Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Nofollow for Ads?  (View post)

Jason [PersonRank 0]

Tuesday, January 30, 2007
13 years ago4,087 views

"But who is Google to make the rules for webmaster on what they can sell and put on their sites and what not?"

Yvo's argument is two-edged. Who is Google to make rules for webmasters? But by that same reasoning, who are webmasters to make rules for Google about who they can or cannot make rules for? =)

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

I think Google's algos should be smart enough to understand what are the natural links, spam links, ads. Nofollow should be just a temporary solution, but nobody should rely on it.

Aaron Bassett [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

I might be missing something (in fact am pretty sure I am).
But if google is saying that ad links should have the rel='nofollow' attribute, why is it not applied to google adsense ads?

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Adsense Ads = JavaScript code.

Aaron Bassett [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

Ah of course, I knew there was something I wasn't considering :)

Elias Kai [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

The best is to let things grows naturally just like wine :)

It is becoming a major factor where we are watching an open market for trading links with highly & monthly prices.

Let's say CNN want to link to Philip's site having in mind no purposes for ranking, would google see it as buying links, or public relations on high interest to readers.

Sometimes you cannot tell how social can you get as webmaster and be smart enough to get some links without paying.

Of course, all links sold in footers, side sites, can be seen as sold but still it is never a true story.

In my opinion, when you own a site, you have all rights to do whatever you want to do with it but when other factors come into accounts such as Google PageRank and ranking factors you might think twice of anything you sell or trade.

And here no one can define the rules but yourself just like in normal life. No one can tell you if you want to be with the police or the gang, it is always your own decision.

Remember that Humans are always in control.

Marcin Sochacki [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

The homepage is not W3C complaint for a reason – they wanted to shave off every byte possible to save bandwidth and customer's experience.

Standards are important, but for Google to stay as fast as it is, they have to use every optimization possible.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Marcin, to research that argument I once built a prototypical standard-compliant Google homepage that was just as small (in fact, smaller) as the broken Google.com:

blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-0 ...

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

The key is nofollow!

As the result, google will not follow Adsense links. Also I think, Adsense show have its own way to prevents other search engines click the links automatically.

So Google Ads really nofollow.

Another key I researching. I am reseaching the article that Philipp write before. Unique Html usefull or harmful for Google?

Veky [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Of course you shouldn't code your pages as Google tells you. Google has always maintained that the best attitude is to write your pages for users, not search engines.

<Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"> – from GWG.

Tony Ruscoe [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

<< "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?" >>

If search engines didn't exist, many people would still sell ads on their site but nobody would nofollow links.

Marcin Sochacki [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

Philipp:
"""
Marcin, to research that argument I once built a prototypical standard-compliant Google homepage that was just as small (in fact, smaller) as the broken Google.com
"""

Yes I saw that post before. First of all, external CSS is much slower, so it would have to be inline for better results, but that would obviously not change the size of code considerably.

With the introduction of XHTML page they would have to detect the browsers and serve current page to older browsers, which don't handle XHTML very well. This would add another version of templates to maintain and test. Because all the modern browsers display old-style HTML fine, I think their attitude is: why change something which is not broken?

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!