Nofollow sig links

[Scott-Copywriter]

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.

 

[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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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 summed it up beautifully. Nothing else - my arguments included - have nailed it quite so eloquently

night night

d

 

Something we are all entitled to but I do think ken_uk 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 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....

 

[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

 

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.......................

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:

[urlno=http://www.domain.com]anchor text[/urlno]

Which gives: [urlno=http://www.domain.com]anchor text[/urlno] (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

 

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.

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.

Earl