Nofollow sig links

[RedEvo]

Are there any plans to make sig links nofollow?

I removed my sig links - which generated traffic - because I was accused of bring a hypocrite as I strongly disagree with paid links. Because sig lnks are a benefit of membership (paid) they are effectively paid links.

I'm happy with content links being follow but I'd prefer sig to be nofollow so I can provide people with easy access to our company website with a clear conscience.

Just throwing this up for consideration.

d

[pws1970]

Are there any plans to make sig links nofollow?

I removed my sig links - which generated traffic - because I was accused of bring a hypocrite as I strongly disagree with paid links. Because sig lnks are a benefit of membership (paid) they are effectively paid links.

I'm happy with content links being follow but I'd prefer sig to be nofollow so I can provide people with easy access to our company website with a clear conscience.

Just throwing this up for consideration.

d

D,

I understand what you are saying but a good compromise would be to nofollow all links posted except the first link in your signature.

So, that way people who still pay for full membership get a clean link to their site along with the other benefits and those that join for free and continue to post back to their own site from posts get no link juice just traffic.


Paul

[RedEvo]

The argument against that is content links add value and pass on info so I think they should be follow (their value being questionable anyway).

I thought the way you do on this but RayB convinced me I was wrong.

d

[sirearl]

Are there any plans to make sig links nofollow?

I removed my sig links - which generated traffic - because I was accused of bring a hypocrite as I strongly disagree with paid links. Because sig lnks are a benefit of membership (paid) they are effectively paid links.

I'm happy with content links being follow but I'd prefer sig to be nofollow so I can provide people with easy access to our company website with a clear conscience.


d

In that case you should not indulge in any form of advertising.:)

Nearly all my best friends are Hypocrites,now why would a sane person worry about other peoples verbal accusations.:rolleyes::D

I paid for membership so I could have links in my sig no other reason ,so sift would lose my contribution if sig links were no follow.



Earl

[RedEvo]

Mind you, if I was using my sig for links I'd be linking with hot keywords not URL's........hint.

;)

d

[RayB]

Mind you, if I was using my sig for links I'd be linking with hot keywords not URL's........hint.

;)

d

Tee Hee ^^^

Forums the world over use signature links. I'm sure Google simply ignores/virtually ignores them.

I'd leave it as it is as follow links, and consider re-instating yours.

I'm getting over 200 uniques per week from here :)

[sirearl]

Mind you, if I was using my sig for links I'd be linking with hot keywords not URL's........hint.

;)

d


still got me L plates on.:eek::D

Earl

[RedEvo]

consider re-instating yours.

I know.......but.........

d

[ken_uk]

Well if it was a clear Cutt situation, that google has no problem with at all, then Matt Cutts could easily have answered the question on his blog.

As far as I recall, he did his usual trick, and remained silent.

That indicates to me at least, that google either has a employee that cant be bothered to answer questions on his blog, or it could well be something they may have a problem with - or they could quickly say, no thats fine.

[RayB]

I know.......but.........

d

Yeah but, no but........:p

I really don't see them as paid links. For example, I'm a member of our trade association, and as one of a myriad of benefits I get a listing and link in their member directory. Is this a paid link? Absolutely not IMO.

As to UKBF, not only do we get a range of benefits, we also add a ton of content - for free. Who gets that benefit and what would it cost if we charged for writing this content? More than £36 I'd wager. So no way are UKBF "paid links" IMO, quite the opposite :)

[RedEvo]

Yeah but, no but........:p

I really don't see them as paid links. For example, I'm a member of our trade association, and as one of a myriad of benefits I get a listing and link in their member directory. Is this a paid link? Absolutely not IMO.

As to UKBF, not only do we get a range of benefits, we also add a ton of content - for free. Who gets that benefit and what would it cost if we charged for writing this content? More than £36 I'd wager. So no way are UKBF "paid links" IMO, quite the opposite :)

You'll do for me.

d

[ken_uk]

But us adding content should not come in to the equation, as you can add as much spiderable content as you want, without paying.


But if I want a automatic sig link, that is not nofollowed, then I have to pay - so it is clearly a paid link.

[RedEvo]

But us adding content should not come in to the equation, as you can add as much spiderable content as you want, without paying.


But if I want a automatic sig link, that is not nofollowed, then I have to pay - so it is clearly a paid link.

I'd like to benefit from the advice I give out in these forums. One of the best ways is to have a nice handy link at the bottom of my posts as the green button is hardly intuitive.

I'm not looking for link juice, I am looking for click traffic.

That's why I'd like the sig links to be nofollow.

d

[ken_uk]

There is a green button?

[Spiderden]

Changing the sig links to No Follow may affect the number of people who become paid members therefore having a negative effect on Sift's profits, also some members who have already paid for membership may not be too happy about having something they believe they have paid for taken away from them resulting in Sift having to either refund those members or implementing the change only when those members' subscriptions are renewed which will take 12 months before everyone has No Follow sig links.

[RedEvo]

Really? I must be being naive then. I joined the forum to help others and generate business. I wasn't looking for link love.

Also, paid links are in clear breach of Google's terms and conditions so if people are buying membership here for link juice they are in breach.....

Just a thought ;)

d

[Spiderden]

I agree, but not everyone who has signed up will though!

[RayB]

I'm sticking with what I said in #10.

Loads of forums have sig links. With this one you can choose a paid membership which includes a wide range of benefits, including the private area, bidding on tenders etc.

I think it is illogical to bring the links here into the paid links debate

[Spiderden]

With this one you can choose a paid membership which includes a wide range of benefits, including the private area, bidding on tenders etc.


I only paid out of nosiness so I could see what everyone was talking about in the private area :p

[RayB]

I only paid out of nosiness so I could see what everyone was talking about in the private area :p

Indeed Sir :D

Let's look at it another way. UKBF dominates the SERPS's and I'm not aware of anyone being penalised due to the presence of sig links here.

So to me that says Goog has no issue with it and is applying common sense to what we have here.

In the unlikely event that changes; lets have the debate.

What they are after is blatant link buying for PR. And that is a whole different balll game IMO; which thet are rightly going after

[DotNetWebs]

...What they are after is blatant link buying for PR. And that is a whole different balll game IMO; which thet are rightly going after

I agree. Your signature link does not stand alone. It accompanies some content that has been deemed suitable for inclusion on this forum.

People cannot just ‘buy’ links. The links need to be attached to posts that will be deleted if they are deemed unsuitable for inclusion on this forum.

There are some forums where members with high post counts sell their signatures to anybody prepared to pay. If that was the case here I would agree that signatures should be classified as paid links. Hopefully Swift would never permit to happen that so I don’t see any problem with the way links are handled now.

Regards

Dotty

[sirearl]

Lets get this straight ,The mighty google who's sole purpose for being on the internet is to make money is trying to dictate to the rest of mankind, that they should not be interested in making money but in quality and information we supply to googles customers,for of course google's benefit.

And as the biggest link seller the world has ever seen (now don't tell me there links have no follow they are links ) we mere mortals are frowned upon by mountain view for the same practice that they smother the web with.

Come back Adolf all is forgiven.

Earl

[RayB]

And as the biggest link seller the world has ever seen (now don't tell me there links have no follow they are links )

*Sigh* See here we go again. Adwords are NOT links, they are javascript redirects. So they have no SEO benefit. End Of.....

[sirearl]

*Sigh* See here we go again. Adwords are NOT links, they are javascript redirects. So they have no SEO benefit. End Of.....

For the hard of hearing ,listen very carefully .

when mummy clicks on an adwords ,mummy is redirected to the adwordee's site.

That is a link.it may have no follow or jarva or instant destruction,but I and Bernie Lee would sat thats a Link.

Earl

[RedEvo]

And the link is marked as SPONSORED. I speak to many many people who won't click adwords links as they see them as adverts.

d

[RayB]

For the hard of hearing ,listen very carefully .

when mummy clicks on an adwords ,mummy is redirected to the adwordee's site.

That is a link.it may have no follow or jarva or instant destruction,but I and Bernie Lee would sat thats a Link.

Earl

OK so if a link is a link why did you say this a few posts back:

I paid for membership so I could have links in my sig no other reason ,so sift would lose my contribution if sig links were no follow.

I think you're losing it matey :p

[sirearl]

OK so if a link is a link why did you say this a few posts back:



I think you're losing it matey :p

Cause lots of people click on those Links,and flogging 1 jetski or an ATV or even a dolls house more than pays for the sub to UKBF.and the link juice however small is there.:)

and I always lie in support of a good cause

Earl

[RayB]

and I always lie in support of a good cause

Earl

That's the only bit of your contribution to this thread I actually believe :D

[Comspec]

I am confused by what the problem is here.

