Ponders concerning rel="nofollow"

"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.

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

Thanks, didn't know that.

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

Piece of cake to automate that.

+ banned URLs = perfect
solution.

Who is going to check all user pages and update that list?
What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?

Oopsie...

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

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

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

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 have been able to keep mine mostly empty for 12 years or so :-)

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

In what way?

Its well over hyped.

But does that make the wiki in itself overrated?

Wiki this, wiki that.

I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to
bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also
the search works way better IMO.

Same way bloody blogs went.
And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.

You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while
you mean Google :-)

Both have their
faults. But - just like the rest of the net - if it is in wiki, it
must be true. :/

Even before the wiki that was the case. And before that, if it was in
the encyclopedia it must be true. There are still biology books, I am
afraid, that explains that the tongue can be devided in sections
dedicated to one of the four basic tastes. Which is funny because a
century or so ago a fifth taste was discovered :-D. So in short each
information source has the probability to be wrong. Wikipedia at least
gives you the oppurtunity to fix it.

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.

There are probably many more, like I said: WikiMedia the software that
some wikis use, turns it on by default. At least the version(s) I am
using.

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

A lot of OS projects are using Wikis. The main advantage is that if one
notices a minor bug, one can update the wiki instead of trying to
contact the developer, etc. Disadvantage is that one does have to create
a login for a lot of wikis :-(.

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 :/

Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
spammers that they will get into trouble?

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

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

John Bokma wrote:

Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts

Piece of cake to automate that.

Don't interupt me in the middle of a sentence...

+ banned URLs = perfect
solution.

Who is going to check all user pages and update that list?
What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?

Oopsie...

Thanks for quoting the bad post. "URLs" should say "domains".

And no, it's not hard to keep track of.

John Bokma wrote:

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 :/

Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
spammers that they will get into trouble?

"nokias.blogspot.com"? What's that? Doesn't seem to exist...

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

On 10 Sep 2006 04:49:24 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

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

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

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


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

In what way?

Its well over hyped.

But does that make the wiki in itself overrated?

It's over-rated and over-hyped.

Wiki this, wiki that.

I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to
bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also
the search works way better IMO.

That's you. I am me.

Same way bloody blogs went.
And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.

You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while
you mean Google :-)

Only cos I am not familar with it. Just like mobile phones. Don't like
them. Don't want nothing to do with them.

[...]

Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
spammers that they will get into trouble?

I am somewhat puzzled as to why they do so little over this.

plh
Paul

--
Handmade Jewelry
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovs...celet-101.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/pearl/necklace-304.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/bracelet-203.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 =----

__/ [ tonnie ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 20:32 \__

Big Bill schreef:
On 9 Sep 2006 11:55:50 -0700, "KimmoA" <kimmoa (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

What search engines, other than Google, support it?

Google has become a search engines monolith and monopolist, which extends
towards a becoming part of the American (and global) oligopoly. Just like
XML sitemaps, this was 'invented' by Google (unilaterally) and supported by
Google. I think the W3 consortium should have gotten involved.

Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I
find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled
URLs, I guess it's good.

It introduces links hierarchy and classes, which is unwanted complexity, IMH.

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archiv...-rel-nofollow/

Also of relevance:

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archiv.../comment-spam/

Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the
engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to
quality sites in your genre.

Valid point.

The only propper way to use it is when the website linking to is merely
used as an example but not trusted enough or a plain spammer.

Aye. But I think that more CMS's should have an expiration rule that strips
off the rel"nofollow" after some predefined period of time. Still,
rel="nofollow" is no answer to curious human surfers. That's where
additional issues lie and it is also the reason why comment spam is on the
rise, despite the emergence of sophisticated anti-spam mechanism -- those
that make commenting and reviewing an utterly miserable and repellent
experience.

I can recall the day when rel="nofollow" was introduced. Some overly
optimistic developers thought it was the death knell to SPAM while I took a
stance.

http://schestowitz.com/IMG/no-nofollow-button.png

rel="nofollow" never offered a solution. It was a bad idea from the get-go.
It killed participation in Web sites (no link, no incentive), made
everything more complex, and urges spammers to use greater brute force.

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archiv...ogs-recession/

In a sense, Google killed participation in blogs (not deliberately). I
predicted this in the item above (when rel="nofollow" was a new feature) and
even Om Malik linked to that item to express consent.

http://gigaom.com/2005/04/25/busines...-and-business/

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate (Medical Biophysics)
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 336944k used, 699240k free, 78136k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

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

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.

