[HTML Gurus] Is the only nofollow = rel="nofollow"?
-
From my knowledge only way an HTML link is nofollow is using rel="nofollow".
I was wondering if you have a link , is there anything you can put OTHER than rel="nofollow" within the <a></a>tags that make a link nofollow?
-
as i say only the two options / well three including robots.txt to not index the page
-
Thanks Andy.
I was more curious in regards to the <a></a>tag.
-
correction the meta tag required index instructions too
NOINDEX would prevent search from seeing that page and nofollow the links - -
page wide with the meta tag
not a perfect solution i know but its that or individually - i believe
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
-
One more question about rel=canonical
I'm still trying to wrap my head around rel=canonical and its importance. Thanks to the community, I've been able to understand most of it. Still, I have a couple of very specific questions: I share certain blog posts on the Huffington Post. Here's an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cedric-lizotte/munich-travel-guide_b_13438956.html - Of course I post these on my blog as well. Here: http://www.continentscondiments.com/things-munich-classics/ - Obviously the HuffPo has a huge DA, and I'll never match it. However the original post is mine, on my blog, and not on the HuffPo. They wont - obviously - add a rel=canonical just for me and for the sake of it, they have a million other things to do. QUESTION: Should I add a rel=canonical to my own site pointing to the post on the HuffPost? What would be the advantage? Should I just leave this alone? I share blog posts on Go4TravelBlog too. Example: http://www.go4travelblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-munich/ - but, once again, the original post is on one of my blogs. In this case, it's on another blog of mine: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-in-munich/ QUESTION: Well it's pretty much the same! Should I beg Go4TravelBlog to add a rel=canonical pointing to mine? If they refuse, what do I do? Would it be better to add a rel=canonical from my site to theirs, or do I fight it out and have a rel=canonical pointing to my own post? Why? Thanks a million for your help!
On-Page Optimization | | cedriklizotte0 -
Can rel="canonical" refer to another website page?
I want to republish the post from another website with their permission and want to abide by Google guidelines. Google guidelines is clear when you are using the same content at different parts of the same site however not when using it on another site in a legitimate way. Is there some way to use rel="canonical" refer to another website page of you are reproducing the content from same page?
On-Page Optimization | | h1seo0 -
Ajax url returns an error by google. Is there another way besides creating a HTML version?
We trying to find out if there is anything to make it so google does not keep returning errors cuase of our ajax urls. Is there any other option besides creating it all in a HTML format for google to read? Any tips or help would be great!
On-Page Optimization | | DoRM0 -
Rel=canonical Query
Hello Everyone, We have just launched our new ecommerce site for flooring in the UK. I have run through the first crawl and there are 549 instances of rel=canonical including the homepage? Is this a major issue in any way, i have never had to tackle it before and i would appreciate any advice that could be offered on the subject. Many Thanks Andrew
On-Page Optimization | | DFD20120 -
Website redesign: site going from .php to .html
A site I'm working on is being redesigned because the current platform does not allow for content to be changed easily. In the process, they are going from .php to .html. I am concerned about their losing link juice. Can a site work with the old content remaining .php and the new content being .html or should all pages stay .php?
On-Page Optimization | | cakelady0 -
Follow up on "Canonical Tag Placement - Every Page?"
But if it is like Pete said, I don't understand why e.g. SEO Moz has a Canonical Tag on this Page http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps Which leads to the exact same page!? What is the benefit of doing so? Regards
On-Page Optimization | | Here4You0 -
Why isn't SEOMoz using File Extensions (*.html etc) on any of their web page URLs?
...and what is the SEO benefit of this? This video from Matt Cutts suggests using file extentions, except for a directory.
On-Page Optimization | | magicrob0 -
Nofollow on these internal links?
On an x-cart ecommerce website we have, seomoz has picked up a lot of duplicate content, based on URLs that are different, but are essentially the same page. These come from Fitlers, that allow a page to show only certain colours and styles, reordering page by price etc, and also the page 2, page 3 etc of a category: All the below are '4ft-bedding.html' http://www.textilesdirect.co.uk/store/4ft-Bedding.html?filter=1&value=Pink http://www.textilesdirect.co.uk/store/4ft-Bedding.html?page=2 http://www.textilesdirect.co.uk/store/4ft-Bedding.html?sort=price&view_all=Y I've now changed all these internal links to rel="nofollow" on the a tag. Is that the correct and best way to sort? I might be mistaken on when I did this update and when the last report was ran, but on the SEOmoz crawling report, it still has the above as problem pages. thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | rowleysit-2598920