For the record

from Business.com CV

Ouch...

Thanks for the explanation, Lane. But this:

These clients DO carry “no follow” tags as one of many methods we use to screen out unqualified search engine bot clicks on our client’s pay-per-click listings.

Makes no sense. Nofollow doesn't actually mean that a search box can't click on a link. It's simply a name applied to an attribute search engines may use however they want. Yahoo, for example, has never said they won't "follow" or list a nofollow link. Plus, nofollow isn't universally supported anyway. So the idea that this is something you are using on CPC listings to prevent unwanted clicks -- even as one of "many" methods -- just makes no sense.

Frankly, if you're going to allow anything in your directory, you either trust the information or not. The only reason to use nofollow on some of your listings still awaiting further review (and there seems to be a lot of those) is because you don't want other search engines to count them for link credit.

In other words, the typical person at Business.com has no idea if you "trust" a link or not with nofollow. So why bother using that tag at all? Because you don't want other search engines crawling you to think you trust certain links.

And that means you care more about ensure some robotic crawler has faith in your listings than your human reviewers. Or alternatively, you do have faith these links are just fine for your human visitors but realize that selling links without nofollow might help boost sales.

And you clearly understand the value of selling links for search engine purposes, given over on this page, http://www.business.com/info/ad_products/annual_inclusion.asp, the first thing said is:

Clean-link listings boost your sites visibility to the major search engines

Since you're commenting on the issue, simple question. Have any of your sales people ever stressed the fact that only with paid inclusion into the directory would you get a link without nofollow? And when did the nofollow links begin to be applied?

Personally, I think discriminating against any link with a NOFOLLOW, except maybe for first time blog posters (aka spammers) is a load of crap. Finding quality sites on the internet was forged by link networks and once you start charging for that link love and treating everyone else like second class citizens it sets a dangerous precedent that could seriously backfire.

How do you think Business.com got such strong positioning in the first place?

I'll bet most of their authority in the search engines was FREE via their network of links from other authority sites. Ah, don't remind them of that, everyone knows you step over people to get to the top and then piss on their heads once your get there, standard operating procedure.

I think Business.com should think long and hard about this policy as escalation in kind could get ugly. Imagine that everyone listed in Business.com that suddenly has a NOFOLLOW responds in kind and slaps a NOFOLLOW on their reciprocal link. Business.com could find their effective backlinks diminish rapidly and drop like a rock out of the search engines and rightly so.

Web Listings / Editorial Links
Checking them for relevance and accuracy is an ongoing process. Editorial listings that have recently been reviewed and approved DO NOT have a “no follow” tag, while those awaiting renewed editorial approval DO have a “no follow” tag.

I call smoke and mirrors.

It reads in your Benefits of Online Listings things, such as "Listing are live within 3 business days" and "Major search engines index leading directories as a source of new web sites" and "Clean-link listings boost your sites visibility to the major search engines".

So my question is this. Will Business.com be offering refunds to businesses that paid under the perception of receiving web listings before the nofollow tag was implemeneted? If not, when will Business.com be removing the nofollow tag from formerly approved listings?

but it's not from TW members. Seems to me that someone over at business.com who doesn't really understand when/where the nofollow should be used convinced a decision maker to implement it. Maybe they wrote the reposnse you posted here too.

Using nofollow to avoid bot clicks? Give me a break.

Go get 'em Danny, but to me this is clearly a business issue. I wouldn't be surprised if Google had a hand in it, either. Your highlights of their errors will just get them to fix their errors, just as we see Google adjust it's TOS when it has to catch up with practical reality. I doubt very much anyone at Business.com would incriminate themselves by admitting to even knowing what the word SEO means.

By rule, Business.com was a blatant abuse of link selling. It also suffered a conflict between the need for a comprehensive directory, and the need for monetizing inclusion in that directory. Same deal as Google as search engine, in many ways.

Now, by stated rule, they are using the tag Google provided to come back under the rules. They explain it logically, and state their case for fair play.

The remaining issues as I see it are:

• Paid inclusion is no longer link selling (the site clearly states it is a paid inclusion vehicle)
• Matt Cutt's needs to clarify his prior clarifications about paid links needing nofollow. Times have changed. I am sure he'll now say nofollow is not needed if they are clearly presenting themselves as paid inclusion pages/links (hinting that Google can then devalue them).
• Will Google devalue the links on business.com, a Premium AdSense publisher?

I started blogging on the [url=http://www.johnon.com/5/businesscom-nofollow-attribute.html/"]Business.com issue[/url] from a competitive perspective yesterday, and used way more words than Danny.

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769

Google actually recommends submission to Yahoo! - which is a paid for, $299/yr, directory.

Bloody confusing if you ask me. Maybe paid for directory links are only ok if you are a big directory, or an industry-specific expert site.....

Time to start actually defining ......

I think the biggest problem with an informal poll is that how the search engines react will likely be counter to how we react (ie: if Business.com gets cleaned up because spammy sites are no longer submitted the search engines will be more likely to count the links).

Either way though it was a dumb call by Business.com to even make this controversy possible.

It's an annual fee (the $199) and for all clients we have in there that now have nofollow............

NO MORE PAYMENTS TO BUSINESS.COM!

How about you?
Plan to just keep on paying?

D) All of the above

$199 ANNUALLY is too much for a no-follow link. Check out your great local SEO friendly directories for much cheaper and completely permanent links.

If we disregard the theoretical intent of nofollow for a moment, isn't Business.com doing us SEO link buyers a favor?

Making the free links invisible to Google = Fewer total outgoing links from the page = More link love for those who paid $199?

For those lucky ones who got there for free, couldn't Business.com remove them from the page all together anytime anyways?

Yes. And not only is a paid listing free of nofollow, you get a page just about your site and links to internal pages.

I'm going to keep recommending it, in spite of the fact that I think using nofollow anywhere in the directory is a lousy practice.

"What Lane seems to be saying above is that Business.com reserves nofollow for links that haven't been through editorial review".

Yep it's like saying, "I can not vouch for the site with all the popup banners and textlink ads blinking in my eyes and giving me a migraine".

I wonder if using a nofollow for a site that is seen as spam by Google disconnects you from any association with it?

What you seem to be saying is that paid text links are OK if they are reviewed by an editorial staff? Does this mean that all those local TV stations selling text links should be counted as they have been reviewed by an editorial staff? It just seems to contradict what you've said in previous posts throughout the year.

What makes Business.com different than the other sites on the web selling text links that have been targeted by you? Their high cost for an "editorial review" or the fact they have a cool, expensive domain? It would seem to me that sites that were put there under no financial obligation would be much more natural than one that was placed along with a $199 fee. I also don't see how the non-paid links have not been placed under any sort of editorial review. They seem fairly on topic to me.

Perhaps I've misread what you've written on your blog over the past year. I always thought you promoted natural linking and building sites that would be linkworthy. Now you seem to be saying that those links should be nofollowed and the paid ones should be the ones counted.

hoisted by your own petard, matt