I use Yahoo! Site Explorer to check sites that are linking to my domain. I don't know if they are following the nofollow-rule but it seems that they list all sites, including those sites using the nofollow value, that are linking to my domain.
With Google, even those sites that they've indexed and does not use the nofollow-rule, still wouldn't show up when I tried to use link:mydomain.com :-( The only thing they list are internal links.
StarFleetJedi: Nope. Rel=nofollow just means that search engines do not count a vote for the link destination. They do follow nofollow- links (at least if the condomized link isn't the one and only link to a page) to fetch the linked page, and they do show these links in link: searches. A nofollow-link is a standard link not able to carry any weight, or reputation. It is not a negative vote, at least search engines shouldn't interpret rel=nofollow as negative vote. So in theory nofollow-links cannot harm your site, and the sole fact that a couple of your inbound links come with the nofollow label has nothing to do with the number of link: results. Nofollow-links do not influence the weight of clean links.
Instead of doing link: searches you should sign up for a Google account and register your site with the Webmaster Tools, where you get a better idea of the number of links Google knows about.
> Would nofollow tags explain the paucity of the link: advanced search > results? My link: search has absolutely no relationship to the sites I > get my referral traffic from.
ON the nofollow subject, I intend to use nofollow to hide my new site (I am doing a redesign) from the search engines, while I get it ready for launch. The new one will set on the same server, ip, and domainname as the old one, I just don't want my construction trash to get noticed until the site is all gussied up and ready to release. Is this an improper use of nofollow?
> ON the nofollow subject, I intend to use nofollow to hide my new site > (I am doing a redesign) from the search engines, while I get it ready > for launch. The new one will set on the same server, ip, and > domainname as the old one, I just don't want my construction trash to > get noticed until the site is all gussied up and ready to release. Is > this an improper use of nofollow?
Adam, let's say I believe you, but you have to keep rules of the game secret in order to maintain desirable user behaviour. As secrets stay secrets only for a while, you have to change rules from time to time. It's a big question for how long you can keep doing this - but hey, 10 years is certainly possible, more than enough time for stock options to get vested.
It would be much better if it was possible to make such game rules that you can make them public, and that they lead to a desirable equilibrium. Someone must have worked on this at Google, and I suppose you found it's not possible?
> > This is if ranking works as described in the original paper by Google founders.
> That's a big if :). Our algorithms have substantially evolved, and > are based upon FAR more than just PageRank. PR just happens to be the > most (greenly) visible.
> Overall, I'd suggest that it's very counterproductive to plan internal > linking strategies based upon perceived PR leaks. As you might have > noticed, many of the world's most successful sites link liberally to > other sites, and this sort of thing is often appreciated by and > rewarded by visitors. And if you're editorially linking to sites you > can personally vouch for, I can't see a reason to no-follow those.
> News of the death of the Web / linking / etc at 11^H^H^H^H^ is greatly > exaggerated ;)
Col, I think the way things have balanced out, it's very unlikely that the nofollowing of wikipedia links had any negative effect on your site.
Also, about being a link farm... I'd apply the smell test. If it looks to a reasonable user that you're linking indiscriminately to a ton of sites -- many in bad neighborhoods -- that's not gonna bode well for your site. But on the whole, we know lots of Webmasters like linking to their favorite sites (and users appreciate this); think blogrolls :). So it's not something we frown on by default.
Jefflaw and Col, thank you for your kind words about my speaking and writing! I'm really doing my best to learn as much as I can as I go along; this is my first job ever in which I've been asked to speak in front of large groups, for instance, and it's been a great experience for me.
wreilly -- nofollow links aren't listed any differently than other links in our Webmaster Tools backlinks section.
[email address], confirming Sebastian's note, nofollow tags don't affect the link: results, and his recommendation that you do link checking within Webmaster Tools is a good one.
On the whole, while Matt's been pretty forthcoming and descriptive, I do think we Googlers on the whole can do a better job in explaining and justifying nofollow, and I'll try my best here and at conferences and such :)
Lastly, Mario_V, if I understand you correctly, you're urging us at Google to be more transparent... less secretive... more open with how things work, right? If so, I think you'll be pleased at our movement in this area over the next quarters, particularly with Webmaster Tools. We're aiming to show more and more valuable, actionable info, and I have a ton of faith in our Webmaster Tools team :).
