What is the meaning and value of a "noopener ugc nofollow" link?

[pgmath]

I am asking this as a non-expert in code and SEO: What is the meaning of the "noopener ugc nofollow" value of the rel tag of a link? Are nofollow links of several types and what types have greater or lower SEO value? Or are they all treated by Google in the same way with respect to their SEO value? Thanks.

[baldidiot]

noopener = stops links opened in a new tab from modifying the previous page (ie: with javascript)
ugc = user generated content
nofollow = don't count this link

[chaumi]

A nofollow is a nofollow. The other stuff is just instructional.

But as to how they are treated?

Google will say that nofollowing a link is basically an instruction to them to ignore it. So you can infer from that that it has zero SEO value.

But that would be too simplistic a conclusion.

The reality is that no one knows how much SEO value a nofollow link has (or, indeed, the same applies to many dofollow links).

Logically, a link is a vote for a page. At the basic root of the concept of linking on the internet, it's an indicator that the linked destination has value (to the linker and anyone that may be reading).

So, why wouldn't it have some SEO value?

Well, we know that some links are not placed for reader-enlightening reasons. So, if a nofollow is applied there, it makes sense. Equally, some sites (like Medium, as an example) might not want to be used by people 'spamming' them for links (I'm not inferring everyone that uses Medium does that, but you know what I mean) so some of them (I'm guessing, they might have some other 'legit' reasons, too) nofollow their links to put off those that are likely to 'abuse' them (or, perhaps, because they mistakenly think that having dofollow links out from their pages somehow hurts them).

But what's the point of nofollowing something that's in content and clearly intended to offer value to the reader. Arguably, there is none.

My suspicion (just a theory, no proof other than logical thought) is that Google can tell (largely, but with some limitations) what nofollow links are really worth them noticing and which aren't.

If that's correct, then clearly it would make sense for any webmaster looking for links to at least not turn down the opportunity of a nofollow link (especially from an authoritative page).

That's partly irrelevant anyway. Because any webpage wants some diversity in its inbound links. You have to think- if a page was left entirely to age and pick up organic links without any other 'work' to attract them, then naturally any links it did attract would be mixture of dofollow and nofollow.

That's what's known as a natural link profile (in addition to those links coming from a range of sources). That diversity (and no one knows the 'ideal' percentage distribution/split, if there is one) is the expected natural state. Theoretically, if you have a lop-sided collection of one or the other, that might be seen as unnatural.

*************************


Where this is all relevant to you and I think what's behind the line of your questioning, pgmath, is...

What happens - for those of us that are not xyz1.com, xyz2.com, xyz3.org and aside from those who just don't play the link game - we have to go looking. and where that 'looking' involves a payment, there's a natural (and understandable) reluctance to pay for a nofollow when there are plenty of opportunities to pay for a follow.

For those webmasters that are pulling plenty of income, and treat linkbuilding as a necessary business expense, you'll probably find they're less worried about paying for a nofollow (though likely only if it's on a page associated with an authoritative site). For those on a budget, they're much more likely to avoid paying for a nofollow link with the risk/uncertainty that it'll do nothing for their money.

[pgmath]

The main principle under we make tons of discussions about SEO is that SEO is not exact science (and, chaumi, you have sustained that in most of your SEO-related posts). In fact, there is exact science (algorithms), but it is not for us just because Google keeps it secret, leaving us to guess it and trying all kind of strategies for this game. Another general principle is that linking should be as natural as possible for leading to positive effects (and it’s one entailing that ‘Content is king’ and not linking). But can we be sure that what we mean by ‘natural’ is reflected in the same way in Google algorithms? Take the case of the nofollow links. There are the sites hosting the texts with their links who setup the nofollow attribute for the posts and not Google (for the reasons mentioned by chaumi). The link itself is a vote for the target site, but with respect to the context (topic) and its author. Sometimes it’s not a vote, but an extension of the content for space or aesthetical reasons. But let’s say it’s just a mere vote. Such vote means a choice from the author – among plenty of other alternatives, the author chooses one, per their personal criteria, knowledge, or even interests. The author has the right to do this. Don’t you think that the author should also be the “king” and not only the content have they provided? Shouldn’t be the author also included in the equation of the SEO value of their links and not by any expertise, but by their mere status of author? Coming back to the nofollow links, the author will always treat their links as “do follow”, but the sites hosting their texts put the label “nofollow” on them, actually as a prevention action, suggesting that it might be spammy, no-value, etc. Readers will follow the author’s link and not the site’s suggestion, whatever the authority of the site. This is the natural way, but if the nofollow attribute is only for Google and Google counts it, then it is just formal and Google breaks that naturalness.
From this perspective, nofollow=dofollow as value in the natural condition (where the authority is given to the author and not to the host) and if this is not true for the SEO value with respect to Google algorithms, then the naturalness is not reflected in those algorithms. It may sound too idealistic and non-practical, but it submits to the general principle of “guessing” what the exact Google science of SEO is.

[bpmee]

If I was offered a free or low-cost nofollow from a NyTimes.com article or BBC.com article I would take it in a heart beat over a $850 dofollow from a sketchy DR80 expired PBN domain.

As others have indicated, someone will nofollow a link for various reasons: technical, anti-spam, or various site policies. That doesn't necessarily mean the link is counted as useless.

I think "nofollow" is a signal that is taken more or less seriously depending on the context AND site, and more often than not, the link will be ignored or its value discounted. There are times when it can help, though.

[universal4]

Punctuation, sentence structure and paragraphs count too.

Rick
Universal4

[PROFRBcom]

If I was offered a free or low-cost nofollow from a NyTimes.com article or BBC.com article I would take it in a heart beat over a $850 dofollow from a sketchy DR80 expired PBN domain.

As others have indicated, someone will nofollow a link for various reasons: technical, anti-spam, or various site policies. That doesn't necessarily mean the link is counted as useless.

I think "nofollow" is a signal that is taken more or less seriously depending on the context AND site, and more often than not, the link will be ignored or its value discounted. There are times when it can help, though.

I too would love to get a link from NYT, BBC, WAPO, CNN, CNBC, ABC, Bloomberg, etc etc etcetera! I wouldn't care if it were NOFOLLOW at all. Those links would have power. Now, I see some people scam selling links on subdomains of reputable sites. As far as I know, Google still treats subdomains as entirely different websites, so getting a link from BBC.com is great, but getting one from SomeStupidSubDomain.BBC.com doesn't really have much value at all... but there are people out there charging 4 figures for such links!


I personally think the NOFOLLOW tag is treated as a suggestion, but is not law.

I believe that if readers of an article are actually clicking a link to an external website, going there, and reading it, that Google and other search engines see that and give the link value despite the NF tag.

[bpmee]

Agree 100% about subdomains.

nytimes.com/news/debate-about-online-gambling Article/Nofollow = Good

junkclassifieds.nytimes.com/random/asdlkjasdflkjsaf 3 Sentences/Nofollow = Bad*

* - Unscrupulous link sellers are offering these links as a hook for their services. I've consulted for other businesses that think $500 for a FT subdomain is a steal, then they realize it's completely useless and wasted money. Buyer beware.