What search engines, other than Google, support it?
Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled URLs, I guess it's good.
On 9 Sep 2006 11:55:50 -0700, "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What search engines, other than Google, support it?
>Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I >find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled >URLs, I guess it's good.
Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to quality sites in your genre.
Big Bill wrote: > Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the > engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to > quality sites in your genre.
Ask Google, who invented rel="nofollow" (AFAIK). It is intended to stop spam in comments etc.
> On 9 Sep 2006 11:55:50 -0700, "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What search engines, other than Google, support it?
>> Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I >> find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled >> URLs, I guess it's good.
> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the > engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to > quality sites in your genre.
The only propper way to use it is when the website linking to is merely used as an example but not trusted enough or a plain spammer.
On 9 Sep 2006 12:26:41 -0700, "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Big Bill wrote: >> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the >> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to >> quality sites in your genre.
>Ask Google, who invented rel="nofollow" (AFAIK). It is intended to stop >spam in comments etc.
Are links from your site spam? Which answers your question.
Big Bill wrote: > >> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the > >> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to > >> quality sites in your genre.
> >Ask Google, who invented rel="nofollow" (AFAIK). It is intended to stop > >spam in comments etc.
> Are links from your site spam? Which answers your question.
"KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote: > Big Bill wrote: >> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the >> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to >> quality sites in your genre.
> Ask Google, who invented rel="nofollow" (AFAIK). It is intended to stop > spam in comments etc.
And in such a failure. A lot of blogs have it on by default while the owner has no clue what it is, and what it's doing. I try to avoid commenting on blogs that have it on. I mean, they want my free input and give nothing in return.
-- John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
John Bokma wrote: > A lot of blogs have it on by default while the > owner has no clue what it is, and what it's doing. I try to avoid > commenting on blogs that have it on. I mean, they want my free input and > give nothing in return.
Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
"KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Bokma wrote: >> A lot of blogs have it on by default while the >> owner has no clue what it is, and what it's doing. I try to avoid >> commenting on blogs that have it on. I mean, they want my free input >> and give nothing in return.
> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it > for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
Didn't know that, but I can imagine in this case /a good reason/ for doing so. But blogspam? A spammer isn't going to check each blog if they use it or not. I wonder even if they in general care.
-- John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
On 9 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it >> for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
>Didn't know that,
Not 100% true. Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.
Has been mentioned in this group a long while back.
> but I can imagine in this case /a good reason/ for doing so. But blogspam? A spammer isn't going to check each blog if they >use it or not. I wonder even if they in general care.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 9 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it >>> for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
>>Didn't know that,
> Not 100% true.
Yes, 100% true, I didn't know that :-)
> Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.
Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
-- John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it >>>> for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
>>>Didn't know that,
>> Not 100% true.
>Yes, 100% true, I didn't know that :-)
I was referring to Wikipedia, rather than userpages. As I do not use wiki [but have links from them] I was unaware of a "userpage"
>> Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.
>Like KimmoA said
I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
> : User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have >nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has >a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
mea culpa. Was unaware of userpages. I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated. But what I read ages ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do. If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things to do. But I know what I read.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
John Bokma wrote: > Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have > nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has > a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
So it's bad when something is easy for once? I mean... it's not like every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote: >>Like KimmoA said
> I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-) But anyway, he had a point this time.
> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
In what way?
> But what I read ages > ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true (wiki is a concept like search engine, and wikipedia is the google amongst the wikis so to speak :-). Wikipedia decided to rule against the use of nofollow on normal pages, which is excellent, otherwise people would have been quite pissed off. At least the ones that understand the damage nofollow is doing to normal users versus the spammers.
> If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things > to do. But I know what I read.
Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.
Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up stupid things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in their own products.
Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
-- John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
"KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Bokma wrote: >> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does >> have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user >> page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
> So it's bad when something is easy for once?
No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable (afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have no problem with nofollow on those.
I do object against software that turns it on by default. I have talked to several webmasters, and they are not even aware of the issue. Yet they want people to comment to their precious blogs, adding free content. Maybe the good thing for them is that most commenters are not aware of the whole thing either.
To me a comment on a blog is someone helping your site. nofollow is trying to get a free ride. Moreover, it doesn't help against spam. There are thousands and thousands of blogs and guestbooks wide open. They are easy to find, and spammed senseless (guess).
> I mean... it's not like > every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia > to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create, and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..
-- John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>Like KimmoA said
>> I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
>Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-)
Beautiful things to have. :)
>> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
>In what way?
Its well over hyped. Wiki this, wiki that. Same way bloody blogs went. And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself. Both have their faults. But - just like the rest of the net - if it is in wiki, it must be true. :/
>> But what I read ages >> ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
>main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true
Which is why I said "not 100% true" I don't care for it much. Yes, nice layout, fairly clean looking. But its not for me, even though I have links from it. [And traffic]. So, I am not aware of userwhateveritis etc. I just remember that one wiki didn't use it, and the rest did. No big deal.
[...]
>> If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things >> to do. But I know what I read.
>Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many >wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point >is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently >added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least >the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of >other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.
Yep, won't be long before there are more wiki's than there are blogs <G>
>Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up stupid >things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in their own >products.
Too true. Like getting their search engine sorted.
>Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by >Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the >landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
John Bokma wrote: > >> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does > >> have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user > >> page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
> > So it's bad when something is easy for once?
> No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable > (afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that > escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have > no problem with nofollow on those.
Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.
> > I mean... it's not like > > every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia > > to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
> Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users > on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create, > and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..
Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts + banned URLs = perfect solution.