If you don't want the signature, due to some sense of ....I dunno...., then don't have one.

I have links in my sig, and I am happy enough with the traffic generated. Am I supposed to say, please remove the follow on these please, because I think it might be unethical - fraid not.

I joined the 'paid' crowd because I wanted access to the private forum, to discuss some matters 'behind closed doors' if you like, the signature thing is just an added bonus (I thought I had a sig since my 15th post or something anyway and did not realise it was only for paying members).

Take this sig benefit away, and whilst I will remain here, I have no real tangible benefit to being a fully paid up member, except to see what RayB is getting up to.

[RayB]

I have no real tangible benefit to being a fully paid up member, except to see what RayB is getting up to.

A benefit indeed :rolleyes:

[DotNetWebs]

I...Am I supposed to say, please remove the follow on these please, because I think it might be unethical - fraid not...

I must admit it does sound a bit like:

"I have just turned vegetarian so I want you all to become vegetarians too". ;)

Regards

Dotty

[Alice3537]

I'm not a techie/SEO type, so bear with me while I think out loud, please!

Firstly, wouldn't it necessitate a discounted membership fee whereby one could post a link but not access the private area of the forum (for example) to be able to definitively state that membership = paid links?

Secondly, I like to be able to click on the links provided - I only use the ones I wish to look at from genuine curiosity/interest in the product or service etc. Now, I can also link through the homepage on a profile and so don't see any real problem with some having a link to homepage and some having a link at the bottom of the post (mind you, I do recognise from the number of questions asked that those with the homepage may get less traffic because members haven't 'clicked' that you can view profile etc etc!!).

I have no problem with 'fully paid up' members having links that follow on.....would get bloomin' frustrated if I had to cut & paste every time I wanted to see a site!

[DotNetWebs]

I have no problem with 'fully paid up' members having links that follow on.....would get bloomin' frustrated if I had to cut & paste every time I wanted to see a site!

"nofollow" does not actually mean your 'click' would not take you to the link destination.

It just means that the search engines would not 'count' the link towards your search engine results ranking.

See this link for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow

Regards

Dotty

[Alice3537]

"nofollow" does not actually mean your 'click' would not take you to the link destination.

It just means that the search engines would not 'count' the link towards your search engine results ranking.

See this link for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow

Regards

Dotty

I'm going to KILL the b***** idiot I asked for clarification re that!!!

:redface:

Thanks, Dotty (and NO thanks to someone else!!...not one of the FMs, I hasten to add!! :))

Just off to learn more and hide my embarrassment!

[sirearl]

I'm going to KILL the b***** idiot I asked for clarification re that!!!

!

blimey lets hope you don't read the SEO threads.

Half of us would be dead.:rolleyes::D

Earl

[RedEvo]

I am confused by what the problem is here.

If you don't want the signature, due to some sense of ....I dunno...., then don't have one.

I have links in my sig, and I am happy enough with the traffic generated. Am I supposed to say, please remove the follow on these please, because I think it might be unethical - fraid not.

I joined the 'paid' crowd because I wanted access to the private forum, to discuss some matters 'behind closed doors' if you like, the signature thing is just an added bonus (I thought I had a sig since my 15th post or something anyway and did not realise it was only for paying members).

Take this sig benefit away, and whilst I will remain here, I have no real tangible benefit to being a fully paid up member, except to see what RayB is getting up to.

Perhaps you should have taken the time to read the thread. My point is this:

To have a sig link you have to pay, therefore they 'could' be construed as PAID LINKS.

I'd like a sig, and as a paid up member I have a right to one. However, these links are follow. I've asked the perfectly reasonable question, "could the links be made no follow". This would allow click traffic - something I want - but remove paid for link juice - something I don't want.

It's not a huge deal. I started the thread to ask the question - the whole point of a forum. It's obvious the strength of feeling is such that most people want the link juice - so be it.

For fox ache, it get's so you can't even ask a question sometimes in here!

d

[RayB]

For fox ache, it get's so you can't even ask a question sometimes in here!

d

Ah, but that's the beauty of the place. It feeds off questions. And it would be very boring if we all had the same answer :)

[ken_uk]

And the more people indicate that the link juice is what they are paying for, the more the evidence swings in general to them being paid links that are sold for passing pr....

[RedEvo]

And the more people indicate that the link juice is what they are paying for, the more the evidence swings in general to them being paid links that are sold for passing pr....

Shall we start a club Ken?

d

[DotNetWebs]

And the more people indicate that the link juice is what they are paying for, the more the evidence swings in general to them being paid links that are sold for passing pr....

Hey there are lots of us 'Grandfathers' who are not paying anything for our links.

My conscience is clear. ;)

Regards

Dotty

[sirearl]

Perhaps you should have taken the time to read the thread. My point is this:

To have a sig link you have to pay, therefore they 'could' be construed as PAID LINKS.

I'd like a sig, and as a paid up member I have a right to one. However, these links are follow. I've asked the perfectly reasonable question, "could the links be made no follow". This would allow click traffic - something I want - but remove paid for link juice - something I don't want.

It's not a huge deal. I started the thread to ask the question - the whole point of a forum. It's obvious the strength of feeling is such that most people want the link juice - so be it.

For fox ache, it get's so you can't even ask a question sometimes in here!

d

Now we don't pay for links.we pay to belong to a gentlemans club ( and ladies ) for business people.which allows us access to various amenities.One of the benefits is being able to have free links in our signatures.

Now have you all ways been a masochist or did you go on a course to learn.?;)

I know your going to come up with another arguement so I am going to put the kettle on.:(

Earl

[worlddom]

Personally, the follow links played no factor in my decision to become a paid member...it was access to the extra forums. Why not consider the other benefits of membership the paid element of your subscription and the links as a freebie addition that saves the forum owners having to make any mods.

We're all aware that the links placed within our sigs here are of little importance with regard to our overall link building strategies.

[sirearl]

Personally, the follow links played no factor in my decision to become a paid member...it was access to the extra forums. Why not consider the other benefits of membership the paid element of your subscription and the links as a freebie addition that saves the forum owners having to make any mods.

We're all aware that the links placed within our sigs here are of little importance with regard to our overall link building strategies.


Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Vicar.:rolleyes:

Earl

[ken_uk]

Shall we start a club Ken?

Oddly, I have nothing against paid links at all, but I am just basing it on googles stance they have taken against this sort of thing, to be honest I think google's attitude to paid links is crazy, as many paid links that pass pr as often sold for traffic purposes, or come as part of a bigger package, but google does not take anything like that into consideration - they decide if it is being sold for pr or not.

Some will want links for traffic, some will want for PR, some both... All links can provide traffic though on a busy site, but only ones that pass PR pass PR if you get my drift..

Dont forget its not just sig links, there is also the memberlist, that has direct links to peoples sites (and again, you have to pay to be on that page, it does not list anyone who is not a paid up member, so its a paid up memberlist only)

Personally, I think google should get on with indexing the web and ranking it, without trying to tell people to change how they code sites just for the search engines (which is against one of their own rules, build sites for the people, not the search engines)..

[RayB]

And the more people indicate that the link juice is what they are paying for, the more the evidence swings in general to them being paid links that are sold for passing pr....

IF the links are passing PR, it will be three parts of naff all.

Google has said they are clamping down on links sold for PR.

We aint riding that horse here. Nosiree :)

[ken_uk]

ps - if the answer to paid links passing pr is as simple as the site selling them saying we also offer access to a area not spiderable by the search engines, then google's war against paid links has just been lost - as all sites could say that, and there would be no way google could prove otherwise, after all they cant get into the restricted area (heck it could just be a page saying thanks for paying, but its just one of the benefits you get in addition to the paid link...)

Hmmm, perhaps this is the solution for sites that want to sell links.. Offer something else that google cant see.....

[RedEvo]

That's a good point!

Remember, having the links isn't up for debate, nobody is arguing about the links. It's just the paid for link juice aspect.

d

[RedEvo]

IF the links are passing PR, it will be three parts of naff all.

Google has said they are clamping down on links sold for PR.

We aint riding that horse here. Nosiree :)

Cool, so that's another vote for making them no follow then. Great, that's three of us. The tide is turning ;)

d

[DotNetWebs]

...Personally, I think google should get on with indexing the web and ranking it, without trying to tell people to change how they code sites just for the search engines (which is against one of their own rules, build sites for the people, not the search engines)...

I agree entirely.

