No Follow and Internal Links

June 30th, 2010

When the whole “page rank sculpting” thing was a hot topic and all the new, up-and-coming SEO’s were no-following all of their client’s internal links, I was suspicious. I wasn’t suspicious just because I’m paranoid. I was suspicious because of WHY the no follow attribute was created in the first place.

The no follow tag was created so that comment spam and a whole host of link-dropping activities could be minimized in terms of how those links affected search rankings. People were building scripts to comment in blog posts and those comments were full of links that passed PageRank. Google hates that kind of stuff so they pushed the no follow attribute and the world signed on.

So, the no follow attribute was created to combat spam and indicate that links to a website are not necessarily trusted.

Google likes trust.

A lot of people got wise to the fact that putting no follow tags on internal pages condensed the flow of pageRank to pages that were critical to their rankings. This was a flaw in the Google algorithm that was addressed. In the meantime, some SEOs were telling their clients to add no follow tags to their “about us” pages and “privacy” pages. For a time it worked. But to me, adding a no follow tag to an “about us” page told search engines that our about page could not be trusted.

Google likes trust.

So yesterday Matt Cutts posted a video explaining that adding no follow to internal hyperlinks was really just a bad idea. Thanks Matt. I have argued that point many times. Here’s the video:

Bookmark and Share
Sphere: Related Content

Do Links in Javascript Pass PageRank

April 10th, 2010

Now that’s a great title. But the gist of the question revolves around links that I have seen on high PR websites that seem to be effectively passing pageRank. These links have a “nofollow” in the HREF section of the hyperlink but also call an onclick function that potentially creates a separate URL whereby Google could crawl the link without the “nofollow” directive.

As I stated a few posts back, Google makes duplicate content for me, Google is looking inside Javascript functions to determine if there are additional URLs and content that they could crawl and add to their index. Their goal, after all, is organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. But I wonder if their quest to crawl content previously obscured by Javascript has inadvertently provided a loop hole for people who buy and sell links.

I recently encountered a hyperlink that was composed like, a href=http://www.mywebsite.com rel=”nofollow” onclick=window.open(this.href);return false;>my keyword <. As you can see, the initial hyperlink has a nofollow attribute and Google would thereby cut off pageRank flow to the destination page. However, since Google crawls simple Javascript functions such as the window.open function, will the initial "nofollow" be added to the URL which is derived from the Javascript?

I think not. But I shall test. I recently did a little work to make my vet's site accessible and their pet grooming page has yet to be crawled by Google. (See that, I just added this nice little Javascript function to the “pet grooming” link). So this is my little test. I will be looking to see if Google picks up the new grooming page and whether the link to that page from this blog shows up in GWT. Here goes….

(update April 21) – Google immediately crawled this blog post and ranked the post in SERPs. However, it DID NOT follow the JS link to the Tucker Vet’s grooming page. It looks like links in JS that are tagged with rel=nofollow are correctly read and observed by Google!

Bookmark and Share
Sphere: Related Content

iPad Blend

April 5th, 2010

I haven’t had a chance to play with an Ipad yet and I’m not sure that I would want to purchase the first round of any Apple product. But I did notice that the Ipad will indeed blend.

Bookmark and Share
Sphere: Related Content

Google Creates Duplicate Content for Me

February 19th, 2010

Google is creating duplicate content on websites. I started noticing this back in 2008, when Webmaster Tools identified some pages that were “broken” on the website. The curious thing about these pages was that they were not actually accessible via the website. But they were in the source code as a part of a Javascript function and Google appeared to have kludged together some URLs based on the root domain name plus the file being called in the Javascript function.

For example, in the ASP.NET environment, pages and code behind are often called via Javascript. Those pages carry variables to the server where they are often rewritten to be “search friendly”, before being returned to the browser. In other words, “products.aspx?id=12345″ gets rewritten on the server to be “super-dooper-blue-products”. The actual “page” being called in Javascript never makes it to the browser.

In looking at GWT back in early 2008, I discovered there were hundreds of URLs causing “404″ errors. All of these URLs followed the pattern of http://root-domain/products.aspx?id=xyxyz. And when I clicked them, yep, they were broken. The reason these URLs were broken was because of the way Google created, guessed at, the proper URL construction from the information they discovered in the Javascript function. Google took the page name and parameter from the function and appended it to the root domain where the function was discovered.

However, the “actual” page that was being executed was not http://rootdomain.com/products.aspx? The real URL structure was more like, http://rootdomain.com/directory1/directory2/products.aspx? When Google executed the erroneous URL that it had created based on its assumptions, the pages were broken because Google logic did not fully understand that the products.aspx page resided in a relative path rather than an absolute path.

Functional duplicate URLs occur when pages such as products.aspx are called in Javascript and also reside in the absolute path. In cases like this, Google pulls page names and parameters from Javascript functions and appends them to the root URL to actually create a functional (although non-intentional) page. Now Google’s assumed URL construction does render an actual page that functions correctly. But that functional page is a duplicate page because, at the same time, a rewritten URL exists that renders the same content.

A few months after making this unfortunate discovery, Google informed us to stop the practice of rewriting URLs. What? In the sense that Google is now collecting “raw” data pages before a rewrite, and that a rewrite can cause duplicate content, Google says that it prefers the raw version of the URLs, the dynamic URLs, rather than rewritten ones.

That would be fine and nice if so many websites weren’t already using URL rewrites. Secondly, even though Google prefers the dynamic URLs now, Bing certainly does not. It would make better sense if Webmasters could instead include a tag in their pages such as “meta name =’discovery’ rel=’noJS’” whereby Google would not try to execute Javascript to “discover” pages that would result in the creation of duplicate content.

Bookmark and Share
Sphere: Related Content

Life Without Cats

February 18th, 2010

I am a cat person. I didn’t choose this – I just am. Strange cats, “unsocial” cats, mean cats and nice cats alike have always approached me as if I were going to give them a special treat.

When I was living in San Francisco I studied Chinese herbal medicine as well as Native American herbal medicine. I actually took herbal medicine classes at the house of a Native American while I was working at a Chinese import company and learning about their methodology. The details of those courses of study are for another day. The point is, the Native American herbalist had several cats in her house and none of them were very social.

There were 25 students at the Native American herbalism class. When the single cat appeared in the classroom and began sniffing people and investigating the scene, most of the people in the room were grasping for the cat’s attention and trying to pet him. He evaded everyone’s advances until he got to me. I didn’t try to pet him. But when he made it to my side of the room he looked me over, gave me a sniff, jumped into my lap and went to sleep. And he stayed there for the next hour.

But being a cat person does not mean I choose to live with them. I am a dog person too and I have two dogs. And having dogs is not the reason I don’t have cats in my house, even though my vet insists that I will eventually cave in to the persistent requests of my wife and daughter. Living with a cat is not much different than living with a good friend. It sounds good at first but good friends seldom make good roommates.

I used to have cats several years ago (ok, 17 years ago). They came with the apartment. I lived very well with my German Shepard and two cats until I started dating someone who had a puppy. The cats had “trained” my Shepard. But the puppy had zero respect for the cats and wasn’t bothered by hissing and a little claw scratching. And that drove one of the cats mad.

And by “mad”, I mean insane and vengeful. I remember coming home from work and walking into my bedroom to find my cat looking at me while peeing on the bed. Coincidence? Maybe. Then she did it again the next day. And that was it. I found a new home for her and when I moved out of the apartment (the new tenants kept the other cat, as was tradition) I never lived with a cat again.

I’ll feed a stray if I see one and will still visit them at the local pet store. But my plan for now is to keep living without cats in my house.

Bookmark and Share
Sphere: Related Content