Internet Marketing with Josh SpauldingMaking Money through Ethical Internet Marketing.

63 comments

1. Wesley Atkins (1 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:50 pm 

   I would take the comments made my Matt Cutts with a pinch of salt. It would not be the first time he has mislead the SEO’s of this world.

2. Mark Mason (65 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:50 pm 

   Josh — I think this also means that we need to think about affiliate links. Now, I think people should cloak their affiliate links with URLs that point back to their own domain and DOFOLLOW them. Then at least the authority will count as a link back to the domain (I think). So, a link like ez-onlinemoney.com/recommends/foo.htm should be followed now.

   What do you think about that?

3. Aisling (4 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:51 pm 

   That’s startling. I’m going to rethink how readily I link to others. I used to add links as time permitted. I mean, why not…? Now there’s a very good reason not to, unless it’s the kind of resource that my readers will think, “Oh, I remember seeing the link at one of Aisling’s websites.”

   Thanks for this info… useful!

4. free online virtual worlds (1 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:52 pm 

   Hi Josh,

   That’s a very good post. I’ve been mulling over this too for some of my sites and viola, here’s the answer!

   Thanks for the answer and insight

   Aldric

5. bum marketing plan (1 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:52 pm 

   It just does not make sense why the would do that??? It really punishes good sites and blogs like yours that have worked to gain a following???

   Although i bet some of the commenting tools had something to do with it, my blogs get spammed a ridiculous amount of times in a day with comments!

   Thanks,

   Darin

6. Aisling (4 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:52 pm 

   P.S. After posting this, I saw Mark’s earlier comment. Good question, Mark!

7. Antone Roundy (3 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:56 pm 

   Matt goes on to say:

   “Q: Okay, but doesn’t this encourage me to link out less? Should I turn off comments on my blog?
   A: I wouldn’t recommend closing comments in an attempt to “hoard” your PageRank. In the same way that Google trusts sites less when they link to spammy sites or bad neighborhoods, parts of our system encourage links to good sites.”

   So yes, all those outbound links reduce the PageRank score of your site’s pages. But you get something in return. Google uses over 200 factors to determine your position in search results. PageRank is but one. Whatever points they give you for outbound links (at least if they’re not to bad places) are another.

   Matt’s comment implies that the benefit of good outbound links is greater than the cost of the PageRank lost to them.

8. David Everett (2 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 3:58 pm 

   If Google changed this a year ago and have only just got around to broadcasting it, makes you wonder what else is different that they haven’t told us about.

   I guess Google’s algorithm will remain what it has always been – a mystery.

9. Susan (3 comments.)
   19th June, 2009 at 4:00 pm 

   Hi Josh,

   I sure heard about this but havent tested it out per say.

   Seeing the authority person its coming from and from your own sites’ drop, I see no point in settign up a site just for the experiment.

   But to be honest, it’s ridiculous to say the least. At one point the big-g wanted and wants you to offer great content and resources for your site visitors which may involve linking out to other online properties but on the other, its shooting you in the foot for doing it.

   My important sites never have too many out going links but I encounrage people to comment on the blogs. That’s what they’re for – interaction.

   Thank you for the clarification

   Susan

10. Make Money With Adsense (2 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:05 pm 

    Josh,

    I don’t think you have to worry about an active site losing authority. If that were so, Yahoo.com and FOXNEWS.com and others would sink like stones in the ratings and that just will not happen.

    TomG.

11. Tonya B. (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:10 pm 

    Hi Josh,

    I read that article from Matt Cutts as well. It’s an interesting problem to solve. There was more information in that article as well – specifically regarding how Google “counts” the whole page in it’s ranking algorithm. My interpretation on this is that when a site page links to another site page, if the site it links to has authority and is not considered a “junk” site, it counts toward the value of the page that contains the outbound link. It’s not *authority* but is one of the elements that Google uses to evaluate the value or ranking of a page. Here’s a quote on this:

    “In the same way that Google trusts sites less when they link to spammy sites or bad neighborhoods, parts of our system encourage links to good sites.”

    I noticed the same thing you did – my sites and pages were dropping and couldn’t figure out why. I *personally* found that some of the pages I had that I hadn’t added the rel=”nofollow” to for outbound links (mainly affiliate links) were actually doing better than the ones that had the nofollow!!

