Do you get penalized for cloaking the nofollow attribute in reciprocal link?
-
Is it bad to present a link to SE robots as a no-follow link, while normal users see it as a do-follow link?
-
I did read all, and my comments summed up my thoughts.
You are being deceptive and trying to justify it by saying you are cleaning up the web.
When Ryan rightly said that presenting one think to search engines and another to everyone else, you dishonestly put words in his mouth with some mumblings about a third party website owner, you don’t see able to cope with what he did say and instead pretended he stated something else.How do you reconcile these 2 statements?
Everything but the tag remains unaltered,
I provide EXACTLY THE SAME information on a page to both users and SE RobotsAre you presenting the same, or are you altering the tag?
And what is this decoy
“I am neither hiding my affiliate links nor cloaking ads to improve CTR.”That’s not what he said. He was talking of your no-follow trick you asked about; again you seem to be un-able to cope with the facts.
Putting words into someone’s mouth is dishonest and childish. Is this something you have done all your life?
Next time you want to make stupid comments read the guidelines first.
-
I never said that i am doing this. I wanted to start a mini-discussion.
Next time you want to comment, make sure you have read everything thoroughly and stick on topic. There is no need to comments that are not associated with the topic. Thank you.
-
I dont think you are being honest with yourself, us or the people you have reciprocal links with.
-
You are being deceptive.
And by the way, you still leak link juice wether it is no-follow or not. The only difference is where the link juice goes. To the other site, or up in smoke.
-
My only goal in responding was to answer your question. I am sharing with you the information that Google, the primary search engine for the US and Europe, has shared. I am not debating my personal views on the topic, but simply sharing how Google views the issue. If the explanation I offered helps in any way, then I am glad. If you disagree with it, that is certainly your right.
There is no debate here. You are clearly cloaking, it is a violation and since it is blatant and intentional, I would suggest it is a severe violation. Your beliefs, my beliefs, your intentions, etc are all completely irrelevant and will never be considered on any level by anyone. The only time they will even be heard is after your site is penalized and you are completing the Reconsideration Request explaining why you violated Google's policies. Even then, they are unlikely to be directly responded to.
Good Luck.
-
"Presenting the links as nofollow to search engines in no way contributes to cleaner, better SERPs" - are you aware of the fact that no-follow links do not pass the link juice?
So, website owner who is buying/exchanging links with another website is NOT growing their links naturally and hence, according to Google guidelines, every link should have a no-follow attribute.
"Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings": i am not trying to improve my search engine rankings.
"Robbing a bank" - ?????
Who am i trying to rob? I provide EXACTLY THE SAME information on a page to both users and SE Robots. I am neither hiding my affiliate links nor cloaking ads to improve CTR.
-
You are welcome to other opinions, but if they differ they are wrong. There are relatively few hard facts in SEO but you have clearly touched upon a basic one.
Quality guidelines - basic principles
-
Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
-
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769
Some examples of cloaking include:
- Serving different content to search engines than to users.
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66355
If you go through with your actions, it is pure cloaking which is a highly intentional and deceptive act. Your words about your honorable intent are absolutely not valid by any reasonable means. Presenting the links as nofollow to search engines in no way contributes to cleaner, better SERPs. Even if they did, it would be like robbing a bank, giving the money away and then when you are arrested stating you were just trying to help society. You may disagree with the analogy but it is actually pretty good. As a webmaster you contribute by following the rules and guidelines, not breaking them.
-
-
Everything but the tag remains unaltered, i am not feeding SE robots with different texts, links or whatever.
Thank you for your answer and i am looking forward to more opinions
And oh, about the reason: I am just wondering if we get penalized for providing search engines valuable information and contributing towards the cleaner, better SERPs.
-
Any time you intentionally target search engines and show them different content then normal users, it is cloaking and you can be penalized for the action.
I cannot think of any reason to perform such an action unless you are trying to deceive your linking partners.
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
-
ASP Canonical and Internal Linking
Hello - I'm working with a large ASP website and trying to troubleshoot issues I believe might be related to how the canonical element is used. On page - all internal links, including navigation links, use the following format (uppercase) - website.com**/F**older/Folder/Product . So, any page navigated to will always display the uppercase version of the URL. And, all of these pages have the canonical tag pointing to the lowercase version of the URL. The pages included in Google's index are all lowercase versions of the URL like this - website.com**/f**older/folder/product . My concern is that a lot of internal authority flow is being impacted/negated because all internal links point to the uppercase versions of URLs and all those pages reference the lowercase version URL in the canonical reference. Is this a valid concern?
On-Page Optimization | | LA_Steve0 -
Too many on-page links
Hi, I've apparently got too many on-page links on 79 of my webpages. The majority of these pages are category pages, like this: https://www.turnkeymortgages.co.uk/mortgage-advice/mortgages/... so, what's a person to do? Obviously the page would be useless without the links. Should I just ignore these 'errors'? Or is there something else I should do? I don't want to appear manipulative by labelling them nofollow... Thanks, Amelia
On-Page Optimization | | CommT0 -
To Many Links & Long Titles
One of our clients currently has a number of pages that "Too many on page links", Now her menu in itself has the majority. With it being an eComerce website it has quite a few categories. How harmfull is this to search rankings. The other side of thing's, Currently the client has a large number of pages where the title of the page is the product, However her products for example could be "The pink fluffy bear 2x4 with extendable arm and voice activation ( batteries not included )" Again, how Harmfull is having a large volume of pages named like this.
On-Page Optimization | | bmkdigital0 -
Best practice for Portfolio Links
I have a client with a really large project portfolio (over 500 project images), which causes their portfolio page to have well over the 100 links that are recommended. How can I reduce this without reducing the number of photos they can upload?
On-Page Optimization | | HochKaren0 -
Landing page content and link distribution
Hey there fellow mozers, Need some advice, one of my clients asked us about the best way to distribute their content: number of restaurants per page, links and footer in their Landing pages. Here are 2 examples of what I mean: http://www.just-eat.es/adomicilio/madrid http://www.just-eat.es/adomicilio/pizza Thanks a lot!
On-Page Optimization | | Comunicare0 -
Site wide 301 or canonical links.
Hi guys, I'd like add code to my header file to specify www. as opposed to just http:// for the canonical links across my entire site. How can I do this? I'd like it to be site wide code that I can just add to my header.php file which is included across the site.
On-Page Optimization | | absoauto0 -
Blocking Google seeing outbound links?
Apart from rewriting the outbound url to look like a folder 'abc.co.uk/out/link1' and blocking the folder 'out' in the robots.txt file, along with also nofollowing the links as well, is there anything else you can do?
On-Page Optimization | | activitysuper0 -
PageRank: Links on menu and footer to the same page, does it get counted twice?
Hello all. If I have 10 links on a menu linking to 10 different pages, and 10 links on the footer linking to the same pages, does PageRank get divided by 10 or 20?
On-Page Optimization | | MiamiWebCompany0