"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e0hckd$g16$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> When discussion the NOFOLLOW, Matt commented ".. if you sell links, you
>> should mark them with the nofollow tag. Not doing so can affect your
>> reputation ..."
>> http://www mattcutts com/blog/q-a-thread-march-27-2006/
> * Google 'invent' rel="nofollow"
> * Other crawlers follow suit
> * Google require the use of rel="nofollow"
> * Google penalise for no use of rel="nofollow"
> * Without crawlers obeying the route, why would anyone buy/sell links
So rel="nofollow" should be employed with free Outbound Links too, not just
paid ones.
> Conclusion: Google created rel="nofollow" to supposedly save the world
> from
> spam. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of this mechanism should be
> addressed in its own right. Either way, has a hidden agenda has been
> revealed? Lo and behold! Google snuck in a mechanism to eradicate link
> farms
> and end manipulation of perceived site status. How convenient.
>> I don't remember reading any discussions about this. Am I'm right to
>> think
>> as reputation being something to be earned by gaining confidence and
>> credibility from the search engine? I think I can understand how
>> reputation
>> increases over time by offering the search engine and the visitor
>> continuous quality, evolving content that proves friendly to both and
>> gets
>> recommended by established web sites of similar interests.
> It's quite ridiculous if you go by the hypothesis that any exchange of
> links
> is either part of business or mutual honour. Developer builds site for
> client, then clients acknowledges with a link (=business). 'Sister site'
> finds an irrelevant site of interest and makes a recommendation, which
> might
> receive a kind, uncalled-for reward in return (=respect).
Command respect from the search engines! Get rewarded for a powerful web
presence, particularly the ones eminating from within themselves. The one
man Joe-show rides again!
>> Do I understand this correctly? Is there more to this Cuttlet that I'm
>> missing?
> Maybe it's a scare factor. Like that move they made with BMW. They could
> have
> selected a pair among a million sites to be the scapegoat. What better
> victim than vanity drivers?
I'm a shakin' in boots. Playz' to be fair ya' know.
--
in best regards,
Fred
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/
( please feel free to flame me here too )
|
|
