Directory - why nofollow?

[jim_gold]

Hi Darren

Firstly, well done on getting the directory up and running.

How come the directory links are tagged no follow? Is there really much harm that can be done by allowing a little seo juice to flow?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I don't understand why it is nofollow and it shouldn't be in my opinion. A good aspect of the directory is to have a solid backlink on UKBF as people are paying the premium subscription for extra features like this.

I also personally think the title should be linked so we can make use of some extra anchor text. The more benefits there are like this then the more worthwhile the premium fee is.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I bet it has something to do with this thread:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=56521

Regards

Dotty

 

[TonyBurt51]

If we are paying for full membership why deny us something that benefits us all?

In case some members don't understand the issue let me explain in simple terms (wtg for a flood of posts to correct the detail!).

When a website, e.g. ukbf, has a link to another website, e.g. a member's site, this is considered by search engines to be a "vote" by ukbf for the members' site and various benefits in terms of search engine rankings can ensue. That is unless the website sending the link, e.g. ukbf, "sabotages" the link by adding something called the "nofollow" attribute, which basically says to the search engine "I may have a link to this site but I don't want you to see this as an endorsement for it". In which case the search engine ignores the link and any potential benfits are lost.

So it has apparently been decided that inclusion in the members' directory should convey no benefit to the members, at least from an search engine point of view.

Why is that?

 

[DotNetWebs]

If we are paying for full membership why deny us something that benefits us all?

I am sure that UKBF have been influenced by the thread in the link I posted and that the answer is contained within your question.

Regards

Dotty

 

[TonyBurt51]

I bet it has something to do with this thread:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=56521

Regards

Dotty

That's some thread, 18 pages I think, with lots of thought provoking debate and committed argument on both sides. I just wondered why, as far as the directory is concerned, the argument was won by the "purists". I am totally against blatant manipulation of linking but it seems valid to me to include a link to my website for anyone interested in me to follow, and if at the same time I gain a bit in SEO terms so much the better. To go out of one's way to stop me benefiting seems over zealous.

If there were sensible rules governing how we link to sites and penalties for those who overdid it I could accept that, but blanket decisions to stop reasonable actions that benefit some and hurt no one doesn't really fit my view of business.

 

[jim_gold]

So excuse me if I'm wrong but was there a quasi-consensus that insofar as the forum itself is concerned, signature links are to remain follow, though as someone suggested..

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.

using the BBedit code.

One could argue that the directory, being on the same domain, is an extension of the forum and that the principle above could be simply carried over, assuming it's not too much of a technical issue. If anyone is truly worried that Google is going to treat their listing as p a i d in a negative sense, then they should have the option to mark it nofollow themselves.

 

[Darren Falkingham]

jim_gold - Yes, that's true for the forum itself, however for the directory there's no option to allow either follow or nofollow links. I'm afraid it's one or the other.

So yep, it is indeed a technical issue! The only place in the directory where you have control over how links are presented is in the entry description field (using BBCode).

Scott-SCD - The entry titles can only link to your directory entry, or to the DHTML menu (which is the present setting). And the title field itself will not accept BBCode, so anchor text is impossible.

TonyBurt51 - The merits (or otherwise!) of nofollow links have been discussed at length in the past - it was all a bit grey in the end, hence the decision to implement nofollow links on the forum for those who wanted them.

Unfortunately the directory is either fully follow, or fully nofollow ... so I had to err on the side of caution (please see my latest post in the Private area - nothing's set in stone if there's a solid reason to change).