Matt Cutts is often the insider who lets us – John Q Public – know what’s going on inside the giant Google machine. He’s the one who told us that the search algorithm makes more than a change per day on average, that Google is focusing on preventing cloaking as part of its first quarter goals in 2011, and much more. His most recent Webmaster Help Video does more than make a clarification about Google, however; it encourages sites, including several major ones, to take a more “nuanced” approach to how no-follow links are utilized.
First of all, what’s a no-follow? For those who don’t understand the lingo, a “no-follow” is simply an HTML tag that’s added to any link, and which tells the search engines that the link is not one the site is intending to publicize (whether it’s because the link is a negative review, untrusted, or a paid link all being possible reasons for this). “Link architecture” experts have gone back and forth on the value of no-follow for several years, with the outmoded concept that not allowing any followed links on a page still holding some real sway in the world of modern SEO.
For that reason, many sites simply use the tag on every a href on their page, preventing any “link juice” (that is, help for the SERP position) from going to the site in question. While Cutts clarifies that sites can restrict all links to no-follow, and that no-follow still serves the same purpose it was created for, he also states that groups should try to avoid this practice.
The example Cutts uses is Wikipedia, who slaps a “no-follow” on every link. This makes a lot of sense, Cutts reminds us, since the site was being gamed with low-quality edits designed for no other purpose but adding a link. But Cutts suggests that another option may be possible, where links from specific editors, links that have stayed on the site for a specific amount of time, or links that are otherwise “trusted” receiving the appropriate acknowledgment and support in search engine ranking. Cutts’ stance, at least, seems clear: neither permitting unlimited followed links or shoving no-follows down the throats of every link provided are effective tactics, and sites should work toward creating a solid middle ground.
thanks for explaining what a no follow is on search engine journal – definitely proof that you know your audience …. wait….
@Billy Bob: My audience being exclusively SEO experts? Sorry, my bad. I was under the impression that our search engine news section was for anyone who wants to get news on the search engines. ;)
Even the “experts” don’t fully understand the ‘nofollow’ tag.
lol i truly believe that in SEO even when you know everything sometimes you don’t know a S**t… its always good to recall… Thanks Rob
It seems easy to just put nofollow on all links just to remain safe. But then if your not passing any juice you are not giving any credit. The whole nofollow dofollow debate is a huge debacle. I mean look at paid text links. Google says they are bad yet everyone under the sun buy them! Cant we figure out a better method than nofollow?
Nofollow/dofollow gives content creators the ability to choose who they want to promote (dofollow) and who they are just talking about (nofollow). Any move that encourages finer control over the often scattershot world of SEO is fine with me.
Great news.Thanks for notifying us about this Rob.I too feel that wiki can give dofollow to a number of authority web sites.
I think no-follow should be called a html “attribute” and not a tag,isn’t it?i am not sure though.you should change it if that is the case.
Something that I did pick up from Matt’s Video was that NoFollows also don’t add any value for anchor text. Up until 42nd second of his video, I thought at least I was getting SOME advantage out of nofollows.
Anyone else think that too?
Thank you for posting such article. Its great to see such eye opening post.There are still many things to learn and more surprises to come
I’m surprised Matt said (without any qualifying statement) that no follow links don’t pass any juice. My understanding (based on a number of sources) is that ‘some’ trusted sites with no follow links pass ‘some form of juice’ (perhaps similar to what Places does with citations). The words ‘trusted source’ etc. are used to describe these links. Time will tell, what this all means.
Ive been saying for some time although google/matt explains that there is no “link juice” passed with a no-follow tag, in around about way “I still believe” it holds value, I.e although its not actually “followed/counted” it may still be recognised , by recognised i mean google know its there and use it as another peace to your backlink profile , Making your backlink profile look more natural and therefore in turn giving “value” . Just my opinion. Maybe total garbage but who’s going to tell me im wrong with a reasonable explanation why this theory doesnt add up ? ;)
Do they pass on link juice or not? Maybe not today but who knows about tomorrow, twitter is nofollow but google is now saying that the links now might mean something?
SEO experts? Surely we’re all gurus? Or is that too 2009 already?
Anyway, thanks for the great article. Now I can explain to my non-SEO guru people what a no-follow link is.
Have to agree with Google’s stance on do-follow/no-follow link attributes. It’s great to have a middle ground where authority sites and quality contributors get more credit SERP-wise.
Quality content like this is just what I like to find and read when I am searching for online reading material. You’ve done great work.