Do you add rel "sponsored" to your affiliate links

[nvc]

So according to the latest Google update anyone adding aff link to their site should use the rel=sponsored tag. I saw this here.
I am using ThirstyAffiliates plugin and add nofollow to all my affiliate links.
Do you think it's good idea to add "sponsored" tag to my links? Does anybody do that?

[dannyx]

I use the same plug-in. In the free version as of now.
I use no-follow. I read about it, but for now I leave it the old way. However, I don't know if it can affect anything.

[chaumi]

I'll assume this question is because you want to do what Google say they want (and there is nothing wrong with that).

imho You'll get varied opinions on this. But (likely) none will really know the true answer, and maybe Google themselves don't really know (or really care) either.

So...just go search any gambling term...look at the affiliate sites in the top 10...and see how they've done it (right click, view source, look at the links). It's a fair bet that (until or if they change the algorithm) whatever is done now by the majority will continue to be OK.

[TheGooner]

Yes - I use rel=sponsored for direct affiliate links.

It accurately reflects the nature of the link - and given that GOOGLE is the biggest online earner on the planet from advertising they can hardly be penalising people who are making a buck from advertising (IMO).

[newcustomeroffer]

Some comment from Google on the matter on this thread: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/google-sa...up-259520.html

[PaulEchere]

I do set them as no-follow, however haven't used the sponsored tag. Same as with the thread referenced above and a couple of other places, I read that it shouldn't make a difference, so didn't do it.

[casionmark]

FYI -

Those guidelines have been in place at least since summer 2021. They are not new:

https://developers.google.com/search...nk-spam-update

[universal4]

I admit to not having changed any links over to "sponsored" and use mostly nofollow, but do folks use both sponsored and no follow tag?

Besides the disgusting practice of bots and scrapers refusing to follow directives, will removing nofollow result in even more skewed click stats due to bots etc following more affiliate links?

Rick
Universal4

[Ikasaman]

I used both sponsored tag + nofollow for external links except for external links to some authoritative sites.
I suggest you checking the google quality guideline for more details. But yes it is worth doing what google says in the guideline.

[achko]

We did tests about this -> no change whatsoever in rankings so its up to you. Personally I prefer to use nofollow, simply because I do not want to make Google`s work to identify monetarization links easier.

[CasinoComparador]

I havent added the sponsored tag, but i tried in several rankings trying to understand potential changes...

... And i havent seen any increase/decrease so far. As it's still early (2 months since i tried), i will share with you if i see any change.

P.S: from my point of view, it is not going to be a big deal and maybe we would keep the "nofollow" and nothing else.

[edgarf76]

I use no follow but I have been considering starting to add rel=sponsored to some links to see if there is any effect. I wouldn't do it sitewide right away.

[Nicole Goodwin]

At least "sponsored" sounds much clearer than "nofollow"

[universal4]

I have not started using the sponsored tag yet but have considered it.

The sad thing is even when using the nofollow tag, very few scrapers follow that directive, just like so many ignore the robots.txt

Rick
Universal4

[LowFlyingBird]

If you are buying links you want it to be "nofollow" and natural.

If it's a paid PR piece on your homepage for a temporary timeframe then I guess it makes sense to tag as "sponsored".

Not sure if Google cares much either way.

[gambler0401]

i use nofollow but i don't know about it

[Oliver Cooper]

"Sponsored" supposed to work much better in my opinion

[Nicole Goodwin]

I don't think Google cares at all. Here already the author must distinguish between these links

[BrazilTom]

I think if you are using a plugin like Thirsty Affiliates, it is better to have them as nofollow. TA cloaks the links right, so the link will look something like yourwebsite.com/goto/123casino. Then after it 301's to the tracker. As the TA link is effectively an internal link, I think it is too risky from an SEO perspective to mark it as 'sponsored', so 'nofollow' would be better.

With direct affiliate links on the other hand, I would be more tempted to go with 'sponsored'

[outreach_nätcasino]

May I ask why don't you think Google care?