    (The internet is an interesting thing to try and keep up with!)

    My solution for this whole ordeal is to concentrate more on quality for the visitor and not put much attention on where the links are going *out* and making sure I get plenty of links coming in.

12. Bob Blick (2 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:11 pm 

    It’s one of the reasons I am glad to see any new search engines come out, such as Bing.com. Google is way too undependable anymore and doesn’t really seem to have much respect for webmasters.

13. Rich Hill (5 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:16 pm 

    Josh,
    Google makes my hair hurt. We always clamor for comments and now maybe that is not a good thing. as far as internal linking I don’t see why they think that is an item that they should punish. I use internal links as a way to steer my readers to items I think they will like. Did not know it had anything to do with authority value, but will have to reconsider now.
    Of course that is just their policy du-jour. After they realize that it was an idiotic idea they will just change it and wait another several months to let us know.
    Grumble.

14. Vitaly (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:18 pm 

    I’ve actually been advocating against internal nofollowing for quite some time for different reasons. Make good content and let the algorithm come to you, don’t try to come to the algorithm.

15. Josh Spaulding
    19th June, 2009 at 4:27 pm 

    @ Mark – I don’t know that it would matter. As long as it’s redirecting to an affiliate link the only page that will receive the backlink is the actual redirecting page. So if you redirect masonworld.com/recommends/poop/ (fictional page I think?) masonworld.com won’t get a backlink, just masonworld.com/recommends/poop/ which isn’t going to do you much good unless for some VERY odd reason, that redirect URL somehow gets ranked in Google, which I’ve seen happen before, but not very often and I believe that case was due to a bug in Google.

    @ Antone – Of course there are other factors. But you also have to realized Matt is biased in regards to Google. What it comes down to is this: Before webmasters had more control, not Google does. That’s why this change was made. The rel=”nofollow” attribute was AWESOME the way it could be worked before, but for whatever reason they didn’t like what some people were doing with it, so they took it from all of us.

    @ Tom G – It’s a fact. That’s why they split their comments up into different pages. They are indeed losing authority that could have been retained. But that user interactivity is more valuable.

    @ Tonya – Alot of valid points, but not really what’ I’m trying to get at here.

    @ Vitaly – It used to be an EXCELLENT tool until this change was made. Why would you advocate against something that is good?

16. Angie Berg (17 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:34 pm 

    Interesting. I only started using the ‘nofollow’ attribute about a year ago. I haven’t really noticed much difference in my PR either way (it’s never been over 4 on some of my sites).

    In the end I decided to do what I could, within reason, to build a search engine friendly site, and then do what makes sense for my site visitors.

    This way, I just don’t stress over the constant changes that Google or anyone else makes.

    I suspect that quality and relevance are going to win out in the end, and my time is probably better spent creating more of that quality content.

17. Rolf The Finn
    19th June, 2009 at 4:51 pm 

    Hi Friends,

    I just don’t get it!

    Google is big business and they are out there to give the customers accurate information quickly and easily.

    So why would they start punishing as long as the links are relevant in all aspects?

    I have to meditate on this …:)

    Best wishes

18. Siteradical (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:54 pm 

    Google controls the world – for now. They and any software developer (online or otherwise) is simply a step or two away from being the preferred method to being lost to time. It’s often just a matter of time. Look at Atari or Sega as a good example of this.

    They exist only one breathe ahead of public favor or disfavor. I think one day Google may go too far.

    All that being said, as a service overall they offer some good products. I personally wish they were a little more helpful when it came to letting us know what works for them, but there are certainly logical reasons why they keep things mysterious.

    It just seems cruel sometimes to hear about something like this, where certain situations are created due to possible changes Google has made that affect those who are simply doing things the way that they should be.

    You would think they would have the courtesy to let people know when they are thinking of crushing businesses and incomes that are based on their service, but Google certainly does not have an outstanding perceived record of customer service, so this is expected, I suppose.

    Just a statement of my own disappointment with Google’s services in this regard. It reminds me of religion…amazingly vague for something considered so important by so many.

