News Source: http://www.sugarrae.com
Published: Sep 03, 2008 - 10:22 am
Story Found By: DavidWallace 3880 Days ago
Category: SEM
11 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.sugarrae.com
Published: Sep 03, 2008 - 10:22 am
Story Found By: DavidWallace 3880 Days ago
Category: SEM
11 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Latest News From Marketing Land
- New customer acquisition vs. retention: 7 best practices for search
- Digital marketers on Pinterest IPO: Get in early while costs are low, learning opportunities are high
- Here’s how to get the most out of your marketing analytics investment
- How National Public Radio reinvented itself for an on-demand audience
- MarTech West Overtime: How B2B marketers can reach buying committees at their target accounts
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
- Data, Data Everywhere — But Where are the Customer Insights? - May 7
- The New Rules to Win Customer Loyalty and Increase Online Sales - Apr 11
- Build Brand Authenticity Using Customer Generated Content - Apr 9
- 5 Steps for Competing with Digital Goliaths - Mar 26
- Who’s Minding the Digital Store? How to align teams when technology is in charge - May 16
Research:
- Enterprise Identity Resolution Platforms
- Enterprise SEO Platforms: A Marketer’s Guide
- Enterprise Customer Data Platforms: A Marketer’s Guide
- Account-Based Marketing Tools: A Marketer’s Guide
- B2B Marketing Automation Platforms: A Marketer’s Guide
Whitepapers:
- 7 Inbound Marketing Service Ideas to Grow Your Agency
- PPC Bid Management Guide
- The Marketer’s Guide to Driving ROI From Facebook Advertising
- Collaborative Customer Interactions Management
- How To Create a Data-Driven Dynasty
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Searching for facts, directions, local businesses are top digital assistant use cases, says survey
- Is link building dead? Depends on who you talk to
- 3 steps to signing more clients
- New customer acquisition vs. retention: 7 best practices for search
- Google Posts can now highlight customer testimonials in some countries
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
Long term solution: get rid of rel=nofollow. If Google took responsibility in separating wheat from chaff we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Of course, easier said than done, just like building a face-recognition machine or AI that can think at the level of a 5-year-old.Short term solution: Let Twitter profile link of legit Tweeple pass juice and keep nofollow on the bio links.
In this case, Twitter gets to have it’s cake and eat it, too. Individual users no longer reap any link popularity benefit from their use of Twitter, but Twitter still does...as illustrated in Rae’s post. Hypocritical? To say the least. Either Twitter does trust the legitimacy of it’s users or it doesn’t...which means either they nofollow everything (including the links passing juice TO TWITTER) or they nofollow nothing, allowing link juice to flow freely and identifying spammers to prevent/reduce abuse. Spammers can be identified, as Twitter is in the process of doing now. Individuals can also prevent obvious spammers from following them in the first place by blocking them. That would be the right and just thing to do, but it doesn’t appear that "right and just" fall in to today’s growing political landscape of Internet marketing with Google acting as "Commander in Chief" of the "Administration".Twitter caved in to Google’s demands - since it appears that Google isn’t capable of determining what Twitter profiles and links are legit and which aren’t. It’s a "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch..." kind of deal. Rather than Google taking responsibility for identifying Twitter SPAM, they appear to have simply coerced Twitter into making all of the links nofollow...thereby saving them the trouble of having to separate the wheat from the chaff, as Halfdeck pointed out above. Who gets hurt? US!The sad thing is that people like Rae who have developed a STRONG following on Twitter, have created copious amounts of useful content and shared it via Twitter now no longer reap any real benefit from having done so...at least not from a link popularity standpoint. The ultimate result, in my opinion, will be a reduced use of Twitter in general and people will move on to other similar services - like Kwippy - that does not "nofollow" the links within kwips the way that Twitter does within tweets. And yes, Kwippy also offers a Facebook app similar to Twitter’s, for those concerned about that.
I really don’t understand Suggarae’s consternation:1. It’s not her website, it’s somebody elses;2. That somebody else has made an editorial decision about their own content;3. Sites open to popular abuse are always targets for action from Google;4. Rae’s suggestion seems to be that Suggarae’s profile has no value with nofollow on the links;If Twitter made a business decision, it’s a business decision.Isn’t the lesson really: "be cautious building value on a site you have limited control over" ?
I’d add something here but hard to say it better than Jeremy Zawodny did on his post on nofollow back in May 2006Introducing even a fairly subtle and indirect "economic" model into a system always changes behavior. I know that I forget (or at least underestimate) that more often than I should.Look. Linking is part of what makes the web work. If you’re actually concerned about every link you make being counted in some global database of site endorsements, you’re probably over-thinking just a bit. Life’s too short for that, ya know? Link and be linked to. Let the search engines sort it out.
All Google are really saying nowadays is, ’if you’re not already on the gravy train, you can’t get on it’.
