
Published: Sep 03, 2008 - 10:22 am
Story Found By: DavidWallace 4518 Days ago
Category: SEM

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:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Long term solution: get rid of rel=nofollow. If Google took responsibility in separating wheat from chaff we wouldnt 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 its 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 Raes post. Hypocritical? To say the least. Either Twitter does trust the legitimacy of its users or it doesnt...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 doesnt appear that "right and just" fall in to todays growing political landscape of Internet marketing with Google acting as "Commander in Chief" of the "Administration".Twitter caved in to Googles demands - since it appears that Google isnt capable of determining what Twitter profiles and links are legit and which arent. Its 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 Twitters, for those concerned about that.
I really dont understand Suggaraes consternation:1. Its not her website, its 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. Raes suggestion seems to be that Suggaraes profile has no value with nofollow on the links;If Twitter made a business decision, its a business decision.Isnt the lesson really: "be cautious building value on a site you have limited control over" ?
Id 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 youre actually concerned about every link you make being counted in some global database of site endorsements, youre probably over-thinking just a bit. Lifes 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 youre not already on the gravy train, you cant get on it.
"I really dont understand Suggaraes consternation"I can relate to the emotion driving her post, and I do feel the profile nofollows could be handled differently, but Twitter isnt wrong in nofollowing links just like if someone told me to remove nofollow from one of my blogs Ill 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 Raes profile links arent malicious doesnt mean links on every popular Twitter profile wont be, so using that specific example to base an argument on is like saying theres no reason to keep your front door locked because I wont 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 dont break no matter what you throw at it. Yeah, sometimes that means throwing the baby out with the bath water, but you cant 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 isnt the first site ever to use nofollow on user-generated links. Once the bio links became public knowledge via a blog on Matts RSS feed, the rest is history. Not taking action would have made G look weak.
1. Thats exactly my point. It is Twitters website. Google should not decide what they do with their links, either directly or through means of intimidation.2. Its my content. Hosted with them or not, I wrote it.3. Because GOOGLEs 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, youd see that I clearly stated that is NOT what Im saying.>>>If Twitter made a business decision, its a business decision.Do it my way (and my way only exists because I created a problem I cant fix), or Ill do something we both know will destroy or severely damage your business should not be a business decision anyone has to face.>>>Just because Raes profile links arent malicious doesnt mean links on every popular Twitter profile wont be, so using that specific example to base an argument on is like saying theres no reason to keep your front door locked because I wont 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." youd 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?"Its 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 Gs 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. Thats 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. Thats 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 dont think Google "merely suggests" anything. I think when Google says, "Jump..." the response they expect to get is "how high..." because if thats not what they get, youre 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 doesnt 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 owners perspective, Googles 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 sites ranking. The implications are vast and far-reaching...but Google, and evidently Twitter, dont 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 didnt even need to add nofollow, Google couldve 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 youll 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 its not so obvious the visually impaired people that sued Target can see whats going on.Nuff said.