Guest post for links? Then nofollow says google

8 comments

Yet again google say if you have built content/articles (guest blogs) to publish on other sites for the intent of getting a link then you should nofollow it unless you are a "journalist" 

Some 49mins into the youtube video of John Meuller from google webmaster central talk about this.

The question asked was about the having a account Huffington post and posting articles/guest blogs of which some are published but should you nofollow?

John basically suggests that if the article was built for links for you or a client then nofollow else if you are a journalist then the links would be "natural" thus should be followed.   

 

 More coverage at seroundtable and search engine land

 

 

Comments

It's crazy how things like

It's crazy how things like this get eagerly picked up :) Aren't we or Google grown-up enough to stop talking about links and nofollows?

I say, if the guest post is written for links, it shouldn't be published (why make up a middle solution?) :)

I commented at seroundtable a few times.. I still believe there should be a better way to mark-up links that are releated to you (rel="me"?). Why put guest post editorial links in the same category as paid links by making them nofollow? That doesn't make sense to me...

Isn't a guest a guest?  If

Isn't a guest a guest? 

If I'm invited to someones house I am a guest.  If I invite someone to my house then they are my guest. 

No one has paid :) 

If a guest make and mess and gets to drunk you send them home in a taxi. If it's bad enough you remove them from you life.. If not you continue to have guest do you not?

 

 

Senseless obedience to authority, SEO edition

I continue to contend that nofollow is the very weakest part of the Google ecosystem - as aptly demonstrated by the endless shenanigans associated with the existence of this prescriptive attribute.

I get why it exists, and I don't have a better alternative (then again I don't run a search engine), but I do know that it's incredibly problematic to add any layer of friction to the mechanism on which the entire world wide web and it's resounding success is based:  the hyperlink.

Anyway, to the point of my headline and to somewhat echo Ann's well-made point - WTF?  If a link is useful to a reader, then by extension it should be useful to a search engine ("Focus on the user and all else will follow" - Google), and one shouldn't artificially manipulate that link code so its useful only to a reader.  The closest one can to a reasonable and workable exception is a paid link (though even now, with the growth of "native advertising", this is becoming problematic - are all the links in an paid post by extension paid links)?

Only writers and publishers can make the determination of whether a link is useful or not, and - as an extension to Ann's point - if not, why is it included in the first place?

But it's okay if you're a "journalist"?  So we're now supposed to be making follow-or-nofollow decisions based on occupational title!  This would be a ridiculous suggestion if it didn't come out of the mouth of a Google employee.  Google employee?!  Must obey!  Must obey!

Like I said earlier: Bad

Like I said earlier: Bad answer to the stupid question :) No matter what he would have said, that would have blown up. Imagine he would say "It's ok to link to yourself" lol

I am the one who is going to resist: I am not nofollowing my links in my guest posts since my publishers are comfortable with them. I am not following this stupid rule because it doesn't make sense!

If they want us to markup our own / self-serving links (for them to know), I am fine with that but give me a proper way to do that!

Nowhat?

In all seriousness, this also raises the question the majority of the web's content producers - including guest posters that know exactly nothing about SEO - niether know nor care about the existence of nofollow.  So even if "we" all got on board and dutifully followed Google's guidelines, what about those composing content in blissful ignorance?  That's why I think any system that relies on authors and publishers to marking up links is fraught with peril.

Well, at the very least it

Well, at the very least it will show Google who among publishers / guests are SEOs :)

Nofollow has long been suspected of obvious "SEO" flag

I just came across this

I just came across this article: http://tripleseo.com/ghost-posting/ with an excellent quote from Webmaster Central rules:

If you want to recognize and reward trustworthy contributors, you could decide to automatically or manually remove the nofollow attribute on links posted by members or users who have consistently made high-quality contributions over time.

Which proves my point about nofollow being a poor markup for high-quality guest posts...

Is it just me?

I am loving most of the posts on tripleseo.com these days!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.