    My opinion only…

19. Bill Hartzer (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 4:57 pm 

    Have you even considered that Google might be “following the traffic” and changing the value of a link depending on how much traffic a page is getting? As the traffic dies down on a page that links to you, then they might also be de-valuing the links on that page, whether or not they’re nofollow links.

20. John (3 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 5:14 pm 

    So is the answer to have a lot of internal linking to other pages in your own site? Have maybe one page on your site that has major outgoing links? Is it to cross link to other sites you have, thereby sharing your own rise and fall of authority?

21. Steph (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 5:15 pm 

    Very interesting…I’m still new to learning how to set up a site. I had thought that no follow was a good idea to avoid linking to bad neighborhoods – I guess that will continue to be the case, but our real links won’t get any extra boost! I wonder what they’ll decide to change in a few more months..

22. An Expert Marketer in Mesa, AZ (2 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 5:32 pm 

    Good thing you can still use javascript to cloak links. document.write(‘your link here’);

    I agree though – best to design a page that doesn’t chase google results, just make the page so it serves the intended audience.

23. Charlie (3 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 5:47 pm 

    Trying to outsmart Google is a thankless and probably wasteful pursuit.

    The bottom line, in my view, is that if you look after your visitors, Google will look after you.

24. Kris (3 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 5:49 pm 

    Of course, this begs the question – how many links is too many? I know it depends on the site, but I put links on my main pages so people can find the content they need. Now I need to determine if I need to remove some of them. Thanks big G, for your ever changing algo that we all have to chase

25. Andy Beard (24 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 5:56 pm 

    There are too many other factors to really pin down that your use of nofollow caused the problems.
    Also remember you changed a lot of other things over that time, and the dropped rankings for MMO happened well before Google made this change.

    Just an example of indicators, the reduced growth in backlinks, which also had a different keyword focus
    http://www.majesticseo.com/search.php?q=http%3A%2F%2Fez-onlinemoney.com

26. Todd Morris (2 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 6:07 pm 

    Hi Josh,

    I think part of the problem, and probably a reason for this change, is people not understanding how and when to properly use nofollow “ethically”.

    There are a whole lot of people out there (granted, mostly folks who don’t know any better, but also many who should), who had gotten into the habit of slapping “rel=nofollow” on to practically Every outgoing link on their site. This defeats the purpose …

    For example: If you write a blog post about “red widgets”, and include a link to an informative wikipedia article, but nofollow it “because they don’t need the pagerank”; while at the same time including a followed link to your own 167 word blog post about “blue widgets”; you’re not saying anything about Trust …. you’re merely trying to manipulate the search results.

    … and probably violating Google’s TOS.

    As for the comments issue, did you read this post from Andy Beard’s blog?

    http://andybeard.eu/1904/disqus-why-95-of-bloggers-should-switch.html

    Might be a reasonably good short term answer for a lot of us.

    Todd

27. Rahman Mehraby 4 SEO Services (4 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 6:27 pm 

    Maybe the best will be to keep the balance in the number of outgoing links and add them when absolutely necessary. Instead, play more by the rules of the game.

    Like it or not, we have to play by Google’s rules. So, why not going on participation in the discussions we like and contribute by posting useful points at other blogs while retaining more helpful links to our sites?

28. Nate @ thewaythatyouwander (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 7:08 pm 

    Very useful post as usual. This is really interesting and you are right about your last statement. It certainly does seem that this whole idea of authority should be the other way around.

29. Mike Collins (15 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 7:22 pm 

    Josh, is this going to change your own philosophy of internal linking? Maybe we SHOULDN’T nofollow our contact, about, and privacy pages after all. If we dofollow them we’ll at least be keeping the authority within our site and we can redirect it to some extent. But using nofollow means the authority that would have gone to them would all be lost. What’s your opinion?

30. The Mad Webmaster (3 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 7:27 pm 

    Josh,

    I don’t often disagree with you but this sounds like the duplicate content scare from years ago.

    I just don’t see the proof in loss of authority by linking out with the use of “no follow”.

    How could sites like “ezine articles” still maintain such high page rank with tens of thousands of outgoing links?

    I would take this article with a grain of salt until I saw a little more proof on this one.

