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

 

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.

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

 

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.

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........

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........

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

 

[RayB]

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

Indeed Sir

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

 

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.....

 

*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

 

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



I think you're losing it matey

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

 

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

 

[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!

 

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.

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