Adam, what is Google's take on extending the nofollow functionality by working out a microformat that covers the existing mechanism w/o being that unclear and confusing, and which takes care of similar needs like section targeting on element level and qualified votes as well? Thanks Sebastian http://sebastianx.blogspot.com/ (related posts)
> Col, I think the way things have balanced out, it's very unlikely that > the nofollowing of wikipedia links had any negative effect on your > site.
> Also, about being a link farm... I'd apply the smell test. If it > looks to a reasonable user that you're linking indiscriminately to a > ton of sites -- many in bad neighborhoods -- that's not gonna bode > well for your site. But on the whole, we know lots of Webmasters like > linking to their favorite sites (and users appreciate this); think > blogrolls :). So it's not something we frown on by default.
> Jefflaw and Col, thank you for your kind words about my speaking and > writing! I'm really doing my best to learn as much as I can as I go > along; this is my first job ever in which I've been asked to speak in > front of large groups, for instance, and it's been a great experience > for me.
> wreilly -- nofollow links aren't listed any differently than other > links in our Webmaster Tools backlinks section.
> [email address], confirming Sebastian's note, nofollow > tags don't affect the link: results, and his recommendation that you > do link checking within Webmaster Tools is a good one.
> On the whole, while Matt's been pretty forthcoming and descriptive, I > do think we Googlers on the whole can do a better job in explaining > and justifying nofollow, and I'll try my best here and at conferences > and such :)
> Lastly, Mario_V, if I understand you correctly, you're urging us at > Google to be more transparent... less secretive... more open with how > things work, right? If so, I think you'll be pleased at our movement > in this area over the next quarters, particularly with Webmaster > Tools. We're aiming to show more and more valuable, actionable info, > and I have a ton of faith in our Webmaster Tools team :).
That is encouraging news. While Google's Webmaster Tools is a great concept, it has not helped me determine why one of my sites has dropped to the last page of Google's results and has not recovered for several months. I would like to see Google's Webmaster Tools provide warnings of penalties/filters that have caused a significant decrease in a site's ranking. It would be a tremendous help to webmasters who have no idea why their sites have essentially disappeared from Google's results.
> On the whole, while Matt's been pretty forthcoming and descriptive, I > do think we Googlers on the whole can do a better job in explaining > and justifying nofollow, and I'll try my best here and at conferences > and such :)
> Lastly, Mario_V, if I understand you correctly, you're urging us at > Google to be more transparent... less secretive... more open with how > things work, right? If so, I think you'll be pleased at our movement > in this area over the next quarters, particularly with Webmaster > Tools. We're aiming to show more and more valuable, actionable info, > and I have a ton of faith in our Webmaster Tools team :).
Sebastian, nothing's set in stone. Stuff is likely to evolve :).
PC, I totally get where you're coming from on this, and though I'd offer to share your thoughts with my colleagues on Webmaster Tools, I know they're already on the same page. It's our goal to show more stuff over time, and I think your idea of offering proactive information/warning is a good one (albeit challenging to implement without some precogs and Tom Cruise).
You've seen our Webmaster Tools moving forward pretty quickly, and I think that'll continue.
> Sebastian, nothing's set in stone. Stuff is likely to evolve :).
> PC, I totally get where you're coming from on this, and though I'd > offer to share your thoughts with my colleagues on Webmaster Tools, I > know they're already on the same page. It's our goal to show more > stuff over time, and I think your idea of offering proactive > information/warning is a good one (albeit challenging to implement > without some precogs and Tom Cruise).
> You've seen our Webmaster Tools moving forward pretty quickly, and I > think that'll continue.
Sorry for being away for so long, planning a massive party (I'm turning 40 on Monday, but still have my own hair and teeth) and have completely lost track of time.
Adam, Many thanks again for all of your input on this thread. I still have no idea how Google works and therefore have just given up making pages with big hits in mind. Have downgraded my activity to fun sites nowadays ( i.e. http://www.tubbybuddha.com/sounds/index.htm ) and find this much better for the old blood presssure ;-)
I feel that search engine results today are too commercially crammed and would rather let a site develop like they did in the old days ... gradually. Probably my age.
