Nofollow sig links

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.

 

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.

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...

 

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

 

[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!!

 

[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!!

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!!

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!!

The biggest dictionary in town www.google.com

 

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.

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!! (sorry, Earl!! )

 

[RayB]

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

Earl

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

 

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!!

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

Earl

 

[Alice3537]

The biggest dictionary in town www.google.com

And don't you start!!

 

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

why would that be Ray.?

Earl

 

[Alice3537]

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

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!! (sorry, Earl!! )

You might have to go back a few weeks

 

[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

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

 

[RayB]

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

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

 

[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!!

 

[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.

 

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.

d

I 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.

Earl

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

 

[Spiderden]

You can set up custom BB codes on vB forums. It's possible to create one e.g. to be used instead of the usual [u...dmin 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!

 

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