Rel=dofollow and rel=nofollow
-
Hi,
I found a link pointing to my client's site that looks like this:
<a <span="" class="html-tag">href</a><a <span="" class="html-tag">="</a>http://www.clientsite.com" rel="dofollow" target="_blank" rel='nofollow'>Anchor text
Could someone tell me if this links acts as a dofollow or as a nofollow? It's the first time I see such a link and I don't know how to handle it.
Best regards,
Edimar
-
Hi Tim,
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this.
Best regards,
Ed
-
Haha, I've already had three
-
hah you're right, what what I get for reading before my morning coffee!
-
The code is definately a bit of a mess.
Due to the second rel being rel='nofollow' this link will likely be a no follow.
Secondly in order for it to be accurately used as a follow it should be rel="follow" not rel="dofollow" as this does not exist. For a link to be a naturally followed link you do not even need to use the rel="" tag.
anchor text - FOLLOW
anchor text - NO FOLLOWHere is a bit more on use of nofollow
Hope this helps.
Tim
-
It should be a follow link though the code it completely pointless
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
What's the best way of crawling my entire site to get a list of NoFollow links?
Hi all, hope somebody can help. I want to crawl my site to export an audit showing: All nofollow links (what links, from which pages) All external links broken down by follow/nofollow. I had thought Moz would do it, but that's not in Crawl info. So I thought Screaming Frog would do it, but unless I'm not looking in the right place, that only seems to provide this information if you manually click down each link and view "Inlinks" details. Surely this must be easy?! Hope someone can nudge me in the right direction... Thanks....
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rl_uk0 -
Do cross domain rel canonical and original source tags have to be the same?
I have placed content on a partner site using the same content that is on my site. I want the link juice from the site and the canonical tag points back to my site. However, they are also using the original source tag as they publish a lot of news. If they have the original source tag as the page on their site and the canonical as mine, is this killing the link juice from the canonical and putting me in jeopardy of a duplicate content penalty? Google has already started indexing the page on their site with the same content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SecuritiesCE0 -
Blog tags are creating excessive duplicate content...should we use rel canonicals or 301 redirects?
We are having an issue with our cilent's blog creating excessive duplicate content via blog tags. The duplicate webpages from tags offer absolutely no value (we can't even see the tag). Should we just 301 redirect the tagged page or use a rel canonical?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VanguardCommunications0 -
Do I need to use rel="canonical" on pages with no external links?
I know having rel="canonical" for each page on my website is not a bad practice... but how necessary is it for pages that don't have any external links pointing to them? I have my own opinions on this, to be fair - but I'd love to get a consensus before I start trying to customize which URLs have/don't have it included. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netrepid0 -
Rel Canonical Link on the Canonical Page
Is there a problem with placing a rel=canonical link on the canonical page - in addition to the duplicate pages? For example, would that create create an endless loop where the canonical page keeps referring to itself? Two examples that are troubling me are: My home site is www.1099pro.com which is exactly the same as www.1099pro.com/index.asp (all updates to the home page are made by updating the index.asp page). I want www.1099pro.com/index.asp to have the rel=canonical link to point to my standard homepage www.1099pro.com but any update that I make on the index page is automatically incorporated into www.1099pro.com as well. I don't have access to my hosting web server and any updates I make have to be done to the specific landing pages/templates. I am also creating a new website that could possible have pages with duplicate content in the future. I would like to already include the rel=canonical link on the standard canonical page even though there is not duplicate content yet. Any help really would be appreciated. I've read a ton of articles on the subject but none really define whether or not it is ok to have the rel=canonical link on both the canonical page and the duplicate pages. The closest explanation was in a MOZ article that it was ok but the answer was fuzzy. -Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stew2220 -
Rel Next and Previous on Listing Pages of Blog
Hi, Need to know does rel next and previous is more appropriate for content based articles and not blog listings.. Like an article spread across 3 pages - there it makes sense for rel next and previous as the content of the article is in series However, for blog listing page, for pages 1, 2, 3, 4 where every page is unique as the blog has all independent listings or separate articles - does rel next and previous wont of much help Our blog - http://www.mycarhelpline.com/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=latest&Itemid=91 This is what been said by the developer "The whole idea of adding the "next" and "previous" tag in the header is only when your single blog post has permalinks like: site.com/blog/entry/blog-post.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Modi
site.com/blog/entry/blog-post.html?page=1
site.com/blog/entry/blog-post.html?page=2 " The link in the head is only applicable when your content is separated into multiple pages and it doesn't actually apply on listings. If you have a single blog post that is broken down to multiple pages, this is applicable and it works similarly like rel="canonical" Can we safely ignore rel next and previous tag for this blog pagination for the listing pages !!0 -
Can I use rel=canonical and then remove it?
Hi all! I run a ticketing site and I am considering using rel=canonical temporary. In Europe, when someone is looking for tickets for a soccer game, they look for them differently if the game is played in one city or in another city. I.e.: "liverpool arsenal tickets" - game played in the 1st leg in 2012 "arsenal liverpool tickets - game played in the 2nd leg in 2013 We have two different events, with two different unique texts but sometimes Google chooses the one in 2013 one before the closest one, especially for queries without dates or years. I don't want to remove the second game from our site - exceptionally some people can broswer our website and buy tickets with months in advance. So I am considering place a rel=canonical in the game played in 2013 poiting to the game played in a few weeks. After that, I would remove it. Would that make any sense? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jorgediaz0 -
Trailing slash and rel="canonical"
Our website is in a directory format: http://www.website.com/website.asp Our homepage display URL is http://www.website.com which currently matches our to eliminate the possibility of duplicate content. However, I noticed that in the SERPs, google displays the homepage with a trailing slash http://www.website.com/ My question: should I change the rel="canonical" to have a trailing slash? I noticed one of our competitors uses the trailing slash in their rel="canonical" Do potential benefits outweigh the risks? I can PM further information if necessary. Thanks for the assistance in advance...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BethA0