Ponders concerning rel="nofollow"

Paul wrote:

Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it
for their userpages, for example. It sucks!

Didn't know that,

Not 100% true.
Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.

Main wiki? Do you mean article pages? I only said "userpages", meaning
pages in the User: namespace.

--
http://www.kimmoa.se/

Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 9 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it
for their userpages, for example. It sucks!

Didn't know that,

Not 100% true.

Yes, 100% true, I didn't know that :-)

Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.

Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have
nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has
a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.


--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 9 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it
for their userpages, for example. It sucks!

Didn't know that,

Not 100% true.

Yes, 100% true, I didn't know that :-)

I was referring to Wikipedia, rather than userpages. As I do not use
wiki [but have links from them] I was unaware of a "userpage"

Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.

Like KimmoA said

I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.

: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have
nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has
a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.

mea culpa.
Was unaware of userpages.
I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated. But what I read ages
ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things
to do. But I know what I read.

plh
Paul
--
Handmade Jewelry
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovs...rings-310.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/earrings-107.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/gemstone/bracelet-106.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

John Bokma wrote:

Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have
nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has
a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.

So it's bad when something is easy for once? I mean... it's not like
every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so.

--
http://www.kimmoa.se/

Paul wrote:

I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.

Nobody cares about your broken box. And Wikipedia is not the same as
"wiki", you moron.

PS: I know that you still read this, so stop acting.

--
http://www.kimmoa.se/

Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Like KimmoA said

I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.

Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-) But anyway, he had a point this
time.

I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.

In what way?

But what I read ages
ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.

main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true (wiki is a concept like search engine,
and wikipedia is the google amongst the wikis so to speak :-). Wikipedia
decided to rule against the use of nofollow on normal pages, which is
excellent, otherwise people would have been quite pissed off. At least the
ones that understand the damage nofollow is doing to normal users versus
the spammers.

If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things
to do. But I know what I read.

Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many
wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point
is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently
added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least
the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of
other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.

Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up stupid
things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in their own
products.

Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by
Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the
landing page has AdSense, so who cares?

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

"KimmoA" <kimmoa (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does
have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user
page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.

So it's bad when something is easy for once?

No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable
(afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that
escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have
no problem with nofollow on those.

I do object against software that turns it on by default. I have talked to
several webmasters, and they are not even aware of the issue. Yet they
want people to comment to their precious blogs, adding free content. Maybe
the good thing for them is that most commenters are not aware of the whole
thing either.

To me a comment on a blog is someone helping your site. nofollow is trying
to get a free ride. Moreover, it doesn't help against spam. There are
thousands and thousands of blogs and guestbooks wide open. They are easy
to find, and spammed senseless (guess).

I mean... it's not like
every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so.

Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users
on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create,
and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Like KimmoA said

I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.

Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-)

Beautiful things to have.

I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.

In what way?

Its well over hyped. Wiki this, wiki that. Same way bloody blogs went.
And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself. Both have their
faults. But - just like the rest of the net - if it is in wiki, it
must be true. :/

But what I read ages
ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.

main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true

Which is why I said "not 100% true"
I don't care for it much.
Yes, nice layout, fairly clean looking. But its not for me, even
though I have links from it. [And traffic].
So, I am not aware of userwhateveritis etc.
I just remember that one wiki didn't use it, and the rest did. No big
deal.

[...]

If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things
to do. But I know what I read.

Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many
wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point
is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently
added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least
the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of
other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.

Yep, won't be long before there are more wiki's than there are blogs
<G>

Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up stupid
things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in their own
products.

Too true. Like getting their search engine sorted.

Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by
Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the
landing page has AdSense, so who cares?

Typical :/

plh
Paul

--
Handmade Jewelry
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovs...rings-310.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/earrings-107.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/gemstone/bracelet-106.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

John Bokma wrote:

Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does
have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user
page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.

So it's bad when something is easy for once?

No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable
(afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that
escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have
no problem with nofollow on those.

Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.

I mean... it's not like
every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so.

Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users
on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create,
and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..

Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts + banned URLs = perfect
solution.

--
http://www.kimmoa.se/

John Bokma wrote:

Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does
have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user
page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.

So it's bad when something is easy for once?

No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable
(afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that
escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have
no problem with nofollow on those.

Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.

I mean... it's not like
every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so.

Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users
on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create,
and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..

Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts + banned domains = solution.

--
http://www.kimmoa.se/