Meta nofollow... will this help site ranking?

suddently think of this today, by using the meta index nofollow, this can prevent the bot from crawling to external site, and thus preventing links to unrelevant site, and to bad neighbourhood as well. is there any proof that this helps page ranking?

I don't believe that this will help your site at all, but I also don't think that it'd hurt it to much if done right.

The nofollow is fine to be used, but should not be abused (don't have it on every external link on your site). Some SE's don't like it when it's used to much and can penalise you for it. It's only small, but not worth the problems.

Really, why are you going to use it on links like that? The only thing that I can think of is that you're doing reciprocal or three-way linking with bad sites, and don't want to have your link to them credited. Hopefully I'm wrong on that one!

ya, by hoping that avoiding linking to bad neighbour, i can safe myself. thus increase my site quality.

I've got a better way... If it's a site that's a "bad neighbourhood" then just DON'T LINK TO IT!

I'd have thought that'd be obvious. Why would you want to link to a site that's like that but is in a bad neighbourhood anyway??

Exactly. Couldn't be a better answer then this.

hi,

no this is not going to help you anyway. if search engine spiders won't be able to crawl your site then how can it be helpful for your site to keep good page rank.

when you use no follow atributes then you are blocking the crawler to crawl the site.by using no follow atributes is not going to help you any way for higher page rank.

Your mixed up. Nofollow does not stop Google from crawling. It just tells them not to pass along any value to the page. Or in otherwords I am not affiliated with this page. It was created for blogs/forums mainly to combat comment spam.
Are you trying to link exchange with a bunch of sites and nofollow them so they are one-ways to you? If so you will get in trouble eventually. Be fair...

Actually you are incorrect, too.

'nofollow' tells Google, and others, not to follow the links on that page. 'noindex' tells them not to index the page.

it will help in a little way, but still the biggest factor to get a high rank are the ff:
link to a trustworthy sites (authority sites), relevancy of the site you are linking and the credibility of the author/publisher of the sites.

Actually linking to other websites never help your rankings. It's links from other websites that help.

I said index when I meant value. My mistake. However Google does follow nofollow links it just doesn't pass along any value to them.



I don't believe that. I believe linking to authority sites does good: http://www.1stsearchenginerankings.com/2007/02/16/the-value-of-an-outbound-link-in-the-world-of-google/

That blog post is awful. It's a typical newbie rant to be honest with you. And after reviewing the rest of their blog I'd have to say they are not a good source for SEO information and their advice should never be taken too seriously without first consulting many other sources.

The whole outgoing link thing has been mentioned by amateurs going on 4 or 5 years now, no one has ever proved it, and many have shown evidence of it not mattering. Newer people to SEO tend to see Google's goal as one to police the webmaster community and make sure everyone plays fair. Google is not a referee, they are a search engine, they care about serving relevant results.

Newer people to SEO also fail to understand what PageRank is. PageRank is a measure of perceived page quality, if an outgoing link adds to a page's quality it will get more incoming links and thus rank better. If it doesn't add to a page's quality, no bonus will be had. There is absolutely no reason for Google to second guess themselves and add arbitrary blanket bonuses or penalties to all sites because on a perceived notion of a certain attribute always making a site better or worse. So, in short, because Google measures incoming links, they have no need to measure outgoing links, or anything else that supposedly marks a site as having a higher "quality." in the end, if it truly does have a higher quality, it'll get more incoming links naturally.

Then there is the fact that outgoing links are strictly under the control of the webmaster, like meta tags, and so assigning them any weight leads to the same problems that brought around the downfall of meta tags.

Finally, there are all the thousands or millions of sites and pages that rank perfectly well without any outgoing links. Certain types of sites, such as blogs, normally have outgoing links and it would look abnormal for them not to. However most other site types normally do not have outgoing links and haven't traditionally had them, going back to the 90s, long before Google came about. Most business, commercial, ecommerce, or service sites do not have outgoing links. Not because they're hoarding PR, but because they're trying to sell something and do not want to distract from the user experience or send users away.

You must not remember a time before incoming link algorithms. In those times to measure quality search engines had to guess based on on-page factors, and it was hard to impossible. The the invention of incoming links, or PageRank, search engines had a perfect way to measure the quality of a site, and so then only had to discern topicality. Why would they take a step backwards and again start using on-page factors to measure quality?

Google has a lot of smart people working for them, they realize that if external links truly do add to the usefulness of a site then that site is already receiving a bonus because more useful sites garner more incoming links. This is also true for anything else that supposedly adds usefulness. They aren't going to say "Hey, we have this really good algorithm here, but lets second guess it and make an assumption that pages without outgoing links need to be penalized for being less useful." Why would you ever make an assumption about something that you can already discretely measure?

Also, do not forget, Google itself created the nofollow link attribute to give webmasters an easier way to block links.

In the end, if Google did give value to external links, it'd be meaningless. As soon as it was confirmed (which no one has been able to do) all the spammers and everyone else would just add one or two links to their pages. It would do nothing to increase relevance.

I am not a newb thank you very much. And may I ask where you get your information? What parts of the blog are wrong? Please be specific. I can claim the Dodge Charger is the worst muscle out there but does that prove anything?




Your missing the point and to use your words 'its typical of a newbie'. You obviously didn't read the whole post or you would have understood it. If such a factor exists and I say IF BECAUSE NOWHERE WAS A CLAIM MADE THAT ONE DID EXIST. If such a factor existed it would take into account the site itself whether it was spammy crap or a quality site. Also linking to 500 sites just as was mentioned in the article would not raise your rankings to the top. It is value and authority here were talking about.