"Go To" links. Do they count for anything?

[PROFRBcom]

Please ignore the fact that this link is external nofollow. I do not wish to debate the merits of NF links in this post.

I have not seen a "go to" link like this in a while, but my analytics showed a couple clicks from a forum website, I tracked down the post, and looked at the code. The image above is what I found. A redirecting link.

For the sake of argument, if this link were DF, do you think it would "count" as a backlink to Google?


P.S. And yes, I am happy to get the organic traffic, regardless of the link status, as we are trying to promote this page anyway. But again, traffic or NF is not the point of the question/post, the point is, do redirecting "go to" links have value from an algorithmic/backlink/seo standpoint?

[ddm]

if this link were DF, do you think it would "count" as a backlink to Google?

yep

[TheGooner]

Probably but not definitely.

I think the Googlebot simply sees where it ends up - and then records that destination as being linked from the source.
Think of all the different ways that you can redirect - with javascript, php and html redirects - so I don't think that Google do analysis on exactly what command got them there - other than capturing any rel="" tags.

So a link through any redirect PROBABLY counts.

[universal4]

How do opinions change on this if the html, php etc embedded link sits in a file inside a robots.txt restricted folder and possibly not in the html code on the referring page?

Rick
Universal4

[baldidiot]

Probably but not definitely.

I'd go with probably as well. In theory if it's just a redirected link it should see it the way it would see any other redirect so should count. But google does weird things sometimes and plays to the beat of it's own drum so hard to know for sure.

Plus there's also other things that could come in to play - such as the goto prefix of the intermediary link being disallowed in robots.txt.

[baldidiot]

How do opinions change on this if the html, php etc embedded link sits in a file inside a robots.txt restricted folder and possibly not in the html code on the referring page?

Yeah that's what I was thinking as well. If the folder is disallowed then you'd think google wouldn't follow the redirect.

[gil.langelaan]

If it's disallowed in robots.tx than no, but if not I would count, I guess.

[Lee1]

Nope.

There's a nofollow attribute before the link.

Only benefit you get is traffic from the forum/site.

Always good to have a link from a related website, regardless of it's no or dofollow.

[Lee1]

How do opinions change on this if the html, php etc embedded link sits in a file inside a robots.txt restricted folder and possibly not in the html code on the referring page?

Rick
Universal4

Robots.txt isn't a directive. So it doesn't really matter what you put in your Robots.txt.

You don't even need a Robots.txt (at least for Google which is my sole focus) it's the meta data is a lot more important in this case.

[PROFRBcom]

Nope.

There's a nofollow attribute before the link.

Only benefit you get is traffic from the forum/site.

Always good to have a link from a related website, regardless of it's no or dofollow.

One can always tell when another didn't read the ******* post.

[Lee1]

You're absolutely right, I didn't read all of it but my answer still stands, no.

Google will ignore anything after /go? Because there is no query string.

Also, the entire link iis encoded incorrectly, I.e:

No :// on the end of the http.

Incorrect encoding with the %3A etc.

You wouldn't even need to apply a nofollow to that code shared.

[universal4]

Also, the entire link iis encoded incorrectly, I.e:

No :// on the end of the http.

Incorrect encoding with the %3A etc.

You wouldn't even need to apply a nofollow to that code shared.

%3A%2F%2F

does in fact equal

://

https://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_urlencode.ASP


Rick
Universal4

[PROFRBcom]

You're absolutely right, I didn't read all of it but my answer still stands, no.

You didn't read any of it as the first ******* sentence was "I do not wish to debate the merits of Nofollow"

Also, the entire link iis encoded incorrectly, I.e:

No :// on te end of the http.

Wrong again, had you read the post, you would have read that I saw the referrals in my analytics. If the link were not encoded properly in the manner in which you speak, it would not have ******* worked, no one would have visited my site from said page, and there would be no ******* analytics.

Please stop replying to this thread, you are adding nothing worthwhile to the discussion.

[baldidiot]

It would probably be pretty easy to test if you want to know for sure. Set up a random url on a site that isn't linked to anywhere and in any sitemaps with a string of unique text (plain html file would probably work for this). Then create a link in the style of the one in the OP on another site pointing to it.

If google ends up indexing the page then it would be a pretty good indication that it is following those links.

Not perfect as there would still be a lot of unknown variables but at least you'd know if google was capable of parsing and following them.

[gm2891]

For the sake of argument, if this link were DF, do you think it would "count" as a backlink to Google?

From the first impression, it seemed like a general question whose answer could be found on Google straight away. But I had to do a bit of research this morning as it's actually an interesting question and the best I've found is Gooner's reply above and someone else on Telegram SEO chats.

In a nutshell, most reckon there is no definitive answer because there is no 100% guarantee that Google will index every link it finds. Some say Google may count it but adding a lower value to it as if it was a normal DF link while others say it won't count at all. So it's 50/50.

Personally, I think the the same 50/50, because I have good DF links that Google simply ignores, and no matter what i do to get them indexed.