Google seem to have the attitude "Don't do as I do - Do as I say".

Regards

Dotty

[pws1970]

I agree entirely.

Google seem to have the attitude "Don't do as I do - Do as I say".

Regards

Dotty

Unfortunately, its their ball. And the others that are kicking about are a bit deflated to be playing with them all the time. Not unless Microsoft gives Yahoo a good start we may have a fairer playing field in a few years time, doubt it though but you never know.

[ken_uk]

Its their ball, but its the webmasters of the world that provide the playing field, and the customers are the spectators.

The playing field is only a great place for googles balls due to the fact that webmasters trusted and liked google, and allowed them to get where they are today.

Now they are in a position of dominance, its hard to argue with them...

[sirearl]

Just a thought a little of subject.

It is in googles interest to demote the top ranking sites.

Because these sites will probably be doing the most business and therefore be hit financialy hardest.

Logic says they will pay top PPC to get back there traffic.

I know there places will be filled by lesser companies but I can see a cycle of demoting the top sites being very profitable for the search engines that do PPC.

I know I am either a cynic or a visionary.:|


Earl

P.S so there are people on here who know for a fact how googles algo works.?

[Darren Falkingham]

I really think this a storm in a non-existent teacup. How can Google possibly know what commercial driver is behind every URL or hyperlinked keyword phrase on the web?

The fact is, this forum has enormous value in its content - actually (I haven't tried this, so preparing the humble pie as I write) as an experiment, can you find me a SERP for your own link in your own sig that shows UKBF above your own SEO results. Or are the SERPs higher for related content?

As Ray says, when it's an issue and Google think that's a bad thing for links to be part of a much wider package of benefits for serious members of a focused forum, we should deal with it.

[pws1970]

Its their ball, but its the webmasters of the world that provide the playing field, and the customers are the spectators.

The playing field is only a great place for googles balls due to the fact that webmasters trusted and liked google, and allowed them to get where they are today.

Now they are in a position of dominance, its hard to argue with them...

Agreed totally but how can you stand against public opinion now - Google is everywhere, for the download generation it's second nature to go "Google it".

The majority don't understand the politics behind it all that webmasters, optimisers, marketers etc have to face from a kafkaesque landlord.

[RayB]

Cool, so that's another vote for making them no follow then. Great, that's three of us. The tide is turning ;)

d

I didn't say that ;)

Now, that PR7 of yours, some 12,000 links, all given editorially on merit, no sitewide footer links on customer sites...

And moaning about lack of nofollow here.... :|

Do behave............;):D

[pws1970]

I really think this a storm in a non-existent teacup. How can Google possibly know what commercial driver is behind every URL or hyperlinked keyword phrase on the web?


They don't. Its pure FUD tactics. But it seems to be working as more and more webmasters don't want Google's prying eye focusing on them.

[Alice3537]

For goodness sake, Ray, if you guys and gals ain't moving this topic to your little private area could you at least provide me with a dictionary so I know what you are on about!! :D

[RayB]

For goodness sake, Ray, if you guys and gals ain't moving this topic to your little private area could you at least provide me with a dictionary so I know what you are on about!! :D

Hiya Alice, we're talking cobblers mostly. How are you though?? :)

[pws1970]

For goodness sake, Ray, if you guys and gals ain't moving this topic to your little private area could you at least provide me with a dictionary so I know what you are on about!! :D

I think you have a point because this channel, thread, whatever, is already listed on the serps and irony of ironies you are bringing attention to yourself over the p a i d debate.

[Spiderden]

For goodness sake, Ray, if you guys and gals ain't moving this topic to your little private area could you at least provide me with a dictionary so I know what you are on about!! :D
The biggest dictionary in town www.google.com (http://www.google.com) :D

[sirearl]

I really think this a storm in a non-existent teacup. How can Google possibly know what commercial driver is behind every URL or hyperlinked keyword phrase on the web?

The fact is, this forum has enormous value in its content - actually (I haven't tried this, so preparing the humble pie as I write) as an experiment, can you find me a SERP for your own link in your own sig that shows UKBF above your own SEO results.

You are joking Darren as if any site this side of mars could outrank my sites.:rolleyes::D

Earl

[Alice3537]

I think you have a point because this channel, thread, whatever, is already listed on the serps and irony of ironies you are bringing attention to yourself over the p a i d debate.

I'm not over bothered about bringing attention to myself, but thanks anyway!

[Alice3537]

Hiya Alice, we're talking cobblers mostly. How are you though?? :)

What a lovely pat on the head! Thank you - I'll just have to spend the next week looking at your posts that provide valid info on the SEO forum, I guess!! :p (sorry, Earl!! :D)

[RayB]

You are joking Darren as if any site this side of mars could outrank my sites.:rolleyes::D

Earl

I'll be sure not to attempt a stab at "dollshouses" then :rolleyes:

[sirearl]

For goodness sake, Ray, if you guys and gals ain't moving this topic to your little private area could you at least provide me with a dictionary so I know what you are on about!! :D

oi clear out of the smoking room and get on with your knitting.:rolleyes:

Earl

[Alice3537]

The biggest dictionary in town www.google.com (http://www.google.com) :D

And don't you start!!

:D

[sirearl]

I'll be sure not to attempt a stab at "dollshouses" then :rolleyes:

why would that be Ray.?

Earl

[Alice3537]

oi clear out of the smoking room and get on with your knitting.:rolleyes:

Earl

If I knit you a pipe, can I stay? Pretty please...only for a teeny weeny while before I start on the washing up and ironing?

[ken_uk]

How can Google possibly know what commercial driver is behind every URL or hyperlinked keyword phrase on the web?

Exactly - they cant, which is why the paid link ruling is incredibly stupid.

this forum has enormous value in its content

But that is irrelevant surely as you can add content as a free member or as a paid member and lots of the content on this forum is from people who have not paid - but the links are only available if you do pay.

Also, lots of sites that sell links have great content, usually that is why people buy links on them - because they are popular sites. Popular sites also tend to have decent PR, as they would, seeing as thats how google decided to work things, so those sites tend to pass PR via those paid links.

Unless google gets to see a invoice, how can they really know for sure a link was purchased, and not given as a gift, or out of goodwill etc?

They cant, but that has not stopped them in the past, nor will it stop them in the future, from being judge, jury and executioner.

[RayB]

What a lovely pat on the head! Thank you - I'll just have to spend the next week looking at your posts that provide valid info on the SEO forum, I guess!! :p (sorry, Earl!! :D)

You might have to go back a few weeks :p

[pws1970]

I'm not over bothered about bringing attention to myself, but thanks anyway!

Not you personally Alice but the site in general.

RedEvo has prompted an interesting discussion. IMO do I feel its an infringement against Google's TOS - not on your nelly, but I'm a noobie here and I feel that I paid for the access to the restricted areas. The sig is just an aside.

[Alice3537]

You might have to go back a few weeks :p

To gain valid info? Given your current obsession with G&D I can well believe that!! :p:p:D

[RayB]

To gain valid info? Given your current obsession with G&D I can well believe that!! :p:p:D

There is plenty of wisdom posted by RayB these last few weeks - it's just more hidden amongst the increased G&D :p

[Alice3537]

Not you personally Alice but the site in general.

RedEvo has prompted an interesting discussion. IMO do I feel its an infringement against Google's TOS - not on your nelly, but I'm a noobie here and I feel that I paid for the access to the restricted areas. The sig is just an aside.

Thanks for the clarification!

I am sadly uneducated in areas such as this (hence my embarrassingly daft post here earlier on) but it's interesting and I might even go and learn more - so, despite the pain reading some of the posts, it's given me something to do and learn about!! ;):D

[pws1970]

Anyways I'm using the sig to actually test the forum in passing page strength.

I have added a link that so far ranks at #37. There is no other link building being done against this page or in similar anchor text. So we shall soon see. :)

[Comspec]

Perhaps you should have taken the time to read the thread. ;):) My point is this:

To have a sig link you have to pay, therefore they 'could' be construed as PAID LINKS.

I'd like a sig, and as a paid up member I have a right to one. However, these links are follow. I've asked the perfectly reasonable question, "could the links be made no follow". This would allow click traffic - something I want - but remove paid for link juice - something I don't want.

It's not a huge deal. I started the thread to ask the question - the whole point of a forum. It's obvious the strength of feeling is such that most people want the link juice - so be it.

For fox ache, it get's so you can't even ask a question sometimes in here!

d

A mite touchy there big fellah :)

To answer, your original post was...
Are there any plans to make sig links nofollow?