    All the best,
    Paul

31. Anna (5 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 7:50 pm 

    I agree with:

    “So yes, all those outbound links reduce the PageRank score of your site’s pages. But you get something in return. Google uses over 200 factors to determine your position in search results. PageRank is but one. Whatever points they give you for outbound links (at least if they’re not to bad places) are another.

    Matt’s comment implies that the benefit of good outbound links is greater than the cost of the PageRank lost to them.”

    I also agree with:

    “How could sites like “ezine articles” still maintain such high page rank with tens of thousands of outgoing links?”

    Google uses many more factors than page Rank and outgoing links to determine authority and rankings.

    I am sure that the number of comments on a blog increases its authority more than decreases it and that Google looks at comments as a good sign. In fact I think Charles Heflin tested this a while ago and found it to be the case.

    Furthermore, like you said, it would be dumb to decrease the site’s authority just because the site receiving numerous comments. I think Google thought of that too, don’t you? Google is not that dumb! There is a lot more to the algorithms than just this one point.

    I think people get too much into the complexities of trying to beat the search engines than just trying to provide what the search engines want – good content that people like and read, interactivity, a good site structure, etc.

    Its important to know the mechanics, but whenever there is a choice between chasing mechanics versus just making a better blog, I always go after the latter.

    Google rewards sites that do that as well. That’s why algorithms are kept confidential to a large degree, and that’s why high-quality sites rank well in the end. Which is also why Google is the most highly used search engine.

    I also think its good for bloggers and SEOs to understand this point. In fact, it might prevent the overuse of the nofollow tag by people who really would vouch for another site, but avoid doing so because they don’t want to lose Page Rank. This means the other site doesn’t get the credit it should have, for having good quality content that people want to link to. Which makes Google’s system of judging a site by its back links less functional.

    So from that viewpoint I think its a good thing – I wouldn’t want someone to link to my site because they like my content, but then add a nofollow because they are concerned about their own Page Rank.

32. Marc Rodill (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 7:54 pm 

    Hey Josh,

    I don’t think that this is that big of a deal. And @Mike, according to the article he wrote, you wouldn’t follow the links because then you’ll be passing 2 points of PR to the policy page, taken from your page linking to it.

    If you leave them no follow, you’ll just lose 1 point from your landing page instead of passing 2.

    So yeah, you’re still in the best situation, like I said, according to this post.

    But here’s what I want to know about the whole thing… isn’t it true that linking out to authority sites gives your site more authority?

    So shouldn’t you just link out to the most authoritative resource you can find on your subject matter? It’s all about the content though… if the content sucks then they won’t link back to you while you are building your links.l

    THAT’S what Google is after… quality linking to quality. After all, that is the real way that “popularity” works in the real world.

    –
    Marc

33. Cat
    19th June, 2009 at 8:07 pm 

    I’m not going to worry about this, and will continue to add any and all outgoing links that I think will be useful for my visitors. My main site has a large directory section with lots of outgoing links (and new ones being added regularly), and I think it’s a helpful resource for visitors. I’m certainly not going to change any of that just for Google. (I might try deleting the no-follows on my affiliate link redirect pages however, since they’re on my domain).

    I agree with the earlier comment about PR just being one of many factors that affect ranking. I’d rather carry on focusing on providing whatever content will be most helpful to my visitors (including external links if appropriate), than spend all my time trying to second-guess the search engines.

    Plus (conspiracy theory hat on here), I’m not 100% convinced that we are hearing the whole truth here. After all, it’s not really in Google’s interest to give too much away about their algorithm, and I wouldn’t put it past them to leak a bit of misinformation here & there. Could be wrong of course, but either way, it’s business as usual here, unless something horrible happens to my rankings!

34. Josh Spaulding
    19th June, 2009 at 8:24 pm 

    @ Rolf – They aren’t really punishing, they’re just taking away something that was good for responsible webmasters.

    @ Bill – I’m sure that’s one of the many things they look at.

    @ John – Have a good internal linking structure is always a good idea!

    @ Charlie – This post isn’t about trying to “outsmart google” but you make a good point.

    @ Kris – I would only link out if it’s really, truly going to help the visitor. If it’s negotiable whether or not it’s helping the view, I wouldn’t link out.

