Google Changes Treatment of PR 'Saved' by rel=nofollow Sculpting

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

I thinks its unfortunate that Matt speaks in split tongues in just a matter of a week or so.

As a webmaster and seo that has been around since the days meta kw's were all you needed, I've been through enough of Google's strategically placed comments to know to test them....as have many colleagues that were super affiliate gamers in the states a few years back like myself, we know anything made mainstream, especially from Matt, is worth testing even harder.

So we did. 3 months ago when the doubts started surfacing.

11 sites with nofollows integrated on everything except one keyword anchor. Then we did regular ranks checks over all Google data centers (the test was in English so we could test .com, .co.uk and several other international data centers)

The rankings increased...minimally, but we only tested one theory so far.

If anyone else has tested this and found a different result I'd love to hear it.

But as far as I can see this is another case of regurgitated propoganda that everyone is using as a spotlight when they have never even questioned, tested or backed up anything they have said except to quote Matt Cutts.

Most of what SEO's say today, or those who think they are an SEO, is repetition - not fact, and certainly not tested or backed up. That takes money and plenty of resources - trust me.

Its not that difficult to test these things out for yourself and ignore what everyone else says.

Like my mother always said, "if they jumped of a bridge would you to?"

But that's just my 2 cents.

[universal4]

Gary,

Thanks for posting....and good to have more info to regurgitate....LMAO


I was hoping to see your opinion on this.
Bytheway, could you PLEEEASE recommend the proper bridge, I have heard 14 different locations now and want to make sure I am jumping off the correct one.....

Rick
Universal4

[Chalkie]

Gary,

Thanks for posting....and good to have more info to regurgitate....LMAO


I was hoping to see your opinion on this.
Bytheway, could you PLEEEASE recommend the proper bridge, I have heard 14 different locations now and want to make sure I am jumping off the correct one.....

Rick
Universal4

Dont jump of a bridge - i tried it once and i got wet! Mother gave me a clip around the ear too!

[Chips]

I am testing the theory now and will re-post back when the next go round occurs.

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

Ding Ding Ding - Yaaaaay! we have a winner !


I'll do the same on the other testing we are running as well

[Chips]

Ding Ding Ding - Yaaaaay! we have a winner !


I'll do the same on the other testing we are running as well

Should prove very interesting. The only thing we have to lose is time and [potential] money.

[casinojack]

gary, i also have done some testing, and IMo as of last week:

1 site (blog) had 20 links to i,all with the nofollow tag. This site had NO links ot it (that I created)

as of today, googles and yahoos tool shows about half these links with the link: search option.

That's one result, and we all know Matt has said that tool is not accurate, but still interesting.

One other note, the sites that have ONLY no follow compared to some or half an half, i noted MINIMAL increases, and i am not confident to say is links only...

Glad you back Gary, i like your style

[Nandakishore]

Let's say you have 5 text links on a page.

They use the anchors: blackjack, roulette, craps, slots, video poker.

By adding the no-follow tag to those links, you have just told the search engines that those links are not important enough to your visitors that they should not follow them.

Why would you want google to think that you are not providing good related links for those keywords?

Some more comments on this please.

If adding the no-follow tag to a text link or a banner tells google that the link is not important enough to my visitor, then I definitely should not no-follow any link to any affiliate program I promote, because the last thing I want to tell my visitor is that the affiliate program I have linked to is NOT IMPORTANT!

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

Let's not over-think this.

First off Google implemented no-follows to keep spammers and spamming software from posting to blogspot (their free blogs) for links, there by improving their rankings. That's it - that's all.

This was supposed to deter this type of bh technique.

Google still follows the link, but the fact that its no-followed only says that you do not endorse the landing site - and that's all.

Google does not reverse analyse it and say you aren't providing quality links.

All this recent nonsense about whether you should or should not use a certain amount of no-follows alongside your do-follows is silly, as is creating a new theory based on over thinking or giving more credit than credit is due.

No-follows say one thing - I don't endorse this site. They don't say,"I give crappy links" so my site is crap because I keep my PR, or create a penalty because you have overused it - its a simply ridiculous theory and has been tested to prove otherwise - by me!

Bottom line is folks; when Matt says something and then belly-flops the next week and give vague warnings like "...it may not do what you think it does"
Its time to test and use it because his words are dissected by their legal team, webmaster team and the engineers building the algorithms and most likely he flipped at SMX because he was told to do so - but to keep it vague enough that no one really know what he's saying. But if 8 out of 10 take it the way he really meant for it to be taken - but didn't actually say (don't use no-follows - it a secret call for the Angel of Death!!!") - well then he has done as he was told and it worked.

All I'm saying is that unless they missed my 11+ test websites or are secretly controlling what I see in my results - Its BS

This is very easy to test by the way

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

Some more comments on this please.

If adding the no-follow tag to a text link or a banner tells google that the link is not important enough to my visitor, then I definitely should not no-follow any link to any affiliate program I promote, because the last thing I want to tell my visitor is that the affiliate program I have linked to is NOT IMPORTANT!

Yes...if your visitors search your source code for nofollows or has an SEO plug-in that highlights the nofollows and dofollows then you are correct sir!

Because otherwise they will never see either and this is a senseless argument.

[universal4]

Gary,
You posted

Google still follows the link, but the fact that its no-followed only says that you do not endorse the landing site - and that's all.