I removed my sig links - which generated traffic - because I was accused of bring a hypocrite as I strongly disagree with paid links. Because sig lnks are a benefit of membership (paid) they are effectively paid links.

I'm happy with content links being follow but I'd prefer sig to be nofollow so I can provide people with easy access to our company website with a clear conscience.

Just throwing this up for consideration.

dI assumed that this was your whole reason for wanting the no-follow. You want a sig, but you don't want it to be something that could be classed as a 'paid link'. Point taken - but.....

...there is no problem mentioned in your post except that you don't want to be 'hypocritical' and to have a 'clear conscience', which is fine and I understand that - but to change a forum of thousands of members just to ease your conscience hardly seems a serious question.

The whole Google point is a non-point as this is only a little hypothesising on the other posters parts, thinking out loud if you like. there is nothing to say that Google are about to clamp down on all us mob.

[worlddom]

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Vicar.:rolleyes:

Earl

That's gone right over my head.....and I'm a pretty tall bloke:D

[Spiderden]

You can set up custom BB codes on vB forums. It's possible to create one e.g. [nofollow] to be used instead of the usual [url] one for those who prefer to have their sig links no followed. This can be done in 5 mins from vB admin and would hopefully keep everyone happy.

[Gillie]

So is there some grave damage done by this follow on from our signatures then or is this discussion about the merits of not being guilty of buying links?

You see, first and foremost I am a business woman and a dammed good one, so if having viable follow on links that will not do me damage in any way means it get this as part of the whole membership thing, I am going to get very p155ed off by someone telling me I can't have it because it goes against their morals.

So definitive answer then please .... will it make google angry or does anyone actually know??

EDIT: and yes I have read the whole thread!

[sirearl]

Well Gill I am 99.9% sure that there is no detrimental effect to having links in your sig.

If it were the case Google would have big problems on its hand from thousands of forums world wide and they can't afford to p*ss some people off.

http://www.news.com/2100-1023-236621.html

I am sure there are some clever groups out there than google et al they just keep a low profile.:)

Earl

[Darren Falkingham]

If I said that a link in a sig is just one of many benefits of fully paid membership, and that adding a link to a sig requires no time or resource on our part - and therefore we shouldn't attribute any revenue or cost with it - then it's not a paid for link, no?

After all, you can be a fully paid member and have no link at all, as the OP pointed out.

[Gillie]

Thanks Earl, therefore this whole thread is about someone wishing me to bow down to their wishes as they feel its immoral!!

And who said democracy was dead??

RedEvo me dear, this thread reads as if you wish to foist your wishes on all of us because you are not comfy with something, however, I don't like pork eaters .... but will cook it for them!

[pws1970]

Gill as an astute business woman I can assure you there is no detrimental aside from having a clean link in your sig from this forum.

Quite the opposite in my findings.

I earlier stated that the sig was on position #37 and have just retested the links seedings to now find it covets the #29 position. In just 2 days as well. I will wait for the true evaluation of-course.

As we all know that there are 2 stages to link procurement - its initial fresh state and its true value after it has been assessed. Commonly known as temporal and long term link values.

[ken_uk]

Are you talking about the personal injury link in your sig?

How are you testing, as serps move around a lot naturally, even without any seo sometimes, plus that link has loads of links to it, all of which will have links to them added or removed, as well as many other factors that can affect your position in the serps surely?

Or are you talking about another one? I only looked at that one, half asleep at the moment.

How do you know that the whatever results you are measuring are purely the result of a sig link?

[Biznaij]

You know, its an interesting discussion you are having here.

When I join a forum, any forum, I do put my website url in my signature. There is a simple reason for this, it helps people to gain some insight into what you do other than contribute to the forum, for businesses like mine that promote ethnocultural products free it brings more traffic to the site and gets word out and yes maybe it may generate a sale although that is at the lower end of the reasons list. Generally speaking, a majority of paying customers are from direct advertising, online advertising, through using well optimised and organised website content and so on.

I was a bit bewildered when my url kept getting editted out of my signature when I joined the forum and then when I mentioned it in a posting, I was even more amazed when my post became the focal point of the thread and I started getting responses suggesting that some ill might befall me if I put it back in. Considering this information was unclickable i.e not a full url just a web address without the http or www, it was just odd to me.

Apparently, paying for membership entitles one to all these privileges, but if you are like me someone who joins many forums, some for social activity, some personal activity, some for business networking and so on, depending on how busy you are and what takes your fancy the frequency of visits may not be as continuous or regular all the time, so to me why pay to post on the site.

In addition, I judged from the peripherals the content of the private post areas and thought okay, I am just a small business, I don't want to buy a business or get insider info about a tender or encourage exclusion so I chose the neutral option, not to pay for membership.

Perhaps there are benefits other than a signature, what would be good is to have that information provided clearly at signup through email or something.

In essence what I am trying to say is that when I joined this forum, I thought it would be to join in and network with others about meaningful issues and so on.

What I find is that it really is more of a social site with many non business members and so on and I find that there are a lot of threads which begin with important or sensible queries that we all, myself included run aground by childish behaviour, aimless talk and so on.

I hope that anyone reading this thread will try during their next post to pass on something useful, sensible and helpful to others who use this as a support crutch in a polite, astute and civilised fashion.

There are a lot of good things about this site, let us highlight those so that anyone who does not have a business, own a business, run a business or know anything about business can hop on here and go away motivated to take a stab at going into business with some good advise and knowledge.

Most of all, let us try to be respectful of one another, we don't know much about one another and so we should be careful how we communicate. In my world there is only one God and no man can be God over another.

So....enough of my talk.....I suppose what I meant to say is it really does not matter if the administrator/s want to put a price tag on signature content.

What does matter is that we all sound sensible after all, if someone read a post and it was full of trully poor content and then clicked on your link to your site; what do you think would be on their mind as they did so, nice or nasty, wanting to spend or wanting to find your feedback box so they can give you a thrashing???

Have a nice day!!!

[pws1970]

How do you know that the whatever results you are measuring are purely the result of a sig link?

Its not a true test, far from it Ken, I admit that.

It possibly does, however, give me an idea to create a clean environment to test.

[ServWise]

I wanted to add my comments to this thread (All 10 pages of it) but this may have been said already but I just cant be arsed to read all 10 pages of posts.

Anyway my stance on this is that I understand the reasons for adding the nofollow to links here but also feel it isn't really necessary.

The advantage of link juice in a forum with so many links is more or less non-existent.
Google is going after highly ranked pages on highly ranked sites that sell their highly ranked space for linking purely to pass on rank without any relevancy or any content associated with the links as these links DO skew the search results and give us all worse results than we could have.
They are not after a forum where the individual pages have little or no rank to pass on anyway and generally the links are semi-relevant to the content and where links are not the only reason for payment.
I didn't sign up here for link juice, however one of the reasons I paid to be here is for the links (as well as to enjoy the forum, and to hopefully publicise my business) however a little bit if relevant link juice is okay by me and I see no need to remove it.
Google is not dictating who you can advertise with it is just dictating how valuable those direct links are to a businesses GOOGLE ranking. Organic search results should be just that, organic i.e not fed on man made chemical fertiliser. If Google was to do anything with this forum all it would mean is that people wouldn't get the extra link juice that they got before and if Link Juice is why you are here then maybe you should think again.

[RedEvo]

I didn't say that ;)

Now, that PR7 of yours, some 12,000 links, all given editorially on merit, no sitewide footer links on customer sites...

And moaning about lack of nofollow here.... :|

Do behave............;):D

Actually 61,694 according to Google and 133,000 according to Yahoo. All can be no followed or simply removed by the site owners ;)

d

[RedEvo]

If I said that a link in a sig is just one of many benefits of fully paid membership, and that adding a link to a sig requires no time or resource on our part - and therefore we shouldn't attribute any revenue or cost with it - then it's not a paid for link, no?

After all, you can be a fully paid member and have no link at all, as the OP pointed out.

Simple solution. Allow all members paid or otherwise to have a sig link - perhaps after 100 posts. After all, there are some great contributors who are not paid up members - for whatever reason.

That would clear it up once and for all ;)

If the answer's no then the sig link is a paid link, pure and simple, although you can continue to call it a benefit of paid membership if you like ;)

IMHO

d

[openmind]

Personally I would call it a paid benefit...

[RedEvo]

Thanks Earl, therefore this whole thread is about someone wishing me to bow down to their wishes as they feel its immoral!!

And who said democracy was dead??

RedEvo me dear, this thread reads as if you wish to foist your wishes on all of us because you are not comfy with something, however, I don't like pork eaters .... but will cook it for them!