"I really don’t understand Suggarae’s consternation"I can relate to the emotion driving her post, and I do feel the profile nofollows could be handled differently, but Twitter isn’t wrong in nofollowing links just like if someone told me to remove nofollow from one of my blogs I’ll tell him to go take a hike.Did G blackmail Twitter into nofollow? No, I believe Matt simply suggested that the bio section could be abused and that potential could attract spammers. The common solution (that most SEO blogs also employ) is to use nofollow, which I think is what Matt suggested to @ev.Just because Rae’s profile links aren’t malicious doesn’t mean links on every popular Twitter profile won’t be, so using that specific example to base an argument on is like saying there’s no reason to keep your front door locked because I won’t walk in and rob you. Someone else eventually will. Building systems that work only for special cases leads to systems that can easily be exploited. Instead you build systems that don’t break no matter what you throw at it. Yeah, sometimes that means throwing the baby out with the bath water, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.Is Google being a bully? Did Twitter shock you by bowing down to Google? We all know Twitter isn’t the first site ever to use nofollow on user-generated links. Once the bio links became public knowledge via a blog on Matt’s RSS feed, the rest is history. Not taking action would have made G look weak.
1. That’s exactly my point. It is Twitter’s website. Google should not decide what they do with their links, either directly or through means of intimidation.2. It’s my content. Hosted with them or not, I wrote it.3. Because GOOGLE’s algo is flawed. Their problem, they should fix it. not demand big social sites plug the hole for them.4. Never once did I say that. If you read my post, and I question if you did, you’d see that I clearly stated that is NOT what I’m saying.>>>If Twitter made a business decision, it’s a business decision.’Do it my way (and my way only exists because I created a problem I can’t fix), or I’ll do something we both know will destroy or severely damage your business’ should not be a business decision anyone has to face.>>>Just because Rae’s profile links aren’t malicious doesn’t mean links on every popular Twitter profile won’t be, so using that specific example to base an argument on is like saying there’s no reason to keep your front door locked because I won’t walk in and rob you.And when did someone appoint Google as the police force of the Internet? If someone came into your home and said "Listen, we want you to put bars on the windows because that is a common entry point for theft. And, we want you to remove those shrubs in your backyard because they prevent us from being able to see your house clearly to assure no one is invading it. We also think you should get rid of your big screen TV because it attracts theft." you’d tell them to piss off. Yet, you defend that Google should be able to do it.
"And when did someone appoint Google as the police force of the Internet?"It’s a power game, Google has a seat on the table, and its just playing out its hand."Yet, you defend that Google should be able to do it."Play sheep and go along with G’s game? No. I never said Google *should* be able to do it. I said it will do whatever it can to mold the web to its business model. That’s how most of us conduct our business - Google just happens to have a bigger sphere of influence.
Agree with NickWilsdon above - that post says it best...but the reality is that "nofollow" is a means for Google to get out of having to do even more work to identify spammers, which they put an enormous amount of effort into in the first place. I, for one, have disabled the nofollow links from my blog comments. That’s not to say that I may never see a reason to reinstate it if spam becomes an issue. However, I prefer to just delete the comment altogether, rather than just nofollow the link - if I believe it to be SPAM. If someone takes the time to read my post and also takes the time to comment on it, the least I can do in return is provide them with a live link back to their site.
And, for the record, I don’t think Google "merely suggests" anything. I think when Google says, "Jump..." the response they expect to get is "how high..." because if that’s not what they get, you’re screwed - no matter who you are. The public relies on Google and building a business relies on exposing it to the public...therefore Google is in the position to do whatever they want, whenever they want because ultimately their organization doesn’t suffer directly, financially or otherwise - unless you consider the potential lost revenue from AdWords if a site drops from a prominent position due to suddenly losing a great deal of link juice. From the site owner’s perspective, Google’s ranking criteria depends so heavily on link popularity that suddenly changing links that were once follow to nofollow could have a catastrophic impact on a site’s ranking. The implications are vast and far-reaching...but Google, and evidently Twitter, don’t care about that negative impact.
Give me a break.You all figured out how to game twitter and nobody would keep their mouth shut trying to impress everyone about the next big thing in gaming the system and Google came along and bitch slapped it.Hell, Twitter didn’t even need to add nofollow, Google could’ve just discounted all the outbound links and the problem is solved. However, this way Twitter can still have legit outbound links opposed to all the users trying to game the system, so it worked out well for Twitter.Now Sphinn something to the home page about which SEO directories are best or where you buy all your paid links so Google can swat that down as well.Maybe you’ll all learn to keep your mouth shut when you find something new to game, or discuss it UNDERGROUND away from prying Google eyes, and then not cluster around using names everyone knows so it’s not so obvious the visually impaired people that sued Target can see what’s going on.’Nuff said.