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

Re: Contemplating a Cuttlet

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 

>> 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,
( please feel free to flame me here too ) 

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