That would be all well and good if it was me that was suggesting paid links are wrong. Actually 'me dear' it's Google (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736) ;) But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way ;)

d

[sirearl]

In essence what I am trying to say is that when I joined this forum, I thought it would be to join in and network with others about meaningful issues and so on.

What I find is that it really is more of a social site with many non business members and so on and I find that there are a lot of threads which begin with important or sensible queries that we all, myself included run aground by childish behaviour, aimless talk and so on.

I hope that anyone reading this thread will try during their next post to pass on something useful, sensible and helpful to others who use this as a support crutch in a polite, astute and civilised fashion.

There are a lot of good things about this site, let us highlight those so that anyone who does not have a business, own a business, run a business or know anything about business can hop on here and go away motivated to take a stab at going into business with some good advise and knowledge.

Most of all, let us try to be respectful of one another, we don't know much about one another and so we should be careful how we communicate. In my world there is only one God and no man can be God over another.


Have a nice day!!!

It would be nice if members respected that the world is full of different cultures and religions.

Also that there are some extremely astute ,knowledgable and successfull people on here who it would seem are not adverse to a touch of friviolity.

I.E "Bussiness and pleasure can mix".

Earl

[sirearl]

That would be all well and good if it was me that was suggesting paid links are wrong. Actually 'me dear' it's Google (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736) ;) But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way ;)

d

oh your a stuborn bugger .we don't get paid links .Even the management have stated we get free links.;)

Earl

[RedEvo]

oh your a stuborn bugger .we don't get paid links .Even the management have stated we get free links.;)

Earl

OK. We get free links but we have to pay to get them........

I'm confused ;)

d

[sirearl]

OK. We get free links but we have to pay to get them........

I'm confused ;)

d

No your not your Stubborn.:D

Earl

[openmind]

Blimey talk about mountains and molehills :D

[RedEvo]

Blimey talk about mountains and molehills :D

Yeah I was thinking that. I can't understand why they don't just make the links no follow :D

d

[openmind]

I can't understand how somethin so trivial has expanded to 10 pages ;)

[sirearl]

Yeah I was thinking that. I can't understand why they don't just make the links no follow :D

d


Because I know for a fact the links do pass on juice.:)

now eat your haggis.:p

Earl

[RedEvo]

Because I know for a fact the links do pass on juice.:)

now eat your haggis.:p

Earl

Thanks. The case for the prosecution closes.

d

[RayB]

Thanks. The case for the prosecution closes.

d

Not really, the majority of us don't think they are paid links....

[RedEvo]

Not really, the majority of us don't think they are paid links....

I'm afraid where public opinion is concerned I'm firmly with the misanthropes. Whatever people *think* you have to pay to have the link.

This thread has shown that people clearly have a strong feeling about this because they value their follow links from UKBF. I have no problem with sig links, I have an issue with the fact you have to buy them.

Although at one point you nearly swayed me, my position is now firmly of the opinion that in their current guise sig links are paid links.

But hey, it's just my take and I can stay sig less without harming anyone else ;)

For me it was an enlightening debate.

d

[Darren Falkingham]

Yeah I was thinking that. I can't understand why they don't just make the links no follow :D

d

As far as I can see there's nothing we can do to make them nofollow - if any vBulletin afficionados out there know if you can use nofollow in BBcode, please do let me know.

I still maintain, though, that when you become a paid member, it's entirely your choice as to what link you have - you put the code into your sig. You can have no link if you choose, and therefore it isn't a paid link - we're not selling links, we're selling access to a more focused forum experience.

[sirearl]

I'm afraid where public opinion is concerned I'm firmly with the misanthropes. Whatever people *think* you have to pay to have the link.

This thread has shown that people clearly have a strong feeling about this because they value their follow links from UKBF. I have no problem with sig links, I have an issue with the fact you have to buy them.

Although at one point you nearly swayed me, my position is now firmly of the opinion that in their current guise sig links are paid links.

But hey, it's just my take and I can stay sig less without harming anyone else ;)

For me it was an enlightening debate.

d

Why don't you phone Sift and ask if you can buy a link.?

I'm gone outa here resign give in where's the rope,lost the will to live.

must be the Scotish Air being so thin.:eek:

Earl

[RedEvo]

As far as I can see there's nothing we can do to make them nofollow - if any vBulletin afficionados out there know if you can use nofollow in BBcode, please do let me know.

I still maintain, though, that when you become a paid member, it's entirely your choice as to what link you have - you put the code into your sig. You can have no link if you choose, and therefore it isn't a paid link - we're not selling links, we're selling access to a more focused forum experience.

Simply make the sig links available to all contributing members, then they are 100% no question marks non paid links ;)

d

[RedEvo]

must be the Scotish Air being so thin.:eek:

Earl

Come on Earl, it's just a mass debate. Chill out.

d

[RayB]

Simply make the sig links available to all contributing members, then they are 100% no question marks non paid links ;)

d

Can't you add "rel=nofollow" manually in the html view???


Edit: I tried that and no

[openmind]

Simply make the sig links available to all contributing members, then they are 100% no question marks non paid links ;)

d
Why? I've paid (read given) for a membership which I shall renew. Part of that payment has gone towards having a link in my sig which I think is fair.

If you don't agree with it, just continue as you are and don't have a sig.

[Spiderden]

Can't you add "rel=nofollow" manually in the html view???

Only if a custom BB code is set up in admin.

[sirearl]

As far as I can see there's nothing we can do to make them nofollow - if any vBulletin afficionados out there know if you can use nofollow in BBcode, please do let me know.

.

Don't even go there or you lose my 36 squids and I would think quite a few others.:eek::D

Earl

[Fill-Your-Pants]

I don't see them as paid links at all :rolleyes:

I paid my £36, despite not even having a site to link to yet. I didn't pay for a link, I paid for access to the private section of the forum. However, when my site is launched, of course I will have a signature link, this will be an added bonus, and there is no reason why I wouldn't make the most of that.

[Spiderden]

As far as I can see there's nothing we can do to make them nofollow - if any vBulletin afficionados out there know if you can use nofollow in BBcode, please do let me know.

If you view the help file for Custom BB codes in VBulletin's admin, it should be self explanatory how to add an additional BB code to allow members to use nofollow in their links.

[RayB]

If you view the help file for Custom BB codes in VBulletin's admin, it should be self explanatory how to add an additional BB code to allow members to use nofollow in their links.

That would be good - as it gives the individual member a choice. And would satisfy the 0.25% of paid members who want nofollow :D

Would also be good when you want to link out to something in a post, but don't want any benefit passed

[RedEvo]

I don't see them as paid links at all :rolleyes:

You have to pay to have them, what's hard to understand?

d

[Spiderden]

That would be good - as it gives the individual member a choice. And would satisfy the 0.25% of paid members who want nofollow :D

Would also be good when you want to link out to something in a post, but don't want any benefit passed
Can be done in 5 mins. Could do something like this.

I have not paid for this link
:D

[RedEvo]

That would be good - as it gives the individual member a choice. And would satisfy the 0.25% of paid members who want nofollow :D

Would also be good when you want to link out to something in a post, but don't want any benefit passed

Suits me down to the ground. It's all I wanted, a sig link that isn't a paid source of link juice. This has all become very revealing. it's gone from 'they don't pass link jiuce anyway' to 'if you make them nofollow I'm off'. Hilarious.

I have no problem with links in items being follow, they are free to all users, you don't have to BUY THEM.

:D

d

[RayB]

This has all become very revealing. it's gone from 'they don't pass link jiuce anyway' to 'if you make them nofollow I'm off'. Hilarious.

It's an SEO topic; bound to be full of smoke and mirrors. :p

[openmind]

No to mention cloaks and daggers...

[ken_uk]

Yup, great thread this :)

On the one hand they are free, not worth anything, but on the other hand, you have to pay to get them free? If they are not worth anything, and free, why does everyone not get one? Why do you have to pay for something that is regarded as worthless? Except its not regarded as worthless as many in this thread have clearly proved.

They have no value at all, and are just part of the benefit of signing up, yet people are willing to leave if they are nofollowed?


I don't see them as paid links at all :rolleyes:

I paid my £36, despite not even having a site to link to yet. I didn't pay for a link, I paid for access to the private section of the forum. However, when my site is launched, of course I will have a signature link, this will be an added bonus, and there is no reason why I wouldn't make the most of that.

Ok, look at it this way...

Why will you have the link in place when your site is completed?

To advertise your site - naturally.

