"Equity sculpting" with internal nofollow links
-
I’ve been trying a couple of new site auditor services this week and they have both flagged the fact that I have some nofollow links to internal pages.
I see this subject has popped up from time to time in this community. I also found a 2013 Matt Cutts video on the subject:
https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2298312/matt-cutts-you-dont-have-to-nofollow-internal-links
At a couple of SEO conferences I’ve attended this year, I was advised that nofollow on internal links can be useful so as not to squander link juice on secondary (but necessary) pages. I suspect many websites have a lot of internal links in their footers and are sharing the love with pages which don’t really need to be boosted. These pages can still be indexed but not given a helping hand to rank by strong pages. This “equity sculpting” (I made that up) seems to make sense to me, but am I missing something?
Examples of these secondary pages include login pages, site maps (human readable), policies – arguably even the general contact page.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Warren -
Useful reference links. Many thanks, Mike.
-
Here's a bit more on the subject.
Matt Cutts PageRank Sculpting 2009
TheSEMPost 2015 - Pagerank sculpting
The SEOBlog Pagerank Sculpting 2014
It just feels like every other year or so, this concept starts coming back up. Except as much as it does work, it also doesn't. Personally I think its a better use of time and effort to look at your site navigation & see if it's user friendly, intuitive, and natural in order to direct flow better and also to work on linkbuilding efforts to increase authority.
-
Thanks, Mike.
Just to be clear, I still want those non-primary internal pages (maybe not human sitemap and login) to be indexed so a robots.txt approach will not completely solve the problem. I just don't want to potentially squander link juice on secondary pages. Footers tend to have quite a bulk of link so there is a lot of dilution there. I had hoped that by halving my links, I'd be doubling the outbound link equity.
The first reference was useful, but only mentions my sculpting goal in the very last sentence without elaborating. The thing I found most interesting was the first comment from Mark Traphagen:
So, if this is true, there's absolutely no equity saving to be had from nofollow'ing internal links to my non-primary pages. But... is it true?! Any experiment results out there?
Finally, with regards to old versions of policies being published, I can't see how that would cause any legal problems. It's the version that is published that is important and, while I can set directives on cache expiry, nobody can be responsible for out-of-date information stored in a third-party cache (unless, of course, it was unlawful at the time of publishing).
-
Adding Nofollow to a handful of links on your site will not magically sculpt link equity in such a way as to create a noticeable improvement like that. If anything, you could just use robots.txt to remove those pages from being crawled. The bots don't necessarily need to index your login page, your human sitemap (if they already have their own), policies (which can change and cause legal issues if an older version is cached), and a few others.
And just a few months ago Gary Illyes stated that there's no good reason to nofollow internal links:
http://www.thesempost.com/google-dont-ever-nofollow-your-own-internal-links/
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
-
Duplicate pages with "/" and without "/"
I seem to have duplicate pages like the examples below: https://example.com https://example.com/ This is happening on 3 pages and I'm not sure why or how to fix it. The first (https://example.com) is what I want and is what I have all my canonicals set too, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything. I've also setup 301 redirects for each page with "/" to be redirected to the page without it. Doing this didn't seem to fix anything as when I use the (https://example.com/) URL it doesn't redirect to (https://example.com) like it's supposed to. This issue has been going on for some time, so any help would be much appreciated. I'm using Squarespace as the design/hosting site.
Technical SEO | | granitemountain0 -
As a beginner in SEO, how do I do 302 redirects/ rel="canonicals"
One of the things Inseem to leave undone is failure to do 302 redirects or rel="canonicals" on my site www.johannesburg.today. Please help .
Technical SEO | | Gain40 -
"Ghost" errors on blog structured data?
Hi, I'm working on a blog which Search Console account advises me about a big bunch of errors on its structured data: Structured data - graphics Structured data - hentry list Structured data - detail But I get to https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/ and it tells me "all is ok": Structured data - test Any clue? Thanks in advance, F0NE5lz.png hm7IBtV.png aCRJdJO.jpg 15SRo93.jpg
Technical SEO | | Webicultors0 -
Rel="Follow"? What the &#@? does that mean?
I've written a guest blog post for a site. In the link back to my site they've put a rel="follow" attribute. Is that valid HTML? I've Googled it but the answers are inconclusive, to say the least.
Technical SEO | | Jeepster0 -
Why doesn't SEOmoz see internal/external links on my site?
My SEOmoz analysis that my site contains neither external or internal lnks. I have used other tools and they have all seen the internal and external links on the pages. There aren't many but they are there. Why isn't SEOmoz seeing them?
Technical SEO | | iain0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Internal links to low value pages
Hi, We're doing a big content update on our product pages and I'm looking for some advice about our internal linking. In a nutshell, the current design we're using links out from every product page (i.e. plants) to a set of accessory pages (i.e. things to help you plant the plants). The screenshot shows how this works. The accessories we sell are a very small part of our business and don't attract significant or valuable search traffic. It's the plant pages that pull in the visits and make the money.
Technical SEO | | jdeb
The reason for all these links to accessory pages is for usabilty & to reduce the volume of support calls about accessories (we get a lot of those). So my concern is that by linking out to these relatively low value accessory pages from all of our plant product pages, we will be spilling link juice from all our important pages to a small set of unimportant ones. Should I be concerned about this and if so, what should I do differently? I have considered: Making an intermediary page, listing the relevant accessories, so that each product page links to one intermediary page, which then links to all the accessories. Using nofollow on the accessory page links - there is so much info out there about this, much of it conflicting, that I just don't know if that's a good or bad idea. Using some kind of java-based pop-up box to list the accessory links that will hide the links from spiders. Linking back from the accessory pages to the relevant product sub-category pages to loop the flow of link juice. All ideas welcome zoBgC0 -
Internal Link Counts in SEOMoz Report?
Hi, We ran a site diagnostic and it came back with thousands of pages that have more than 100 internal links on a page; however, the actual number of links on those pages seems to be far less than what was reported. Any ideas? Thanks! Phil UPDATE: So we've looked at the source code and realized that for each product we link to the product page in multiple ways - from the product image, product title and price. So we have three internal links to the same page from each product listing, which is being counted by the SEOMoz crawler as hundreds of links on each page. But in terms of the Googlebot, is this as egregious as having hundreds of links to different pages or does it not matter as much?
Technical SEO | | beso1