Should I use "no-follow"

texanman

Is it a good or bad practice to use "no follow" on external links?
Am I giving away some of my sites pagerank?

cormee

If you are linking to another site common courtesy would probably say you should link without nofollow. Nofollow was introduced to fight spam in blogs, it's of no benefit to you to use it on your pages, and not having nofollow won't detract from, or reduce, your PageRank or reputation.

PaulPinnacle

texanman wrote: »

Is it a good or bad practice to use "no follow" on external links?

It's good practice to nofollow links that you don't/can't vouch for, such as blog comments or general UGC (user generated content) where the sites being linked to are unknown.

If it's an editorial link, it makes far more sense to leave the links as followed. In the same way that a site loses trust if it's linking to 'bad sites', a site can benefit from linking to 'good' sites.

texanman wrote: »

Am I giving away some of my sites pagerank?

You're not "giving away" PageRank, but every link on a page (internal or external) alters the flow of PageRank from that page.

If you take Google's official line on nofollow, adding it to a link doesn't remove it from the distribution calculations it simply removes the link from the link graph stopping the flow to that page (e.g. it doesn't get preserved, it simply evaporates).

If you are concerned about the flow of PageRank around your site, you're far better off focusing on your site architecture, ensuring your promoting the important pages correctly on your site and building trust and authority for those important pages. I wouldn't suggest messing around with 'nofollow' (other than to pages you don't want followed, such as internal login pages or unknown sites) as a beneficial use of your time.

link8r

More importantly, if you've been paid to link to a site - then you are supposed to use 'nofollow'. Google insists on it. Paid-for-text links without a nofollow will be easy to spot and if reported, could result in a penalty. This just recently happened to Forbes Magazine.

texanman

Thanks for the replies

I might just take off the "no follow" on external links as said,it could work better for my site.

I've never paid for links. I dont intent to either.I'm trying to keep myself up in google's serp.

link8r

texanman wrote: »

Thanks for the replies

I might just take off the "no follow" on external links as said,it could work better for my site.

I've never paid for links. I dont intent to either.I'm trying to keep myself up in google's serp.

Having a nofollow to any site shouldn't affect you negatively in anyway.

A site with no outlinks is always going to be "frowned upon" (I hate personalising computer systems). That isn't to say that lots of outbound links automatically help you.

Clarification: Nofollow is for links that people pay you for within an adverts, not to suggest you've purchased them.

cormee

link8r wrote: »

Having a nofollow to any site shouldn't affect you negatively in anyway.

Well it probably will in the eyes of the site owner you're linking to!

link8r

cormee wrote: »

Well it probably will in the eyes of the site owner you're linking to!

Well, not really an seo problem then it can always be removed!

PaulPinnacle

link8r wrote: »

... and if reported, could result in a penalty. This just recently happened to Forbes Magazine.

With the recent algo changes that focus on that area, Forbes were hit algorithmically prior to the manual penalty. It's an area that will receive more attention in time, so certainly one to be sure to stay the right side of.

cormee wrote: »

Well it probably will in the eyes of the site owner you're linking to!

While it's not ideal for the site being linked to, I'm sure any site would prefer a nofollow'd link to no link at all. It can still provide a lot of value, regardless of PageRank flow.

link8r

PaulPinnacle wrote: »

While it's not ideal for the site being linked to, I'm sure any site would prefer a nofollow'd link to no link at all. It can still provide a lot of value, regardless of PageRank flow.

So true - the primary point of a link is traffic flow.

Question is, while I would rather annoy recipient linker than Google but what's the point of linking to someone I shouldn't be and how is that good for my users: Answer is, probably not!

cormee

PaulPinnacle wrote: »

While it's not ideal for the site being linked to, I'm sure any site would prefer a nofollow'd link to no link at all. It can still provide a lot of value, regardless of PageRank flow.

Won't argue with that!

I think though, as a common courtesy to a fellow site owner, if you do find their content merits linking you should probably acknowledge it by not having nofollow. Nofollow, like good manners, don't cost anything!

But as already mentioned it's not an SEO issue.

texanman

I took off the "no-follow" from all my external links. See how it works.
Thanks for all the replies