If you withdrew your paid membership and asked for a refund, you would not be able to have the link, likewise when your membership runs out, you will lose the link unless you pay.

So to have the ability to put the link in, and keep it, you must pay - ergo it is a paid link.

Also, as the link is to advertise, and its not set up to block the passing of any possible page rank then it is clearly in contravention of the google webmaster rule

Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:
Adding a rel="nofollow" attribute to the <a> tag
Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file

at http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736

As to other comments earlier about the value of any page rank passed being almost or non existent, thats irrelevant, as google does not state anywhere that there is a minimum value for passed page rank that makes things ok, they are clear on that at least.

Plus some threads have reasonable page rank, and no one knows how much page rank is being passed, as we can only base findings on innacurate toolbar rank values.

Add to this the fact that the forum in no way vets the sig links, and they can be as irrelavent as you want (and often are, as the links in many threads bear no relavence to the thread topic whatsoever) then that is in breach also of

However, some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites

As anyone can pay the money, and put in whatever links they fancy.

[RedEvo]

You took the words right out of my mouth. Wonderful ;)

d

[Scott-SCD]

I haven't had a chance to properly look through the thread but please don't say some are actually considering or are in favour of making the sig links no-follow o_o?

[RedEvo]

At least two of us are, yes.

d

[ServWise]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about, what I am sure about is that Google really doesn't care.

The people who should be making the decision on the "nofollow-gate" saga are actually siftmedia as it affects them in a negative way far more than it affects anyone else's site being linked to from pages with little or no page rank in the first place.

Why? because all outbound links have a negative effect on the site they come from especially to unrelated or dubious content.

I don't think anyone here has seriously paid for link juice and if they have they didn't get a very good deal. What we have paid for i.e. link traffic, doesn't change just because a link has a nofollow in it.

You could look at it this way, nofollow links might mean that this forum has a better page rank and so a higher placement in Google and so more traffic generally which means more possibilities for link traffic to your site.

A Win Win in my book....

[Spiderden]

If you take a train journey, you can use the toilets on the train. You have paid to board the train, but you haven't paid to use the toilets. If you don't pay for a train ticket then you can't use the those toilets, but they are never considered "paid for" toilets, they are free. Same principle.

Many other analogies can be used.

BTW I'm not suggesting that UKBF's sig links are similar to train toilets. :p

[RayB]

At least two of us are, yes.

d
Er no one of you is out of 400 odd paid members; unless I'm missing something

[sirearl]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about, what I am sure about is that Google really doesn't care.

The people who should be making the decision on the "nofollow-gate" saga are actually siftmedia..
yep losing a few hundred times £36.00 would do.;)

Earl

[ServWise]

yep losing a few hundred times £36.00 would do.;)

Earl

Yeah I understand what people are saying but seriously it wont make the slightest difference to your own pages ranking so your not really loosing anything and it could actualy be good for your sites traffic in a round-about sort of way.

Which would you prefer -

More traffic from a more popular forum which can actually be measured with some accuracy in my logs and has a real world value I can touch.Or

The slight possibility of some very minor passed on Page-Rank for which I could never determine if it really came from here or not anyway because Google wouldn't tell me.Thinking about it now, I know which one I'd go for.

[sirearl]

Yeah I understand what people are saying but seriously it wont make the slightest difference to your own pages ranking

.

You have proof of that have you.?;)

Earl

[ken_uk]

Er no one of you is out of 400 odd paid members; unless I'm missing something

But at the end of the day ray, this is a issue that is not just related to current paid up members.

Despite the official stance that the paid links are not worth anything, and are part of the benefits, this thread does demonstrate that to some the paid links are actually the real reason the money is paid in the first place, otherwise the thought of losing the nofollow on them would not result in talk of losing the memberships.

As it appears the paid link is the major benefit to some, how the paid link operates (ie follow or no follow) or whether there is one for all members or not, is a important part that a non paid up member may consider as part of wether paying is worthwile or not.

Future paid up memberships may hinge on what benefits are offered, and if paid advertising links in signatures that pass pagerank are the major benefit, then obviously that may affect people who may pay in the future, but have not paid yet.

[Comspec]

The whole debate seems centred on whether or not the links are actually 'paid' links or not.

Yes, we do pay a membership fee to Sift for the full use of their forum, and no we would not get to put our full links in our sigs without paying, so I suppose youo could 'tentatively' call them 'paid' links.

Having said all that, who cares?

We pay a meagre £36 pa membership fee which gives us the following benefits:
• Access to two new private forums that wont end up listed in search engines.
One for general discussion and the other to website feedback & critiques.
• Ability to post events in the forum calender.
• Your profile show up on the members list.
• 150 message PM Mailbox size.
• Your username will be shown bigger and bolder in all messages and posts.
• Special Members Discounts, Freebies and Deals.
• Use the Email This Thread to a Friend link.
• Ability to edit your own posts.
• Rate others threads and posts.
• Create polls for market research and gather statistics.
• Use PM message tracking (have they read that PM I sent?).
• The ability to email other members, not just send PMs.
• Upload larger profile pictures (your company logo).
• Have a larger signature allowance with the ability to add links to your signature.

Now, if we can take that the £36 is really for the sigs bit, then ok they are 'paid' links of sorts. To me, the sigs portion of the above is a very minimal part, and Google don't seem to give a stuff - so why change it?

We have 1 person in favour of changing, 1 person who can see both sides, and the rest very determined NOT to change it.

Me and Earl are both committed to it staying the same, so do we outvote you? ;)


Edit: And I still cannot fathom the reason behind changing the links to nofollow. If there was a problem with Google, then maybe - but to sort out a mis-led conscience?

[DotNetWebs]

Genuine Question (I don't know the answer)

If Google link:myUrl are the links that are returned follow or nofollow?

From my own results they all appear to be follow and there are some notable nofollow ones missing (Wiki etc.)

Assuming they are follow, I have a lot of links, I personally would not like to risk removing the follow from these links.

Note as I stated before, whatever way you look at it, I have not paid a penny for these links. Many other people are in the same boat.

Regards

Dotty

[ServWise]

You have proof of that have you.?;)

Earl

Yeah, like anyone has any proof positive of anything Google does. :)

I think thats actually part of my argument as to why nofollow links are no different in value to any other (When linked from a page without any page rank) as you can't measure the passed on page rank (Link juice) anyway, its all hypothetical and only Google really knows.

What we do know for sure is that any outbound links without nofollow have a negative effect on the source sites page rank.

I would rather see more traffic on UKBF (by adding nofollow) with potentially more traffic to my site that I can see and measure than worry about link juice that I can can't see and can't measure and probably tastes awful anyway.. :)

[RayB]

Can I just say; I think things that relate to paid member benefits should be discussed in the private section. With hindsight this thread may have better been placed there :)

[RedEvo]

The benefits of membership are well documented. Why should the simple fact that you can buy links be hidden from potential members?

All the arguments trying to defend the position are emotional the simple fact that you have to pay for a sig link has not been addressed other than for people to simply *decide* they aren't despite the facts.

d

[RayB]

The benefits of membership are well documented. Why should the simple fact that you can buy links be hidden from potential members?

All the arguments trying to defend the position are emotional the simple fact that you have to pay for a sig link has not been addressed other than for people to simply *decide* they aren't despite the facts.

d

You seem to be the only full member rowing that boat my friend :)

[RedEvo]

Just for a moment let's polarise the argument.

Q: Can you have a sig link without paying?

A: No.

d

[sirearl]

Yeah, like anyone has any proof positive of anything Google does. :)

I think thats actually part of my argument as to why nofollow links are no different in value to any other (When linked from a page without any page rank) as you can't measure the passed on page rank (Link juice) anyway, its all hypothetical and only Google really knows.

What we do know for sure is that any outbound links without nofollow have a negative effect on the source sites page rank.

I would rather see more traffic on UKBF (by adding nofollow) with potentially more traffic to my site that I can see and measure than worry about link juice that I can can't see and can't measure and probably tastes awful anyway.. :)

Link juice is passed from a page that has no page rank if the index page of that site has good PR and trust + age.

look at your google sitemap and use logic.;)

Earl

[RedEvo]

You seem to be the only full member rowing that boat my friend :)

So what?

The facts speak for themselves. People have made it absolutely clear they would be up in arms if the sig links were made nofollow, that says all there is to say about the counter argument.

There hasn't been one single logical defence of the status quo no matter how out numbered I am. I care not about that, I'm interested in facts.

There is one simple solution........

d

[DotNetWebs]

Just for a moment let's polarise the argument.

Q: Can you have a sig link without paying?