Easy to remove the nofollow from WordPress. Find the file
comment-functions.php In the folder /wp-includes/

Look for this (after line 350)

$return = "<a href='$url' rel='nofollow'>$author</a>";

And change to-

$return = "<a href='$url'>$author</a>";

The Authors comment links will no longer have nofollow.

I'm testing it out on http://www.morearnings.com/ see if I get an
increase in comment SPAM, think I will, but will be manual and not
much.

http://www.morearnings.com/2006/09/1...-rel-nofollow/

I've been meaning to add a remove nofollow option to my blogs, so by
default they are nofollowed, but after review remove the nofollow
manually. Just have to find the time.

Would make a good WordPress plugin, though I lack the skills to do
that.

David
--
WordPress Themes with AdSense ads
http://www.morearnings.com/category/wordpress-themes/
AdSense Tips http://www.morearnings.com/2006/05/08/adsense-revenue/

__/ [ David ] on Sunday 10 September 2006 15:49 \__

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

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.

Easy to remove the nofollow from WordPress. Find the file
comment-functions.php In the folder /wp-includes/

Look for this (after line 350)

$return = "<a href='$url' rel='nofollow'>$author</a>";

And change to-

$return = "<a href='$url'>$author</a>";

The Authors comment links will no longer have nofollow.

I'm testing it out on http://www.morearnings.com/ see if I get an
increase in comment SPAM, think I will, but will be manual and not
much.

http://www.morearnings.com/2006/09/1...-rel-nofollow/

I've been meaning to add a remove nofollow option to my blogs, so by
default they are nofollowed, but after review remove the nofollow
manually. Just have to find the time.

Would make a good WordPress plugin, though I lack the skills to do
that.

David, that plugin has existed since WP 1.5.0 was introduced. I hope you no
longer comment spam.

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Have you hugged your penguin today?
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/8 Sun Sep 10 09:49 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:51:32 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [ David ] on Sunday 10 September 2006 15:49 \__

I've been meaning to add a remove nofollow option to my blogs, so by
default they are nofollowed, but after review remove the nofollow
manually. Just have to find the time.

Would make a good WordPress plugin, though I lack the skills to do
that.

David, that plugin has existed since WP 1.5.0 was introduced.

Are you saying there's a plugin to remove the nofollow on selected
posts? I didn't look (yet).

I hope you no
longer comment spam.

No need to hope Roy, I gave that up before charging for SEO services
years ago, so not done that since 2003 (spammed for about 9 months I
think). Got an important domain of mine adultlingerieuk.com banned
from Google for my troubles :-)

Haven't you read what I think about comment spamming?

Been a while since it's come up here (usually was with arguments with
Sam!), but my position is don't comment spam because you are likely to
get your site banned in Google.

http://www.morearnings.com/2006/05/3...and-blackjack/

If you find any comment spams to my sites that are under 2 years old
you can thank Sam for those, the little shit took it upon himself to
comment spam a bunch of my sites to try to hurt them (he started early
2004, possibly earlier I forget)!

Best wishes,

Roy

David
--
SEO Tutorial http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
More Earnings Blog http://www.morearnings.com/

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

John Bokma wrote:
Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts

Piece of cake to automate that.

Don't interupt me in the middle of a sentence...

+ banned URLs = perfect
solution.

Who is going to check all user pages and update that list?
What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?

Oopsie...

Thanks for quoting the bad post. "URLs" should say "domains".

And no, it's not hard to keep track of.

Yes it is. There are several issues with this approach.

Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
spammers that they will get into trouble?

"nokias.blogspot.com"? What's that? Doesn't seem to exist...

You forgot to put stuff in front (ringtone-).

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

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

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

On 10 Sep 2006 04:49:24 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

[..]

It's over-rated and over-hyped.

Ok, a personal opinion.

Wiki this, wiki that.

I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to
bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also
the search works way better IMO.

That's you. I am me.

Yup, like overrated/hyped is you :-).

Same way bloody blogs went.
And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.

You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while
you mean Google :-)

Only cos I am not familar with it. Just like mobile phones. Don't like
them. Don't want nothing to do with them.

Same here. I have one, but only because we have no landline (I in general
don't like phones :-) ). I had the same with PDAs. But OTOH I know that
once one starts to use something, the opinion might be changed. It's not
good to call something overrated and overhyped just because you see it pop
up often. I mean, people call Google overhyped and overrated. A lot who do
rank poor or very poor in Google :-)

[...]

Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
spammers that they will get into trouble?

I am somewhat puzzled as to why they do so little over this.

Fear?

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

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