Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
-
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
-
Thank you much. Reading your answer is giving me kind of a "duh" moment. I think if I were looking at this situation from the outside it would be a different story. I definitely am over thinking this. Thanks again!
-
I would say that obsessing over nofollows or no nofollows is over-complicating things much more than simply linking to more information about a subject. The vast majority of content on the internet that links to informational resources, such as the example you've given (even though you own both resources) is not written or linked to with nofollow / SEO in mind. This is what I mean by it being sad if no one can create content and link between properties, whether they belong to one or more parties, without considering Google, SEO and nofollow.
It's shortsighted to claim that links between owned properties should be nofollowed. This is far from a set rule. Google does not consider linking to your own properties to be spam in and of itself. It would consider deliberate link manipulation via link networks to be spam, but is it spam if amazon.com links to amazon.co.uk? If Moz.com links to Opensiteexplorer.org? If Virgin corporation links to its health club chain? Or if I link from my blog to my consulting site? Hell no, it's not. It would be manipulative of me to create 800 websites promoting SEO consulting and link them all to my own website, however, just as it would be spammy for Virgin to write a new blog post every other day on sites they own, linking to their health clubs with the anchor text "gyms in London".
It's very subjective whether nofollow should be used, but I really do not agree that there is a hard-and-fast rule that any link using "optimised" (i.e. descriptive) anchor text should be nofollowed, just as much as I disagree that links to things you own need to be automatically nofollowed. At which point is a link natural if every link on the internet that meets these criteria is "unnatural"?
I agree that if the link does not add value, it should not be there, but in your example, you mention a person and link to more information about that person. Since a quote from that person is the crux of the page's subject, it absolutely adds value to link to more information about that person, no matter how well-known that person might be to the website's audience. I find it hard to argue that the link does not add value.
-
Your welcome. Well it's to be honest I thought that "write and develop for your users" etc was stating the obvious but maybe I was to quick to draw this conclusion but II agree totally. Thing to me seems that people in general start making things progressively complicated when they start thinking and acting this accordingly while I believe that an effective link structure is the same for users and crawlers alike.
Crawlers and humans both read right to left starting at the upper left corner. All content closest to this point is more important than content after it. Also logical as we also do not place the name of a company at the bottom of the corporate website and start with the disclaimer (ok some people will never learn but I mean effectively function beings). So rule of thumb is we place our most important navigational links at the top left and then to the right. We link in 2-3 words to page because they are important and we want people and crawlers alike to find them. If we make those links nofollow then that’s the instruction for Google NOT to go and index these pages so the can be found. This would be the same if we correspondingly place the same link in the main menu and put a sign with it: to all readers: do not read this page.
Bit strange right? Use a nofollow for links in the main navigational menu that are not as important like your disclaimer and general terms etc. Link there once from a less significant place on the page that is a followed link. Get it?
Funny thing is that this script makes it very easy to see all links with anchors for a page and analyses for each link on the page how well the linked page is optimized for the anchor used in the link. Complicated? Not at all. Just fill in a front page of any website, set option to show links, wait a moment, find the followed links section and click the link to see for yourself.
Link follower script Hope this makes it more clear for you as it's not to difficult once you see the essence?
Gr Daniel
-
Thanks for the great answers. We created the example link I gave above, along with many others that are similar, so they are not natural and they are pointing to other sites also owned by us.
I asked this exact same question on the google product forums and got pretty different answers. This is one answer that the others were agreeing with:
" It really seems like you're over complicating things to me.
1 - if the link doesn't add any value to users, why is it on your website? 2 - nofollow links that are unnatural. Since they are sites owned by the same org, I'd nofollow. If you nofollow, then you're fine. I'd stop focusing too much on exact match/ratios and just keep it logical. Is this link natural? (if not nofollow, but that doesn't make it a BAD link) and is this useful for my visitors (if not, don't add it!). "She mentions she would nofollow the links that do have value but are owned by us.Any thoughts on this response?
-
I would say that this is absolutely not an instance where you would want to use nofollow. There is a huge difference between this and linking to a insurance company's commercial car insurance page with the anchor text "car insurance". It's sad that Google and the SEO community have jointly scared everyone to the extent that we are afraid of linking to information sources about non-commercial terms (e.g. "Brigham Young" linking to a Wiki page about Brigham Young). Nofollow is meant to indicate that you do not wish to vouch for the source of the information or that you have been paid to include the link and thus don't want to indicate that the link is purely editorial. This use is still true, eight years after nofollow's creation and it would be sad if we reached the stage where people are basically hesitant to link without it in almost every circumstance.
Put this in a commercial context and multiply the rate at which the target page or linking website receives / links out with high-value terms, and you have more of a problem. I have had clients ask me about ratios for years - "can we safely build links with 30% commercial anchor text?" - to which we'd have to say that there is no "safe ratio" for any particular keyword, niche or industry.