A: No.

d

Q: Can you have a sig link without paying?

A: Yes if you have 'grandfather' rights.

I think there will be plenty of people ****ed of if their links were nofollowed because of ones man's 'conscience'.

Regards

Dotty

[RedEvo]

Q: Can you have a sig link without paying?

A: Yes if you have 'grandfather' rights.

I think there will be plenty of people ****ed of if their links were nofollowed because of ones man's 'conscience'.

Regards

Dotty

The argument is not about my conscience it's about this (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66736&query=paid+links&topic=&type=) ;)

d

[RayB]

So what?

The facts speak for themselves. People have made it absolutely clear they would be up in arms if the sig links were made nofollow, that says all there is to say about the counter argument.

There hasn't been one single logical defence of the status quo no matter how out numbered I am. I care not about that, I'm interested in facts.

There is one simple solution........

d

The reason is simple. We donate content to forums, and get sig links in return. A fair trade, nothing to do with paid links whatsoever.

The fact Sift restricts sig links to paid members is a tiny part of a RAFT of benefits.

The alternative on a busy authority forum like this is a spam free for all if eveyone can have them.

And don't say "well nofollow them all then" - because, again, the tiny benefit you MAY get from follow links is a fair exchange for the content we add.

And for the non-paids thinking "well we add a lot of content too" - agreed. But you don't HAVE to add anything at all. Nobody is forcing you to.

The argument that sig links here are paid is utter nonsense and a far too literal *interpretation* of Googs TOS. All, as ever, IMO :)

And again, this should really be discussed in private - IMO :)

Just my £36

[DotNetWebs]

...The argument that sig links here are paid is utter nonsense and a far too literal *interpretation* of Googs TOS. All, as ever, IMO :)

And I agian, this should really be discussed in private - IMO :)

Just my £36

Agreed on both counts.

Regards

Dotty

[RedEvo]

The argument that sig links here are paid is utter nonsense and a far too literal *interpretation* of Googs TOS. All, as ever, IMO :)


Something we are all entitled to but I do think ken_uk (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=434765&postcount=119) summed it up beautifully. Nothing else - my arguments included - have nailed it quite so eloquently ;)

night night

d

[sirearl]

Something we are all entitled to but I do think ken_uk (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=434765&postcount=119) summed it up beautifully. Nothing else - my arguments included - have nailed it quite so eloquently ;)

night night

d

Great post by Ken ,except he is wrong .I am not going to tell you why he is wrong because I don't want to argue about this any more .but it is based on very simple logic based on the fact that google evaluates every link it finds.;)

Earl

[RayB]

Something we are all entitled to but I do think ken_uk (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=434765&postcount=119) summed it up beautifully. Nothing else - my arguments included - have nailed it quite so eloquently ;)

night night

d

I have a lot of time for Ken and you. But on this occasion *none* of us agree with you.

Why?

It is against Goog's TOS to sell links for PR. Now forum sigs were downgraded to virtually zero a few years ago (IBrian is the forum expert on this). But if you are very active on a non-spammy forum like this "every little bit helps" scenario kicks in. Again, a fair return for content added

That is how forums work.....
You may think you have "nailed it" On this occasion I think you've missed the facts by light years :)

[ken_uk]

The reason is simple. We donate content to forums, and get sig links in return. A fair trade, nothing to do with paid links whatsoever.


But that has nothing to do with it, as non paid members can donate content to the forum, and DO NOT get sig links in return - you have to pay for them. Its pretty simple to understand. Its the money part that gets you the link...*


The fact Sift restricts sig links to paid members is a tiny part of a RAFT of benefits.
Google does not provide a get out clause, so why assume there is one?


The alternative on a busy authority forum like this is a spam free for all if eveyone can have them.
No, you can easily no follow them, or you can provide them to people over a certain post count.


And don't say "well nofollow them all then" - because, again, the tiny benefit you MAY get from follow links is a fair exchange for the content we add.
To late, I just said it - and again, what difference does it make that you add content? I add content but I dont get a paid link unless I pay.
The only difference is you paid, I did not.
Simple concept - its the money that got you the link, nothing else.


And for the non-paids thinking "well we add a lot of content too" - agreed. But you don't HAVE to add anything at all. Nobody is forcing you to.
Just like no one is forcing paid members to post, I dont see where this comes into the equation.


The argument that sig links here are paid is utter nonsense and a far too literal *interpretation* of Googs TOS. All, as ever, IMO :)
Ok, how do you interpret what google has said - how can you interpret a paid link as not being paid?


And again, this should really be discussed in private - IMO :)
Why should it be discussed in private, if people believe it is not a problem with google, then what is the problem?
It is a discussion that as I have already said affects both current paid users, and future ones - why hide it away from google?

*exception for grandfathered links.

[DotNetWebs]

...non paid members can donate content to the forum, and DO NOT get sig links in return - you have to pay for them. Its pretty simple to understand. Its the money part that gets you the link...

As I have already pointed out the majority of signatures links on this forum [to date] HAVE NOT BEEN PAID FOR.

Anyone with a signature on this site prior to April last year will not have paid for their signature. That's 4 years worth of posting. Even if the members at that time did not qualify for 'grandfather' rights they would not have had their signature deleted (they just would not have been able to update it).

Regards

Dotty

[RayB]

But that has nothing to do with it, as non paid members can donate content to the forum, and DO NOT get sig links in return - you have to pay for them. Its pretty simple to understand. Its the money part that gets you the link...
There are also non paids who have sig links rights based on history. Therefore, the rest of the argument falls by the wayside. In fact it blows it to bits as both free and paid members are entitled to sig links. :)

The restrictions on newer free members are purely spam reduction tactics that benefit the genuine members, forum owners mods and search engines (less spam to filter) :)

[ken_uk]

Which theoretically it would be possible for google, or sift to compensate for.

Either sift by not nofollowing any grandfathered link, or google by taking into account the join date of the forum, and when grandfathering was introduced.

I dont believe for a second that the restriction on non paid members being able to post sig links has anything to do with spam, as a new member can pay, and put any paid link in they want.

Many people who dont pay are not spammers, and stick around, yet they dont get links.

Only a blanket restriction on both paid and unpaid getting links [until they have proven they are not spammers, ie a highish post count] would make me believe it was for spam purposes, not cold hard cash.

[RayB]

Oh, and another thing. Sift discloses the membership fee and the fact that sig links are a benefit within the site. Goog can spider that fact. So the nature of the links is disclosed- and therefore within Goog TOS :)

[ken_uk]

If only google was sensible like that, but alas, they are not.

They want it nofollowed, robot'ed out or redirected so it does not pass page rank.

Human disclosure, whilst fine for the rest of the world, and the law in some places, is just not good enough for the mighty G.

[RayB]

If only google was sensible like that, but alas, they are not.

They want it nofollowed, robot'ed out or redirected so it does not pass page rank.

Human disclosure, whilst fine for the rest of the world, and the law in some places, is just not good enough for the mighty G.

Again, I'll agree to disagree with you this time my friend. The FUD factor has too many SEO's taking things far too literally in interpretation IMO.

Look at it logically. All Goog really want to do is stop people buying/selling PR and gaming the system.

And sig links do neither of those things on any meaningful level....:rolleyes:

[ken_uk]

SO what is to stop me, or someone else from paying for full membership, then selling links in my sig on this forum?

This forum has a *very* high alexa rating, and I would imagine the sale of sig links on a forum like this would actually return quite a good income if someone was to do it.

[RayB]

SO what is to stop me, or someone else from paying for full membership, then selling links in my sig on this forum?

This forum has a *very* high alexa rating, and I would imagine the sale of sig links on a forum like this would actually return quite a good income if someone was to do it.

Now we are getting somewhere. That, I recall, is not allowed. And I can't remember it happening. And if I did see it, I'd report it.

That is part of the reason UKBF is such a trusted site, the way it polices itself.

For the antithesis of this, I give you digitalpoint(less) as an example :)

[Rusty]

If you view the help file for Custom BB codes in VBulletin's admin, it should be self explanatory how to add an additional BB code to allow members to use nofollow in their links.

This gets my vote, we don't have links in our sigs but if there was a choice to have links that were no follow then we would have these.

Seems a reasonable compromise to allow those that want follow links to have them whilst giving the choice to have no follow if you want.

The best of both worlds ;)

Kerry

[sirearl]

This gets my vote, we don't have links in our sigs but if there was a choice to have links that were no follow then we would have these.

Seems a reasonable compromise to allow those that want follow links to have them whilst giving the choice to have no follow if you want.

