Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> __/ [ tonnie ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 20:32 \__
>
>> Big Bill schreef:
>>> On 9 Sep 2006 11:55:50 -0700, "KimmoA" <kimmoa@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/05/01/google-rel-nofollow/
>
> Also of relevance:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/09/21/comment-spam/
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> http://schestowitz.com/IMG/no-nofollow-button.png
>
> 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.
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/04/23/blogs-recession/
>
> 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.
>
> http://gigaom.com/2005/04/25/business-week-blogs-and-business/
Thanks Roy, will read it later (bookmarked it now). I have plans for
ages to write down my pov, and when I do, I will link to your article as
well :-)
--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
|
|
