NoFollow Rules, Inconsistent?

[JABacchetta]

I'm a bit confused on what the actual "rules" are when it comes to including dofollow backlinks from widgets.

When sites like YouTube offer embed codes, don't those include dofollow backlinks in them? And when sites like Facebook offer widgets, don't those too include dofollow backlinks in them?

Back in December we released a WordPress plugin, seen here. A few weeks later we saw our rankings plummet. We were told by our SEO consultant that because our link profile changed so drastically over the course of a few weeks, that Google took that as unnatural link building.

I have two thoughts on this.

First, our plugin is directly related to our site. And it's taking content from our site. Therefore, if another publisher chooses to use our content, does that not mean that they are indeed endorsing our site, and therefore the backlink should be dofollow?

Second, what is the difference between a dofollow in our WP plugin, and a dofollow in Facebook's widget? Why does one get you penalized while the other boosts your authority?

[MarieHaynes]

I hear what you're saying.  I think it all comes down to motive.  For some widgets, if someone uses your widget, they're recommending your site and it's possible the link may be ok.  But, let's say I have a car insurance site and I make a widget that is a hit counter and thousands of people embed it with a link that says, "Widget provided by carinsurancesite.com".  Should Google really rank me higher for car insurance because I made a hit counter that people really liked?  No.

There are also many cases that are debatable whether or not they are ok, but ultimately we don't know how Google decides whether widget links are acceptable or not.

The best way to talk with a Google employee about questions like this is to ask a question in a webmaster central hangout with John Mueller: https://plus.google.com/events/castmn1nmp3o0r3lgkc4djmhvl4

[JABacchetta]

Thanks for the clarification, Marie. Most of that makes sense from a logical perspective.

My only gripe with John Mueller would be that if someone is using a widget that's taking content from your site, then there should be no problem at all with forcing them to link back to you. By using that site's content, you're already telling Google that the site is authoritative and/or useful (otherwise you sure as heck wouldn't be using their content). And if they don't want to link back to you, then it's simple... don't use the widget and content that that publisher put so much effort into creating.

Also, I'm curious... how would one go about asking specific questions to people like Matt Cutts and John Mueller. Are they openly available for questions at SEO events, or is it rare that you actually get the chance to meet them face to face?

[MarieHaynes]

Youtube and Facebook widgets link back via an iframe.  This means that essentially the link goes from Youtube to Youtube as opposed to from your site to youtube. Those links don't influence their pagerank at all.

I've spoken to John Mueller from Google on whether it's ever ok to have a followed link in a widget.  His response is that it could be possible to include a followed link BUT there are several important things that have to happen:

-It should not be keyword anchored.  A keyword anchored link is an obvious attempt to manipulate the Google rankings.

-It needs to be really clear to the webmaster that they are linking to you.  In other words, the webmaster has to want to link to you.  If linking to you is a requirement for them having the widget, then this is unnatural.

John also mentioned that if the vast majority of your links come from widgets and there really isn't any other way that you get links then this is unnatural.

The whole reason why followed links impact your search rankings is because someone is voting for you or recommending you by linking to you.  If this link comes about because they have to link to you in order to get the widget, or because they were tricked into linking to you (i.e. they didn't know that embedding the widget would cause a link to happen) then this is unnatural.

[JaneCopland]

Hi there,

This is horribly frustrating, but the difference is that they're Facebook and YouTube and the rest of us aren't.

That's the short version. The big boys and girls get away with a lot more than normal folk Also, a widget from a huge brand is going to make less of an overall dent in the make-up of the site's backlink profile than it is for a brand that is not enormous.

The longer version is that this method of link acquisition was spammed pretty badly a few years ago. Moz's former CTO Matt Inman (better known as the Oatmeal comic writer) wrote a post about doing this six years ago. He achieved very good results very quickly using widgets / badges. The post is here: http://moz.com/blog/widgetbait-gone-wild

As you can see in the post, Matt's method of gaining links was blindingly effective. He's a good comic writer and a smart guy who knew how to tap into a lot of people's egos and interest for links. This was also in 2008, so long before everyone had seen the Buzzfeed-style "which city should you live in?" quizzes go around Facebook. However, he abused the method (as he readily admits) and he got caught.

Anything that has been abused like this is on Google's radar and they don't like it. Less interesting versions of this sort of link dev include newsletter sign-up forms with "email marketing managed by X" links and similar. It seems very unfair and disingenuous on Google's part that smaller businesses are penalised or at least not helped by these kinds of links, but it's certainly true that a smaller business (and by this, I mean "smaller than Facebook") gaining hundreds or thousands of links in two weeks is a far bigger shift in backlink profile than Facebook gaining hundreds of thousands of links constantly from all sources, including widgets.