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
-
Rel=canonical and internal links
Hi Mozzers, I was musing about rel=canonical this morning and it occurred to me that I didnt have a good answer to the following question: How does applying a rel=canonical on page A referencing page B as the canonical version affect the treatment of the links on page A? I am thinking of whether those links would get counted twice, or in the case of ver-near-duplicates which may have an extra sentence which includes an extra link, whther that extra link would count towards the internal link graph or not. I suspect that google would basically ignore all the content on page A and only look to page B taking into account only page Bs links. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | unirmk0 -
Is there an advantage to using rel=canonical rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)?
Is there an advantage to using link rel=alternate (as recommended by Google) rather than noindex on pages on my mobile site (m.company.com)? The content on the mobile pages is very similar to the content on the desktop site. I see Google recommends canonical and alternate tags, but what are the benefits of using those rather than noindex?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jennifer.new0 -
Can I add Title/Description tags to site map
I have started working on a website that it written in JAVA. It has 26 URL's But because of the way it is written it is all shown on the home page code and does not have the ability to add unique title and description tags. Is there a work around for SEO on websites like this aside from adding content? I was wondering if there is a way to submit a sitemat with title and description tags. Any advice? Chris.K
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CKerr0 -
Canonical Rel .uk and .au to .com site?
Hi guys, we have a client whose main site is .com but who has a .co.uk and a com.au site promoting the same company/brand. Each site is verified locally with a local address and phone but when we create content for the sites that is universal, should I rel=canonical those pages on the .co.uk and .com.au sites to the .com site? I saw a post from Dr. Pete that suggests I should as he outlines pretty closely the situation we're in: "The ideal use of cross-domain rel=canonical would be a situation where multiple sites owned by the same entity share content, and that content is useful to the users of each individual site." Thanks in advance for your insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wcbuckner0 -
How to add subdomains to webmaster tools?
Can anyone help with how I add a sub domain to webmaster tools? Also do I need to create a seperate sitemap for each sub domain? Any help appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SamCUK1 -
What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"?
Hi mozzers, I would like to know What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"? and is it dangerous to have both of these elements combined together? One of my client's page has the these two elements and kind of bothers me because I only know link rel="canonical" to be relevant to remove duplicates. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Is it ok to add rel=CANONICAL into the desktop version on top of the rel="alternate" Tag (Mobile vs Desktop version)
Hi mozzers, We launched a mobile site a couples months ago following the parallel mobile structure with a URL:m.example.com The week later my moz crawl detected thousands of dups which I resolved by implementing canonical tags on the mobile version and rel=alternate onto the desktop version. The problem here is that I still also got Dups from that got generated by the CMS. ?device=mobile ?device=desktop One of the options to resolve those is to add canonicals on the desktop versions as well on top of the rel=alternate tag we just implemented. So my question here: is it dangerous to add rel=canonical and rel=alternate tags on the desktop version of the site or not? will it disrupt the rel=canonical on mobile? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Rel="prev" and view all question
Okay, I've read the posts by Google about the new prev, next tags and the suggestion for using a view all option. I've also read the posts here on SEOMoz on the topic but none of them quite address what we have. First, Some of our main categories are very large (over 6000 pieces of jewelry) so a view all option would take forever to load be completely useless to a visitor. Second, our category home pages provide (here's an example😞 A description of the category with links to important sections and articles A row of new items A dozen of the popular items from the category. Links to related articles if applicable. So we have a real category home page with content instead of just categories that start immediately with pages of product. Should we set the canonical url for all of the browse pages to the main category page, create a view all page or just use the next and previous rel tags with the category home pages as the first in the series?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IanTheScot0