Google looks at far more than the anchor text when deciding on what is natural and what should be penalised / filtered. A page about a person or a product might use that person's or product's name nearly 100% of the time and be perfectly natural. I have also personally seen pages with 80%+ brand anchor text be penalised (not by Penguin but manually) because the links were clearly part of a sophisticated but fairly uniform paid link scheme, despite using anchor text links "Brand.com" and "visit their website". A high ratio of commercial anchor text is the icing on the cake for some of these penalties but there is no need to nofollow every link or even a selection of links just because it happens to be exact-match in terms of its destination.
-
Hi,
Don't worry about this to much, the case you described is a great example on how you can link without a nofollow in my opinion. As long as you won't do this externally multiple times it's very likely that you won't get in trouble.
-
Well if we would be punished for this then I would have no blog at all. I optimize for this exactly and rank nr 1 for months on end with dozens of nice saught after keywords. Like this one google-plus-marketing.nl/google-mijn-bedrijf-handleiding/ keyword Google Mijn Bedrijf handleiding (Google My Business guide)
or this one
http://google-plus-marketing.nl/google-mijn-bedrijf-opzetten/ for Google Mijn Bedrijf opzetten (set up Google My Business) It a landing page on position 1 since it has been created.So you see why I dont give a r.. as... what they say. It works just fine for me.
Hope this helps
Gr Daniel
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
-
"Unnatural links to your site" manual action by Google
Hi, My site has been hit by a "Unnatural links to your site" manual action penalty and I've just received a decline on my 2nd reconsideration request, after disavowing even more links than I did in the first request. I went over all the links in WMT to my site with an SEO specialist and we both thought things have been resolved but apparently they weren't. I'd appreciate any help on this so as to lift the penalty and get my site back to its former rankings, it has ranked well before and the timing couldn't have been worse. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ishais
Yael0 -
Link Audit - Sponsor/Partners Images Links
Hi everyone, 1. I'm conducting a link audit and read that if you are a sponsor or partner of a company, links should be nofollowed. I always no follow them if they are money keywords, but branded I leave alone. is that a good strategy? Or do i nofollow my brand name as well? 2. What if I'm a sponsor and have my company logo on their website that links to my website? How would i know if that link should be nofollowed? a. Does it depend on the "alt" of the image? b. Does it depend on the landing page of the link of the image? c. Do i just no follow image links from sponsor pages and partner pages as a whole? Please keep in mind that I'm sponsoring websites that are relevant to my niche. PLEASE HELP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Value in .EDU Link When Listed on Internship Offered Page
My company is looking to hire an Intern and a university - ".edu" - has including the job description on a page with list of "Available Internship", which includes a list of 100 other companies looking for an Intern. Our profile includes a link to our homepage like all other listings. Question: do we know search engines will give zero value to such link as they can tell it is an Internship posting page or is there a good chance it will actually be quite a valuable link?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Does changing Anchor text of old built links raise a red flag in Google?
I have lot of links (10000+) built against Exact match anchor text so what is solution to that now? Other than disavowing them all, May I change the anchor text of those links (From Exact Match To Brand Name or naked URL)? Does Google have algorithms to detect anchor text changes and if so, do those algorithms detect these sorts of changes and raise a red flag on sites doing it. I respect your opinions but please only comment if you are sure about it because I am already facing a penalty so can't afford to get another.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ishrat-Khan1 -
Appropriate use of rel canonical
Hey Guys,I'm a bit stuck. My on-page grade indicated the following two issues and I need to find how how to fix both issues.If you have a solution, could you please let me know how to address these issues? It's all a bit intimidating at the moment!!Thank you so much..****************************************************************************************************************************************Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL. Recommendation: We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply. No More Than One Canonical URL Tag The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag. Recommendation: Remove all but a single canonical URL tag
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StoryScout1 -
Should we use the rel-canonical tag?
We have a secure version of our site, as we often gather sensitive business information from our clients. Our https pages have been indexed as well as our http version. Could it still be a problem to have an http and an https version of our site indexed by Google? Is this seen as being a duplicate site? If so can this be resolved with a rel=canonical tag pointing to the http version? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | annieplaskett1 -
Links to images on a page diluting page value?
We have been doing some testing with additional images on a page. For example, the page here:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter264
http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/2550/sukhoi-su-27-flanker-package-for-fsx/ Notice the images under the heading Images/Screenshots After adding these images, we noticed a ranking drop for that page (-27 places) in the SERPS. Could the large amount of images - in particular the links on the images (links to the larger versions) be causing it to dilute the value of the actual page? Any suggestions, advice or opinions will be much appreciated.0 -
Yahoo Directory paid submission adds value?
Dear all, One of my sites currently is not listed on yahoo directory, my question is from the natural linking perspective is really fine for SERP improvement to be listed there supposing this is a paid inclusion? My doubt is google say "Natural links" and to be included in yahoo I'll paying for. Really is a good choice or not ? Thank you for your valuable opinions Claudio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SharewarePros0