So that means in my example above,

Let's say you have 5 text links on a page.

They use the anchors: blackjack, roulette, craps, slots, video poker.

I have told google I have 5 links with anchor texts pointing at sites I do NOT endorse!

And that, is a total reversal of what a gambling affiliate tells his visitors.

Rick
Universal4

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

Gary,
You posted


So that means in my example above,


I have told google I have 5 links with anchor texts pointing at sites I do NOT endorse!

And that, is a total reversal of what a gambling affiliate tells his visitors.

Rick
Universal4

What you tell Google and what you tell you visitors are two different things,

No follows tell Google you want to preserve PR (or thats what it means to Google).

The fact that you have a link to a vendor represents your endorsement because the end-user never sees nofollows or dofollows.

[Skinski]

This reminds me of that old saying..."I don't know whether to **** or go blind ! "

[pgaming]

Gary,

Curious if the using of the no follow tag improves site content to link ratio. For 500 words of content and twenty outbound links without the no follow would this not dilute content?

Also, not using the no follow tag on program links increases their serps while possible decreasing yours. For instance, the brand 888 ranks high with respect to Google for a large variety of keywords. I realize there is a multiple of reasons but what would happen if all their affiliates used the no follow. I suspect their rankings would drop while the affiliates would increase.

Although the no follow tag was not intended for this purpose, rather to combat blog spam etc… according to MATT. Accordingly the no follow tag just means the link will not receive credit. It does not mean you not endorsing the link because Google does not even consider the link to begin with.

Affiliates often link cross-link perhaps this a good example where the no follow tag should not be used. For myself the no follow tag is a very important aspect SEO. I try to use it whenever possible.

greek39

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

I agree greek39 - In many cases affiliate links are in the navigation and to an extent all the bot perse - or remember these in order to save bandwidth so they can crawl deeper - especiall Google.

I primarily use internal nofollows to funnel link juice down through to pages built for tergeting a certain term, or even better - on 'break out' terms like posh bingo that's been showing a break out rate of 3400%

It would be dificult to say if affiliates nofollowing their links would have an effect on 888 or any major players website. I think every major player in the gaming landscape 'acquires' links beyond naturally attracting them (like how I did that?) :+) even though Google is penalising the practice heavily so I would say doubtful.

Do they even pass PR through affiliate links? If they do, then why does Google treat URL strings with aff id= or typical affiliate URL's with stop characters differently, and even go as far as to tell you that hey aren't good and to use a rewrite?

Many will try using tinyurl or other tools to hide the typical affiliate ID. Masking complex URLs with redirect services like tinyurl.com or whatever doesn’t help because the crawlers get the real URL from the redirect header and will leave a note in the record of the original link on the page carrying the affiliate link.

What's best practice? I would say to use htaccess to rewrite the url, nofollow the link, and be sure you have plenty of content related to the operators landing page - and hopefully they have enough good content to enhance the scenario - at least that is what I would do.

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

Gary,

Curious if the using of the no follow tag improves site content to link ratio. For 500 words of content and twenty outbound links without the no follow would this not dilute content?

greek39

I'm not so sure there really is a content : link ratio used in the algorithms that makes that much of an impact on the SERP's of the page in this scenario. Outbound links positively affect the page - if linked out to a trusted site, and negatively if linked out to a bad site/neighborhood, and the number of outbound or internal links will dilute the amount of PR available to be passed whether internally or externally - but I haven't seen reverse engineering (as you suggest) and content to link ratio (onpage) having any influence one way or the other. If this were the case then pages with 100's of navigational links would get penalised, as well as certain directories and other well ranked sites.

Google has said over the years 'no more than 50 outbound links', but then flipped and said there is no maximum number, but they are only going to go so far, and then 'page size is no longer a real factor' and then 'a lot of outbound links may look like a directory or link farm so be careful'.

Links (both internal and external) pointing to the page in question determines the strength of the page.

Thoughts?

[GaryTheScubaGuy]

One more point - you mention that Affiliates often cross-link. If you are suggesting cross linking for PR engineering like A to B and B to A, or even A to B, B to C and C to A, I would recommend highly against this, with or without nofollows. This is seen as link farming and will get hit with a penalty -although marginal, still an avoidable negative.

[pgaming]

Awesome response Gary very appreciated. Seo I find is a very tedious process with a fair mount of uncertainties. Having you here certainly helps simplify the whole SEO process.

I am off for the weekend and look forward returning to this subject.

Thanks

greek39

[universal4]

Outbound links positively affect the page - if linked out to a trusted site, and negatively if linked out to a bad site/neighborhood

Google still follows the link, but the fact that its no-followed only says that you do not endorse the landing site - and that's all.

Google does not reverse analyse it and say you aren't providing quality links.

This means if affiliate no-follow all their affiliate links then they have a bunch of links pointing at sites they do NOT endorse.

The concepts seem to contradict each other.

Rick
Universal4

[joeyl]

I only use nofollow for noisy affiliate links. That's the best I can do for google and co, to help them build thier map of the web.

The rest of the links are clean ones, and are an endorsement of the recipient.

I'll carry on until they get thier searches to understand the above. Or until I have the time and money to go full time and test and test and test in order to attempt to reverse engineer what they are looking for at that particular time.

Cheers.