    @ Andy – In the case of the root of this site and it’s ranking for MMO, I do believe that is what caused it. The main rankings dropped about a year ago. I’m still glad I did it, I just wish I would have known about this earlier

    @ Todd – You’re probably right and I’ll be the first to admit I was one who did this

    @ Mike – Yes, absolutely! I’ll limit my use of the rel=”nofollow” attribute a great deal and it will have nothing to do with my own internal linking.

    @ Paul – You would need to understand how pagerank/authority flows through sites in order to understand what is happening. It’s not a theory, it’s fact. Feel free to disagree though, nothing wrong with that

    @ Anna – Matt is also bias as a Google employee. Yes, there are other factors, but my main point is that we can no longer use it to control our own authority, which was definitely a benefit to responsible webmasters.

    Regarding sites like EzineArticles maintaining their authority, once again, you would need to understand how authority flows from page to page. Once you understand that you’ll understand what I’m talking about. It’s not theory, it’s fact.

    @ Marc – Whether or not you get authority by linking to high-authority sites is negotiable… there is no proof of it. If it is true it can’t be much at all!

    @ Cat – I agree with your last paragraph totally

35. Justin (3 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 8:37 pm 

    I think in the end, what google is really looking for is simply content. Nice post Josh. Lots of content .

    As long as new content is added Google will like you. I don’t that page ranks makes much difference, from a lot of what I have read. People with low page rank still rank high in the search results.

36. Tony Stai (2 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 9:45 pm 

    Granted you may lose a percentage of your authority but do we really know how much of a factor this is in the calc. Perhaps they will be using 2 different authority calcs to determine placement – old way and not so old way.

37. Andrew (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 9:55 pm 

    Interesting read, only this afternoon I was talking about Google to my partner.

    I was saying that in the real world, if you had a medical problem, you would believe the advice from a Doctor over that of a taxi driver. For the simple reason your instinct tells you that the Doctor has medical training and is an authority on the subject.

    Likewise the doctor would have built upon his authority on medicine by reading books etc. and learning from other qualified doctors.

    Take a website that is an authority on brain surgery, one would expect it to link to other wesbites on the same subject. Now as a human I would be more likely to like the site if it had a few links that took me to other websites with articles on brain surgery.

    Google has one word on its mind “RELEVANCE”.

    Google needs to look at the relevance of links in comments and say they are worthless. Its like if you read a newspaper, the news stories are relevant, but most of the reader’s letters are people letting of steam. They are quite amusing to read, but have no factual news.

    I can see the problem with blog comments and how they could affect links leaving the blogger’s website, if Google ignores the nofollow tag. After all they are the “readers letters” page of the blog.

    There is one problem though and that is Google is now too powerful. Its actions can radically affect websites when it makes changes.

    Andrew

38. Mike Hill (1 comments.)
    19th June, 2009 at 10:45 pm 

    Would this rule mean that you have to have real links I mean you link to site x and it links back to you.

    Would this not give your link more merit with goggle as it is not just a one way link?

39. Ninah (11 comments.)
    20th June, 2009 at 12:19 am 

    I read Matt Cutts’ post yesterday but I had a hard time digesting it. Your post makes it very clear for me now.

    This is a horrible change they’ve introduced. Blogs with many links in the comment section should be regarded as more authoritative. It only means lots of people flock to those blogs for information.

    I so long for the day when Google bots can intelligently analyze sites and blogs almost as well as human can.

40. Adli (1 comments.)
    20th June, 2009 at 12:32 am 

    yup surprising.
    comments lots more important than just losing small authority though.
    just look at wikipedia or ezinearticles, lots of external links still rank very well

41. fazreen (1 comments.)
    20th June, 2009 at 2:38 am 

    I still do not understand what means by “rel=nofollow”. It is true our blog rank will drop when we gain more comment and internal link?

42. Allyn (13 comments.)
    20th June, 2009 at 2:54 am 

    None of this really bothers me in the grand scheme of things.
    I link out naturally when it is right and I have never had an issue…
    AL

43. Work at Home Opportunities
    20th June, 2009 at 5:51 am 

    I’m not entirely sure we’ve heard the last of this, there has been so much discussion as to how backward a move this is thta even Big G must be having a second think…

44. Missy (1 comments.)
    20th June, 2009 at 12:17 pm 

    I never have used nofollow for “pagerank sculpting” – in fact, i didn’t even know what that was till this whole mess came out.

