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.
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
-
Us eof outbound links and referencing sources
Hello everyone, I am writing weekly articles for a website. At times, I am referring to data/statistics from other articles/studies. My question is - how do you include links/references to this material? For example, I notice that some articles cite their sources at the end/bottom. But - some include outbound links to the original source throughout the main content of the article- so that when you click on the link it takes you to the correct web page. So far, I am including a 'Sources' section at the end of my article that includes title, author, date. I am doing this to stop people clicking off my article to check out the link! Do I need a specific sources section if I cite my source as I go along? For example, 'In their 2017 study of life insurance, the Association of British Insurers found that 70% of Brits are without life insurance'. (made up statistic! Different web writers seem to do different things and it's a little confusing!! Sorry if this is rather long -winded! Any help with this would be much appreciated. Thanks guys, Clare
On-Page Optimization | | ClareO0 -
Whether to open a new window for an internal link
I'm aware of the advice to add internal links between pages and so I always add links as and when appropriate. However, my website builder allows me the option to open the link in a new window or in the originator. I invariably choose the former but don't know if this is best practice. Could anyone advise?
On-Page Optimization | | Catherine_Selectaglaze0 -
Canonical home page references - logo link
should a website's logo be linked to the "abc.com/index.html" page or to the "abc.com" domain root? Is one better for the search engine robots?
On-Page Optimization | | mtishman1 -
Do Search Engines Try To Follow Phone Number Links
Any SEO thoughts on using rel="nofollow" when inserting a link to a phone number? To make a phone number click to call we use (555) 555-1234 Wondering if search engines are trying to follow that link or if this is standard and not to worry. Any thoughts on if I should add rel="nofollow" to these or does it not matter? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Lions-Pro0 -
Do contextual links hold more weight?
Hi, Say you have an article, does a link in the content itself hold more weight then including it in say the byline? I have read so many times a link higher up the page, contextual has much more benefit than a link way below the fold separated from the main content within a byline. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | Bondara0 -
Are Content in Inline Javascript and Collapsible Considered Cloaking to Google?
Hi, I would like to save space in my website and do not want my other products to be pushed down below the first fold. In order to do that, I have decided to add content inside inline javascript or using collapsible. For collapsible, I may be using "show/hide" button or "read more" button to show the whole content. So does content in Javascript and collapsible considered hiding from Google? If it is, then I have to think of other options. Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | globalsources.com0 -
Does link text "more information" have more weight than a normal link?
Does the anchor text "more information" hold any additional weight than any other anchor text? My suspicion is no, but just wanted to confirm.
On-Page Optimization | | nicole.healthline0 -
Nofollow tags
So on the homepage, should all the links like privacy, contact us, etc...be rel="nofollow" ? I want to get a better handle on passing as much link juice on homepage to important internal pages as I can, and want to get it right. Thanks in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | azguy1