7 results for "nofollow"

• tantek: flip side is google actually asked everyone to add rel=nofollow but I'm not sure if all publishers changing had impact in practice
  cwebber2 at 2017-11-28 20:02
• test:rel-nofollow (another
  ajordan at 2017-07-01 02:50
• tantek: I would expect publishers to abuse the boolean. there is no way to prevent that from happening. I hope I'm wrong, but the rel-nofollow experience says publishers will abuse it, users be damned
  puckipedia at 2017-06-28 18:01
• tantek: service providers put rel nofollow on second-party content. this is on all silos, large social media. all links you place will be rel-nofollow. and they don't take responsibility to remove spammers. it's effectively broken link weighting
  puckipedia at 2017-06-28 17:59
• t: ajordan summarised the problem was rel-nofollow, with the express purpose of placing on links of *third-party* content. people commenting on a blogpost hosted by a service provider. as deterrant for spam links
  puckipedia at 2017-06-28 17:58
• rel-nofollow
  ajordan at 2017-06-28 17:56
• we know from the debacle of rel-nofollow (another negative boolean as it were) that hosting providers are not to be trusted with negative annotations, and will inevitably abuse them for their own (perceived benefit) and claim they "have no choice" or "have to for SEO reasons", or "have to because spammers" or some other such claptrap
  tantek at 2017-06-28 17:55

Filter results by:

• social ❌

Query took 0s.

Search tips

Exclusion

+foo -bar

Logical OR

foo OR bar

Exact phrase

"foo bar"

Partial words

foo*

Particular fields only

title:foo

domain:example.org

nick:somebody

after:2016-11-23

before:2016-11-23

date:2016-11-23