    I only knew of nofollow as either an affiliate cloaker or as saving juice from the leaky comment area. But that is on by default with Wordpress.

    Unless one has tons of outgoing links on their blog, and not in the content area – but on the outer perimeter (header, footer, sidebar) – i don’t really ever see the point of pr sculpting.

    Anywho – now it is clear that it’s not best practice.

45. Michelle Adams (20 comments.)
    20th June, 2009 at 2:21 pm 

    Thanks for covering this topic Josh.

    I agree with you that a site with plenty of comments should be rewarded.

    It’s nice to think that Google have a comprehensive way of gleaning the ‘real’ value of a site but something tells me that that just isn’t the case. Tomorrow I might be more optimistic about that though.

46. Jeet (4 comments.)
    21st June, 2009 at 2:54 am 

    Google had done this a year ago and we didn’t even realize it. I will still nofollow my privacy policy page and login page, don’t know when they will switch back.

    Though they the points lost are half of what they are lost of normal links so it’s still not that bad. Javascript links are already out because google had recently announce they now crawl javascript links

47. Doug Younkin (2 comments.)
    21st June, 2009 at 12:03 pm 

    Josh,

    Some reputable people in the SEO industry aren’t immediately changing their linking approach so dramatically. Leslie Rhode (he’s the guy who coined the term “Link Reputation” in 2002, also known as “anchor text”) wrote a post this month that analyzes the implication of Matt Cutts’ statements about pagerank sculpting. It’s at windrosesoftware dot com slash sculpting. Leslie does sell software that “optimizes” pagerank, so he does have a bias, but it’s another opinion.

    Maybe the reason no one noticed changes in pagerank calculation a year ago is that the nofollow contribution had been minor compared to other factors.

    In any case, are you going to re-write your Ultimate Link Building Report based on your new perspective?

    Doug

48. Make Money With Adsense (2 comments.)
    21st June, 2009 at 5:22 pm 

    Josh,

    That’s an interesting observation, splitting the comments into pages. If this gets too draining PR wise, then maybe the big sites will start to make the links text only so Google does not look at them at all. Who knows? It seems a little silly for a search engine to penalize an extremely active community, it just does not make sense IMO. I say don’t worry about it. My money sites are laser targeted niche sites, hand coded, no comments. That’s how I control the flow of link juice.

    TomG.

49. Josh Spaulding
    21st June, 2009 at 10:03 pm 

    OK, I think many people are not getting what I’m trying to say here. I should have explained better.

    It’s not that Google is applying a direct “penalty” to sites with lots of comments, which is what I used only as an example.

    Since followed links on a page get the same amount of authority, whether other links on the page are nofollowed or not, that means every link on a page gets an equal amount of authority now. Whereas before, the overall authority was put into ONLY links that did NOT use the rel=”nofollow” attribute.

    So no, sites aren’t being penalized, but in my opinion the rel=”nofollow” attribute allowing webmasters to partially control this was a positive step in a new Web 2.0 Internet (blogs are very much “Web 2.0)

    Sure, Google has other things in their algorithm that MAY or may not counteract this negative that comes from a positive, but it’s not known for sure what exactly they are and to what power they are.

    Web 2.0 sites are all about user contributions and interaction. Naturally (with web 2.0) the users are allowed to insert their URL so their peers can follow up on them etc.

    A web 2.0 site shouldn’t have to share their authority with a page just because a link to that page appears on the web 2.0 site. 20 years ago yes, these days no!

    Back then a link was a very clear vote of legitimacy. These days it’s simply not.

    The Internet now is a totally different Internet than 20 years ago.

50. Anna (5 comments.)
    21st June, 2009 at 10:40 pm 

    I agree and I think your post did well to explain the situation. It is definitely important to be aware of it.

    I do think that things will balance out. Google wants popular sites to rank higher – therefore I consider that with the comment issue, these factors will be taken into account.

