Are no follows leaking link juice?
-
Recently, in a discussion on resources pages EGOL informed me that just because I had no followed the links on my my resource page, I was still leaking link juice. He mentioned that this was a recent change in Google policy.
This was quite a surprise. I have done a couple of searches on this recent change but have not found any information. Am I simply the last one on the planet to learn this and this change is widely known and understood? If so, does that mean honest resource pages (I have two such pages) that are there to help visitors are negatively impacting the site - at least in terms of SEO? If they are leaking link juice is it comparable to a followed link or a smaller amount that has less impact?
-
You've got it right. The example is a bit simplistic as not all links on a page are going to pass the same amount of link juice, but otherwise it sounds like you get it.
-
Okay, so I think I get it. The page has a fixed amount of juice divided equally among the links. Even if I nofollow some outbound links this does not preserve more link juice for the resources page or other dofollow outbound links. The juice essentially evaporates with the nofollows? Do I have it right and is this widely agreed upon among SEOs?
-
Nofollows burn link juice. If you nofollow a link, it won't pass link juice to that page, but as a result it doesn't pass more link juice to other pages linked to from that page.
Here's an example. Suppose on your resources page, you have 6 units of link juice to pass to other pages. You have 3 outbound links with no nofollows. Each page receives 2 units of link juice. Now suppose you nofollow one of the links. The page that links to now gets no link juice as you'd expect. However, the other two pages linked to still only receive 2 units of link juice. If the 6 units total were divided between the two links, then each would receive 3, but that's not how nofollow works now.
Without a really good reason, I wouldn't nofollow internal links, and use nofollows for situations like keeping link spam down in user generated content.
-
Well as far as I know nofollow does not pass any PR juice. And please check this post -
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569
In general, we don't follow them. **This means that Google does not transfer PageRank or anchor text across these links. **
I hope you have got your answer.
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
-
Linking to a Resource from a multi-language Page
I have a multi-language page where the content is available in several versions (translated). I want to link to a resource that is only available in one English. Is it a good idea to link to this resource from all language versions or should I better include the link only in the English version of my page? In the first scenario for example a Spanisch and a German language version would link to a page in English. Is this ok or could it be considered spam?
Technical SEO | | ConverterApp0 -
How are these links being displayed?
How does one markup their site to get the small sitelinks to appear in SERP listings as seen in the example image below? jJiQYy3
Technical SEO | | SelectHub0 -
How should we handle re-directory links? Should we remove these links?
We are currently cleaning up bad links that were purchased by a previous SEO agency. We have found links on anonym.to pages that redirect traffic to our site automatically. How should this be handled? Should we remove these links?
Technical SEO | | Lorne_Marr0 -
Internal links best practices
In looking at the inbound links to a client’s Home page, I see that the link from each page of the website back to the Home page is an image, and the ALT text is “Home.” I have a few questions about this, and would appreciate help understanding best practices: --Does it matter that the link back to the Home page is an image (presumably the client’s logo)? -- If we keep the image link, wouldn’t it be better to use “client’s company name” as ALT text rather than “Home”? --Should I recommend using an HTML link back to the Home page, and using the company name as anchor text? (I don't think it's relevant, but the site is built in Drupal.) Thanks!
Technical SEO | | jrae0 -
Http to https - is a '302 object moved' redirect losing me link juice?
Hi guys, I'm looking at a new site that's completely under https - when I look at the http variant it redirects to the https site with "302 object moved" within the code. I got this by loading the http and https variants into webmaster tools as separate sites, and then doing a 'fetch as google' across both. There is some traffic coming through the http option, and as people start linking to the new site I'm worried they'll link to the http variant, and the 302 redirect to the https site losing me ranking juice from that link. Is this a correct scenario, and if so, should I prioritise moving the 302 to a 301? Cheers, Jez
Technical SEO | | jez0000 -
Do bad links to a sub-domain which redirects to our primary domain pass link juice and hurt rankings?
Sometime in the distant past there existed a blog.domain.com for domain.com. This was before we started work for domain.com. During the process of optimizing domain.com we decided to 301 blog.domain.com to www.domain.com. Recently, we discovered that blog.domain.com actually has a lot of bad links pointing towards it. By a lot I mean, 5000+. I am curious to hear people's opinions on the following: 1. Are they passing bad link juice? 2. does Google consider links to a sub-domain being passed through a 301 to be bad links to our primary domain? 3. The best approach to having these links removed?
Technical SEO | | Shredward0 -
Link Diversity
With the current updates in the Seo world how critical is link diversity. We are revamping our site and planning to add many new pages to our site and planning to build links to relevant pages with relevant anchor texts keywords. Also we are planning to add relevant H1, H2 and H3 tags with metatag description and content with keyword rich content specific to that page. Any advise
Technical SEO | | INN0 -
Which version of pages should I build links to?
I'm working on the site www.qualityauditor.co.uk which is built in Moonfruit. Moonfruit renders pages in Flash. Not ideal, I know, but it also automatically produces an HTML version of every page for those without Flash, Javascript and search engines. This HTML version is fairly well optimised for search engines, but sits on different URLs. For example, the page you're likely to see if browsing the site is at http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/#/iso-9001-lead-auditor-course/4528742734 However, if you turn Javascript off you can see the HTML version of the page here <cite>http://www.qualityauditor.co.uk/page/4528742734</cite> Mostly, it's the last version of the URL which appears in the Google search results for a relevant query. But not always. Plus, in Google Webmaster Tools fetching as Googlebot only shows page content for the first version of the URL. For the second version it returns HTTP status code and a 302 redirect to the first version. I have two questions, really: Will these two versions of the page cause my duplicate content issues? I suspect not as the first version renders only in Flash. But will Google think the 302 redirect for people is cloaking? Which version of the URL should I be pointing new links to (bearing in mind the 302 redirect which doesn't pass link juice). The URL's which I see in my browser and which Google likes the look at when I 'fetch as Googlebot'. Or those Google shows in the search results? Thanks folks, much appreciated! Eamon
Technical SEO | | driftnetmedia0
