Should I add rel=nofollow ?
-
Say I have an article that includes a list of many websites with ressources for the articles topic.
From a SEO perspective, should I add nofollow to them? some of them? all of them?
-
HI Alberto,
Keep in mind I have not seen your page. I am talking in general specifics. The over all point is if you have a link to another site which is there for reference the user there is no reason to not make it an actual link. Any reason you can think of not to make it a link would also be a reason to remove it.
If you feel you have too many links on a specific page then you probably do! Pick the most pertinent ones and axe the others.
There are ways to maximize link juice and page authority by using some more advanced SEO tactics, See Rand's post about link sculpting. I will say this is some advanced level planing and not something you would just single out one page to do.
Remember SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization. White hat SEO deals with how you can best present your page to search engines with out frustrating your users. When you purposely make a change that negatively effects your users and possibly tricks search engines to rank you better you have crossed into grey or black hat SEO. Something that will eventually bit you in the ass.
The choice is of course yours, and if you would like me to look at the page in question you can PM me a link I will be happy to do so. I do stand by everything I said in all my replies while speaking in general terms.
Don
-
I agree from a user point of view, it should be a link. The links are all relevant, and high PR sites. But from a pure SERP/SEO point of view, it would be more beneficial to not link them (pain text), isn't that so?
thanks
-
Actually no I wouldn't recommend that.
The reason is if the link is helpful it should be a link right? From a users point of view do you not find it frustrating to see a link that is not a link?
My suggestion is to evaluate each site you're linking to, if they deserve the link leave it in. Otherwise simply remove the link.
The reason behind my suggestion is the way the internet and page rank / authority is supposed to work. When a web master find a link to a site that is beneficial to their sites users, then they link to them. This generates page authority to the linked site but also helps the web master serve their users. In turn it also associates the web masters site with the linked site.
The web has taken many twist and turns since the original method of passing link juice was developed. Tools such as robots.txt, nofollow noindex, and disavow have been added to deal with the changing environment. But, the core of the system still remains.
Hope this make sense,
Don
-
so would you recommend puting those websites in plain text (no link at all)? That seems to be the best option, from an SEO point of view, right?
-
If you mean a link like:
VS
Then yes, because the first one is not technically a link.
-
thanks of the answer. Question: If I just put the links in plain text, would that increase the linkjuice that is passed in my internal links, since I'm not passing any to those external sites?
-
HI Alberto,
Understanding the purpose of the NOFOLLOW tag is what would make your decision. In general you should NOFOLLOW.
Edit for Reference: Google NoFollow Tag
- Untrusted Content (like user generated un-moderated)
- Paid Links Or Paid Advertisements
- Links to Pages That Serve No Search Engine Value (sign up, registration, etc..)
In your case you have "resources" which in theory adds value to the page and the users experience. A single page with resource links is not going to hurt your site at all. Without seeing the exact page I would lean to say it would be fine as follow links. That being said, you want it to be tasteful non-spammy and indeed a boon to the user experience and not just a big list of garbage.
Hope this helps,
Don
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
-
NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW Mistake
One of our top organic landing page was set as "NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW" by "mistake". I took me about a week to realize this after I saw a drop of traffic on that page. I looked on Google to see if it was indexed and my fear were confirmed! After finding our that it was switched to "NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW" I switched it back to "INDEX,FOLLOW" and did an index request in our Google Search Console. Anyone else has run into a similar issue? Did you ever got the page inxed again?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FrankViolette2 -
Moving from M. to Responsive: Rel Alternate Considerations
Hey Guys, We’re in the process of transitioning our key traffic generating pages on our website from m. to responsive. Today, our site uses Google’s ‘Separate URLs’ method. Rel alternate on desktop pages to m. pages 302 redirects pushing mobile visitors to m. pages Canonical on m. pages back to desktop pages As we make the transition to responsive we’ll be taking the following steps: Removal of 302 redirects pushing mobile visitors to m. pages 301 redirects from m. pages to desktop pages With those changes in mind, I’d love to get the communities opinion on how to best handle the real alternate attribute on desktop pages. I'm considering leaving the rel alternate attribute in place on desktop pages for 30-90 days so that search engines continue to see the alternate version without the 302 redirects in place, crawl it, and as a result discover the 301 redirects more readily. If we remove the 302 redirects as well as the rel alternate, then my feeling is that search engines would just index the responsive page accordingly and be less likely to catch the 301 redirects pointing from the m. pages and make the transition of mobile pages in search indices take longer than necessary. Ultimately, I'm probably splitting hairs and getting a bit nuanced because I believe things will work themselves out whether we leave the rel alternate or remove it but I thought it would be great to get any opinions or thoughts from community members that have made a similar transition. Thanks in advance for stopping by and providing your thoughts. All the best,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TakeLessons
Jon PS - for your reference, the only mention that I was able to dig up in Q&A for a move from m. to responsive are the following: Redirecting M Dot Mobile Website to Responsive Design Website Questions SEO Concerns From Moving Mobile M Dot site to Responsive Version?0 -
Should pages with rel="canonical" be put in a sitemap?
I am working on an ecommerce site and I am going to add different views to the category pages. The views will all have different urls so I would like to add the rel="canonical" tag to them. Should I still add these pages to the sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
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 -
HTTPS in Rel Canonical
Hi, Should I, or do I need to, use HTTPS (note the "S") in my canonical tags? Thanks Andrew
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Studio330 -
Is it better "nofollow" or "follow" links to external social pages?
Hello, I have four outbound links from my site home page taking users to join us on our social Network pages (Twitter, FB, YT and Google+). if you look at my site home page, you can find those 4 links as 4 large buttons on the right column of the page: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/ Here is my question: do you think it is better for me to add the rel="nofollow" directive to those 4 links or allow Google to follow? From a PR prospective, I am sure that would be better to apply the nofollow tag, but I would like Google to understand that we have a presence on those 4 social channels and to make clearly a correlation between our official website and our official social channels (and then to let Google understand that our social channels are legitimate and related to us), but I am afraid the nofollow directive could prevent that. What's the best move in this case? What do you suggest to do? Maybe the nofollow is irrelevant to allow Google to correlate our website to our legitimate social channels, but I am not sure about that. Any suggestions are very welcome. Thank you in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau9 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0 -
Pagination with rel=“next” and rel=“prev”
Hey mozzers Would be interested to know if anyone has used the rel=“next” and rel=“prev” attributes more info here http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html If you have used it, has it worked and what are your thoughts etc:? And for those that have used it, is it a better way of handling pagination other than the obvious of Google saying so. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CraigAddyman0