    Just one thing – the Internet 20 years ago? That was 1989! I never heard of anything like the Internet till 1992 when a guy I knew in Germany was communicating to people in other countries with a regular blue-screen-with-text computer (DOS I think) and we thought that was amazing. I suppose there has been an Internet of sorts for longer than that, when one considers government projects and all that …

51. Josh Spaulding
    21st June, 2009 at 10:41 pm 

    lol ok, so 20 years may have been an exaggeration

52. Anna (5 comments.)
    21st June, 2009 at 10:44 pm 

    Haha … yeah!

53. Todd Morris (4 comments.)
    21st June, 2009 at 11:01 pm 

    Hi Josh,

    Upon further reflection, I think this is probably much ado about nothing …

    For the great majority of us, all this means is we can quit worrying about how to get “rel=nofollow” on all the links to to our contact, about, and privacy pages … because it really won’t make that big of a difference (and truth be told, probably never did make much of a difference).

    Again, I think the main purpose of this change (and the fact that it was made public) is to attempt to get people to stop trying to “control” pagerank … ha, like that will ever happen.

    The ideal outcome from this new knowledge shouldn’t be to decided that blog comments are “bad”. They should be nofollowed, but you can’t necessarily trust who you’re linking to.

    But since, there is no longer a “benefit” to putting “nofollow” on what is, in reality, a trusted link, our (blogging) lives really should be simpler …

    If a page/resource is valuable enough to link to, it should be a followed link.

    If it’s not something you trust, don’t link.

    Easy

    Todd

54. Josh Spaulding
    21st June, 2009 at 11:06 pm 

    @ Todd – That all sounds good and peachy. If only it were that simple I explained in my last comment what I’m trying to get at here.

55. Flashback Monday - Recap Of Last Week Posts, Blog Updates, Resources, & Latest News | Deneil Merritt
    22nd June, 2009 at 4:25 am 

    [...] News A big change in how we control internal linking Friendfeed subscribers added to feedburner subscribers count Mitchell at I’m sharing this is [...]

56. Shaun (3 comments.)
    23rd June, 2009 at 2:17 am 

    Hey Josh,

    Quick question… I noticed you have adsense on your main “make money online” page. How did you get it to have just 3 ads? Mine has 4, and it makes it look super cluttered. Any tips for changing that?

    Thanks, Josh. You rock. Your article marketing articles changed my life.

57. Internal Linking and PageRank Leakage
    26th June, 2009 at 6:28 pm 

    [...] *EDIT* This post is outdated. Since this post was written, Google has made changes regarding the rel=”nofollow” attribute. [...]

58. Patrice (1 comments.)
    1st July, 2009 at 12:17 pm 

    This is a very informative post. But I was just wondering why google have announced that “big change” recently and why not last year?

59. Brent Crouch (21 comments.)
    4th July, 2009 at 5:43 am 

    Here is a great post on the subject by one of the Stompernet guys Dan Thies.

    http://www.seofaststart.com/blog/googles-operation-bendover-exposed-nofollow-pagerank-sculpting

60. Forest (13 comments.)
    15th July, 2009 at 1:39 pm 

    I’m a bit late on the commenting here but have been away….

    Sad news but also not anything that is likely to knock a good site of the top ranks….

    I guess Google took so long to announce as they wanted to test it.

    Thanks for letting me know about this… I’ll try and pop back to the forum’s a little later today. Been missing my daily Forum reading.

61. Rick Imby (10 comments.)
    16th August, 2009 at 11:53 pm 

    I have always thought that we can get too tied up in trying to please what we think Google wants. Page rank is only a small factor as I am sure when you look at any search result you will find lower page rank pages coming in ahead of higher pagerank pages. I have always felt that PR by Google is kind of a distraction. It is only one factor in determining search engine results.

    I believe anchor links to your page with the keyword you want in them are more important especially when competing for low demand keywords.

62. Udegbunam Chukwudi (12 comments.)
    19th August, 2009 at 4:24 pm 

    How then do we explain dofollow blogs that have tons of comments but with Page Rank 4 on the front page? If they’re giving away too much authority shouldn’t they be stagnant or going downwards in terms of PR?
    Personally, I think Google will NEVER reveal the actual truth behind this ranking thing so I’ll just follow a few laid down rules that sound reasonable and leave the rest that sound ridiculous.

63. Josh Spaulding
    19th August, 2009 at 4:27 pm 

    Toolbar PageRank and authority are not the same thing.