Nofollow sig links

[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

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

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.

 

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

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"

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

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"

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

 

[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.

[urlno="http://www.alocalprinter.com/"]TEST LINK[/urlno]


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