of…) | Hobo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:28:12 +0000

[…] Andy Beard comments too here – Pageranks Sculpting & Blog Comments and another of my favourite bloggers, Sebastian, pipes in with this gem – http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/rip-rel-nofollow-funeral-party/ […]

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:52:55 +0000

Timo, of course you know that’s not true. Blog comment spammers don’t care whether you condomize their links or not.

By: Melanie Prough

Melanie Prough — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:12:17 +0000

Your blog post tag is an excellent idea…. I was a bit curious so I played around with it a bit and found that it can even be made valid by using a pre or similar old school tag.

You know, in case I link to some who is my worst enemy =-)

By: The Weekly Insider 6-22-09 to 2-26-09

The Weekly Insider 6-22-09 to 2-26-09 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:18:25 +0000

[…] How to handle a machine-readable pandemic that search engines cannot control […]

By: Timo

Timo — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:38:47 +0000

Hmmm I still feel much better using the nofollow tag in my blog. It definitely deters people from spamming me. It also saves me a lot of work when moderating comments.