John Bokma wrote: > >> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does > >> have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user > >> page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
> > So it's bad when something is easy for once?
> No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable > (afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that > escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have > no problem with nofollow on those.
Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.
> > I mean... it's not like > > every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia > > to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
> Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users > on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create, > and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..
Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts + banned domains = solution.
"KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Bokma wrote: >> >> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page >> >> does have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. >> >> My user page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
>> > So it's bad when something is easy for once?
>> No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable >> (afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that >> escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I >> have no problem with nofollow on those.
> Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.
Thanks, didn't know that.
>> > I mean... it's not like >> > every Web site in the world will have their own user page on >> > Wikipedia to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it >> > and do so. :)
>> Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating >> users on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD >> to create, and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that >> price..
> Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts
Piece of cake to automate that.
> + banned URLs = perfect > solution.
Who is going to check all user pages and update that list? What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?
Oopsie...
-- John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> >>> wrote:
>>>>Like KimmoA said
>>> I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
>>Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-)
> Beautiful things to have. :)
I have been able to keep mine mostly empty for 12 years or so :-)
>>> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
>>In what way?
> Its well over hyped.
But does that make the wiki in itself overrated?
> Wiki this, wiki that.
I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also the search works way better IMO.
> Same way bloody blogs went. > And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.
You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while you mean Google :-)
> Both have their > faults. But - just like the rest of the net - if it is in wiki, it > must be true. :/
Even before the wiki that was the case. And before that, if it was in the encyclopedia it must be true. There are still biology books, I am afraid, that explains that the tongue can be devided in sections dedicated to one of the four basic tastes. Which is funny because a century or so ago a fifth taste was discovered :-D. So in short each information source has the probability to be wrong. Wikipedia at least gives you the oppurtunity to fix it.
>>> But what I read ages >>> ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
>>main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true
> Which is why I said "not 100% true" > I don't care for it much. > Yes, nice layout, fairly clean looking. But its not for me, even > though I have links from it. [And traffic]. > So, I am not aware of userwhateveritis etc. > I just remember that one wiki didn't use it, and the rest did. No big > deal.
There are probably many more, like I said: WikiMedia the software that some wikis use, turns it on by default. At least the version(s) I am using.
>>Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including >>many wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. >>The point is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's >>silently added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to >>nofollow, at least the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and >>probably plenty of other software. Clueless developers, clueless >>users.
> Yep, won't be long before there are more wiki's than there are blogs > <G>
A lot of OS projects are using Wikis. The main advantage is that if one notices a minor bug, one can update the wiki instead of trying to contact the developer, etc. Disadvantage is that one does have to create a login for a lot of wikis :-(.
>>Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up >>stupid things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in >>their own products.
> Too true. Like getting their search engine sorted.
>>Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by >>Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the >>landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
> Typical :/
Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No. Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough spammers that they will get into trouble?
-- John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
John Bokma wrote: > > Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts
> Piece of cake to automate that.
Don't interupt me in the middle of a sentence...
> > + banned URLs = perfect > > solution.
> Who is going to check all user pages and update that list? > What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?
> Oopsie...
Thanks for quoting the bad post. "URLs" should say "domains".
And no, it's not hard to keep track of.
John Bokma wrote: > >>Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by > >>Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the > >>landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
> > Typical :/
> Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still > one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could > scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No. > Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough > spammers that they will get into trouble?
"nokias.blogspot.com"? What's that? Doesn't seem to exist...
On 10 Sep 2006 04:49:24 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
>>>In what way?
>> Its well over hyped.
>But does that make the wiki in itself overrated?
It's over-rated and over-hyped.
>> Wiki this, wiki that.
>I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to >bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also >the search works way better IMO.
That's you. I am me.
>> Same way bloody blogs went. >> And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.
>You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while >you mean Google :-)
Only cos I am not familar with it. Just like mobile phones. Don't like them. Don't want nothing to do with them.
[...]
>Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still >one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could >scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No. >Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough >spammers that they will get into trouble?
I am somewhat puzzled as to why they do so little over this.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
__/ [ tonnie ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 20:32 \__
> Big Bill schreef: >> On 9 Sep 2006 11:55:50 -0700, "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What search engines, other than Google, support it?
Google has become a search engines monolith and monopolist, which extends towards a becoming part of the American (and global) oligopoly. Just like XML sitemaps, this was 'invented' by Google (unilaterally) and supported by Google. I think the W3 consortium should have gotten involved.
>>> Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I >>> find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled >>> URLs, I guess it's good.
It introduces links hierarchy and classes, which is unwanted complexity, IMH.
>> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the >> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to >> quality sites in your genre.
Valid point.
> The only propper way to use it is when the website linking to is merely > used as an example but not trusted enough or a plain spammer.
Aye. But I think that more CMS's should have an expiration rule that strips off the rel"nofollow" after some predefined period of time. Still, rel="nofollow" is no answer to curious human surfers. That's where additional issues lie and it is also the reason why comment spam is on the rise, despite the emergence of sophisticated anti-spam mechanism -- those that make commenting and reviewing an utterly miserable and repellent experience.
I can recall the day when rel="nofollow" was introduced. Some overly optimistic developers thought it was the death knell to SPAM while I took a stance.
rel="nofollow" never offered a solution. It was a bad idea from the get-go. It killed participation in Web sites (no link, no incentive), made everything more complex, and urges spammers to use greater brute force.
In a sense, Google killed participation in blogs (not deliberately). I predicted this in the item above (when rel="nofollow" was a new feature) and even Om Malik linked to that item to express consent.
|
