Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: rel="nofollow"

  • Subject: Re: rel="nofollow"
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com>
  • Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 05:25:54 +0100
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • References: <b_lne.24591$Fv.16034@lakeread01> <d7kqqi$2oim$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <5nmne.24593$Fv.9787@lakeread01> <Xns966884C00CEA3castleamber@> <FSmne.24595$Fv.15713@lakeread01> <Xns96688D39294E8castleamber@> <M_nne.24778$Fv.19538@lakeread01> <Xns96689F13010A5castleamber@> <ohpne.25427$Fv.6139@lakeread01> <Xns9668A67AD93BCcastleamber@> <Dssne.27279$Fv.5881@lakeread01> <Xns9668CECDB82Bcastleamber@> <nbss919obr1lavvj8fkou28uebqqd1ssd9@4ax.com>
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
SEO Dave wrote:

> On 2 Jun 2005 01:21:08 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>Stacey wrote:
>>> Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related
>>> links going out.
>>Uhm, that's not a paper, that's garbage.
>>Is this a true statement? Yes. Did you miss the smiley? Yes.
> So you say any paper with 100 non relevant links is not a paper, it's
> garbage?
> Sorry John, but even if it had 1000 links it would still be a paper
> and so your statement is false.

Okay, I followed that odd direction that this thread had taken and I can't
hold back. I must comment.

Stacey, you are taking things too personally and throw flames.

John, I agree with your opinion that non-related links are garbage. That's
the point I was making.

Dave, with your ~100,000 page, random content sites, I am not surprised that
you defend the proposition that unrelated links are fine.

Unsocial behaviour like random content and unrelated links would shatter you
in the real world. I first joined this newsgroup in order to better
understand SE's, but not to fool them or fiddle with them.


Roy S. Schestowitz

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index