The best of both worlds ;)

Kerry

exactly.......................:D:D:D

Earl

[Spiderden]

Darren enquired earlier about how this might be done. If it is to be adopted, then this is how it is coded using vB's custom BB code feature.

<a href="{option}" rel="nofollow">{param}</a>

The "Use Option" box must be ticked, the other fields are self explanatory. There's also the option to add an icon to the WYSIWYG editor, though this might be overkill.

[Gillie]

This thread is just confusing me now ... first we had yes they will harm you then we had no, and how the hell does google tell if they are old links before membership was created, and as stated I aint paid for mine as I was invited last year to help set up etc .... therefore, google is suddenly spending a lot of time investigating just one person??

Its bloody clever then this google god you all worship!!

[Darren Falkingham]

Darren enquired earlier about how this might be done. If it is to be adopted, then this is how it is coded using vB's custom BB code feature.

<a href="{option}" rel="nofollow">{param}</a>
The "Use Option" box must be ticked, the other fields are self explanatory. There's also the option to add an icon to the WYSIWYG editor, though this might be overkill.

:redface: How did I miss this in admin?

A new URLNO BBcode tag has been added so that URLs can be created with a nofollow relationship (the HTML equivalent being identical to Spiderden's code above). Use the following format:
anchor textWhich gives: anchor text (check this page's source for the nofollow)

Let me know if it works for you - it tests fine here. Always use http:// to avoid relative links, and always use some anchor text. I'll get an icon for the WYSIWYG sorted tomorrow.

Cheers,
Darren

[sirearl]

This thread is just confusing me now ... first we had yes they will harm you then we had no, and how the hell does google tell if they are old links before membership was created, and as stated I aint paid for mine as I was invited last year to help set up etc .... therefore, google is suddenly spending a lot of time investigating just one person??

Its bloody clever then this google god you all worship!!

Gill google is as dumb as they come it a bleeding computer program.

and even the most powerfull computer can not compute 1,000 th of the human mind.:eek:

The programs they use a real dumb or I would not be able to get the amazing rankings I do.;)

People are overawed by google cause its a source of money.:rolleyes:

Earl

[JustOneUK]

Simply make the sig links available to all contributing members, then they are 100% no question marks non paid links ;)

d
I'm actually of this opinion. :)

All the threads about links just make the forum look like a bunch of petty squabblers. Everyone seems to post "sorry can't post links yet" in their threads which looks damn stupid.

The reason for paying the money I thought was because Sift/UKBF would provide extra areas of interest only to paid members - nothing to do with links.

Having people not even allowed to WRITE their url in their sig is even more silly. If you own I-Love-Betty.com then you should be able to say so in your sig area...even if it's a non clickable link.

There are plenty of forums that do just fine letting users post what they want...I don't see why Sift need to restrict links at all OR why members need to moan about them all the time... It's supposed to be a community?

I'm happy to pay my £36 as soon as Sift provide something more meaty in the members only area apart from "website reviews" which generally are available on ANY open forum :|

That said I'm in no rush..I think Sift are doing a great job with the forum, they seem to be level headed and very fair. Honouring the prior existence of the forum and it's members is admirable and I can only see the forum moving FORWARDs, not back.

I'm oddly in the fortunate position of I haven't actually PAID for my links... I wonder if Google knows the difference?

I doubt it :cool:

Going back to the original thread post... (as I once said before) you should add your links.. soooo many people here say that they carry no weight.. so here's one for free Red Evo (http://www.redevolution.com/)

FWIW: If Ray decides to add a link to your site from his sig... technically THAT would be a paid link.. then you'd be in trouble ;)

[Spiderden]

Let me know if it works for you - it tests fine here. Always use http:// to avoid relative links, and always use some anchor text. I'll get an icon for the WYSIWYG sorted tomorrow.


I forgot to add a target="_blamk" to it, you may want to add that to the code. Apart from that, it works for me.

[Comspec]

I got to take my hat off to you Darren - another job well done man. :)

Does that now ease that mans conscience and allow him to feel less of a hypocrite? I hope so, cos this thread is getting annoying now ;):)


I know where the thread led to, and the arguments from both sides - but that is a far cry from the original point in the OP, (I'll use Ray's little proviso here) IMO :)

Now, can we leave poor Darren to get on with whatever else it is he is actually paid to do, and get on with having our usual meaningful(/less) conversations ?

[Darren Falkingham]

I forgot to add a target="_blank" to it, you may want to add that to the code. Apart from that, it works for me.

Hi, I see your point, but I'd be reluctant to add a target for the link - I've done a bit of work on accessibility (public sector) and I really would prefer it being down to the person clicking the link whether they open a new window or not.

(unless this is now an outdated view and I'm talking all flared dungarees, of course ;))

[Biznaij]

Wow.

Its getting hot in here!!!


Anyway, i read a response about how to monitor how much response you get as a result of having your url in your signature, or at least i think thats what it said.

Well with my site host, I get statistics tellling me the exact site or at least part thereof that referred me visitors i.e they must have clicked on a link to my site from that site. I get a clear idea about how many and what pages or areas of the site they visited and how many conversions i made, their entry and exit pages and so on and even what type of browser they used.

Top stuff!!

[Darren Falkingham]

New icon added to the post editor - looks like this http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/images/editor/nofollow.gif

Allows you to add nofollow links as described above!

[I, Brian]

Tee Hee ^^^

Forums the world over use signature links. I'm sure Google simply ignores/virtually ignores them.

I'd leave it as it is as follow links, and consider re-instating yours.

I'm getting over 200 uniques per week from here :)

Agreed - Google devalued signature links in September 2004.

The line above the signature in all forums is a clear footprint to devalue the link underneath.

So, no "nofollow" required. It may be a "paid link" in some sense of the word, but Google has already dealt with signatures and devalued them.

[Rusty]

Hi
Look "No Follow" :cool:

Now I can have a link in my sig so people can come visit but Google can't.

Thanks very much Darren.

Kerry

[RayB]

Agreed - Google devalued signature links in September 2004.

The line above the signature in all forums is a clear footprint to devalue the link underneath.

So, no "nofollow" required. It may be a "paid link" in some sense of the word, but Google has already dealt with signatures and devalued them.

Thank you Brian :)

[RayB]

New icon added to the post editor - looks like this http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/images/editor/nofollow.gif

Allows you to add nofollow links as described above!

Darren, that will be a VERY handy tool for posts indeed. Absolutely first class job yet again :)

[I, Brian]

Hopefully people will learn to use that when linking to "spam" or otherwise dodgy sites. :)

[ServWise]

I've got to say although long and arduous this thread has been most entertaining, I've swapped from one camp to the other and back again, its great....

Sort of related if you didn't read it another thread that really shocked me today was this one http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=56793 about SEO and showed just showed how quickly google is indexes this site.

My post about "Squashed cucumber Penelope plumb-bob" was in google's index within 10 mins of posting it. (thanx Sabian1982)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Squashed+cucumber+Penelope+plumb-bob&btnG=Google+Search

Wicked.... :)

[worlddom]

Hi
Look "No Follow" :cool:

Now I can have a link in my sig so people can come visit but Google can't.

Thanks very much Darren.

Kerry

I'm not sure, but I don't think that it is working. The code produced is as follows:
<a href="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.xxxx.co.uk" target="_blank">xxxx</a></a>

It should be:
<a href="http://www.xxxx.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">xxxx</a>

[Rusty]

I'm not sure, but I don't think that it is working. The code produced is as follows:
<a href="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.xxxx.co.uk" target="_blank">xxxx</a></a>

It should be:
<a href="http://www.xxxx.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">xxxx</a>

Thanks

Just had a look and it ain't right, so back to being incognito for me:D

[worlddom]

I use SEOQuake for FF (thoroughly recommended) which uses line-through for nofollows so spotted this immediately

[Spiderden]

I'm not sure, but I don't think that it is working. The code produced is as follows:
<a href="nofollow" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.xxxx.co.uk" target="_blank">xxxx</a></a>

It should be:
<a href="http://www.xxxx.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">xxxx</a>

It's working fine as Darren's post #159 demonstrates. target="_blank" wasn't added to the code, so if this is appearing in the page's source then it has been input by the user. If you only feed it a URL and anchor text, then it does what it says on the tin.

[RayB]

It's working fine as Darren's post #159 demonstrates. target="_blank" wasn't added to the code, so if this is appearing in the page's source then it has been input by the user. If you only feed it a URL and anchor text, then it does what it says on the tin.

TEST LINK


Yes indeed, it works ^^^^^^^^^^^^^