Using NOFOLLOW when linking to "woo woo" web sites

[CFLarsen]

What is the goal, then? When it comes to Google searches?

 

[six7s]

OK.

What are you implying?

• That you concede that your objections are baseless?

Or

• That you can't be arsed addressing the issues?

Or

• A whole 'nother kettle of piranhas?

 

[RichardR]

OK.

Let's go with the idea that we can manage to get Sylvia's own site down to page 5 of a Google search.

Is that the goal?

Noooo. But there are many other woo sites and blogs that we don't wish to push up Google's rankings.

 

[RichardR]

Yes.

Does nofollow prevent people from looking at the sources?

Question still unanswered by Claus.

 

[six7s]

I really don't know what else I can say about this. I've talked with Krelnik at length, and I can find no way to make my position clear to him.

Have you considered the possibility that the reasoning that underpins your position seems non-existent?

There's an awful lot of emotion around what seems to me to be a very tiny issue.

Maybe...

But what about the issue of self-professed and/or high-profile sceptics that are active participants on a leading forum dedicated to critical thinking making pronouncements on issues they don't understand, huh?

I read six7's post, and it made little sense to me. I'm not going to respond.

Ceci n'est pas une response

 

[CFLarsen]

I am asking what the goal is, then? When it comes to Google searches?

 

[six7s]

What is the goal, then? When it comes to Google searches?

What is the goal, then? When it comes to rhetorical red herrings?

 

[Rasmus]

I am asking what the goal is, then? When it comes to Google searches?

The goal is to not improve the ranking of woo sites when we don't have to - especially if in doing so we don't lose anything else. (We can still link to the sources and thus maintain the integrity of our own position. It is not a form of censorship and it is not at all making it more difficult to find the originals, either.)

 

[krelnik]

What is the goal, then? When it comes to Google searches?

I see the goals as several.

1. ETHICAL. As a matter of ethics, I do not want any responsibility for promoting the availability of misinformation via Google, even if my contribution is microscopic.

2. SEMANTIC. By linking to sites, but nofollowing them, we provide a markup hint that semantic web tools potentially could use to distinguish a skeptic site from a woo-woo site. The two types of site are opposite, but use much the same terminology. Short of magical natural language technology that so far has not been forthcoming, we need other ways to distinguish if possible.

(Example of a possible tool, admittedly not Google search related: pull RSS feeds from skeptic web sites, and look for the nofollow links in the body of posts. Those are by definition woo-woo websites. You could then catalog who is debunking what, what is the most debunked article, etc etc.).

3. BUDGETARY. The amount of "Google Juice" a given web page can give out is finite. The more outbound links you have, the less help you are giving to each of them. As a webmaster I would rather budget that precious resource to sites I truly wish to endorse. So for instance, if you look on Whats The Harm right now, you will find that most of my outbound links are nofollow including links to seemingly neutral sites like CNN.com etc. This is so I can give the maximum boost possible to good skeptic sites to which I also link. (And frankly, CNN doesn't need any help from me).

There are probably others.

 

[CFLarsen]

If the goal is not to improve the ranking of woo sites, then we do seek to put Sylvia's own site on page 5 on a Google search. Which is effectively seeking to prevent people from looking at the actual claims, by shouting out opposing views.

If the goal is not to promote the availability of misinformation, then we are definitely seeking to prevent people from accessing the actual claims. By shouting out opposing views.

If the goal is to distinguish between a skeptic site and a woo site, how do we distinguish between a skeptic site and a woo site? E.g., I have allowed a known believer in miracles, Niels Christian Hvidt, to address a critical article of his claims on SkepticReport. Does that make SkepticReport a woo site? Just by allowing a dissenting voice?

If the goal is to economise our own efforts - well, that has nothing to do with how Google ranks the sites. But to think that we endorse a site by linking to it - that is a serious misunderstanding.

 

[krelnik]

If the goal is not to improve the ranking of woo sites, then we do seek to put Sylvia's own site on page 5 on a Google search. Which is effectively seeking to prevent people from looking at the actual claims, by shouting out opposing views.

Again, I see it as an ethical consideration, not a practical consideration. There is no way what you are proposing can happen. For one thing, woo-woo websites outnumber skeptical ones by at least an order of magnitude.

If the goal is not to promote the availability of misinformation, then we are definitely seeking to prevent people from accessing the actual claims. By shouting out opposing views.

No. There is a distinct difference between referring to bad information, and actively advertising that information to third parties. (For the nth time, I am saying that we should always link and not disguise who we are talking about, so our readers can read both sides and make up their mind). For more on this, see my metaphor of $1 versus a postcard earlier in the thread.

If the goal is to distinguish between a skeptic site and a woo site, how do we distinguish between a skeptic site and a woo site? E.g., I have allowed a known believer in miracles, Niels Christian Hvidt, to address a critical article of his claims on SkepticReport. Does that make SkepticReport a woo site? Just by allowing a dissenting voice?

I was speaking in general terms, and you've brought up something that is clearly an exception. How often does this happen? In my experience, rarely.

If the goal is to economise our own efforts - well, that has nothing to do with how Google ranks the sites.

Please read what I wrote again. It does relate to site ranking of skeptical sites. (You asked what the "goal" was in relation to "Google searches". You did not specify which Google searches you meant).

 

[Loxton]

Skeptic.com and eSkeptic adopting nofollow (slowly)

Over at Skeptic.com and eSkeptic, we've taken Tim's advice to heart (if informally). Over the past few weeks we've slowly started to use nofollow tags in new eSkeptic and Skeptic.com content (particularly in new Junior Skeptic pages like this), and have it tentatively placed on our long-range wish-list to (at least consider) one day tagging all our older links.

In my personal opinion, the purpose of the skeptical movement is to replace bad information with good, so I consider it to desirable avoid giving Google juice to inaccurate sources if an easy, ethical alternative exists. Having that method available to me is something of a relief for another reason as well: it gives me that much more freedom and incentive to cite pro-paranormal sources.

Going forward, it's no more difficult to tag new links than to not tag them, so I'm quite happy to code that way. Looking backwards… well, Skeptic.com is a big site, and we have a lot of worthwhile projects on our wish list. It will be a long, long while before we do anything at all about older links.

 

[Rasmus]

If the goal is not to improve the ranking of woo sites, then we do seek to put Sylvia's own site on page 5 on a Google search. Which is effectively seeking to prevent people from looking at the actual claims, by shouting out opposing views.

How much money a month do you spend on banner adds for [nfurl]http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm[/nfurl]?

 

[CFLarsen]

Look, we can argue about ethics until Sylvia comes home - this is about the practicality of what we do.

This really isn't about the links to specific sites. This is about providing enough evidence to battle the amount of woo claims out there. We can only do that if we are not afraid to link to the actual claims.

We cannot possibly refer to bad information without actively "advertising" it. That's just the way the web works.

Similarly, we just can't rely on skeptic sites to post the claims of the woos. We have to actively show that they actually claim these things.

And, pardon me for asking, but what the heck constitutes a "skeptical site"? How does Joe Blow know, if he just does a Google search? Are people suggesting some kind of rating? If so, how will that work? Skeptics should be dictating what people should read - even as a first choice?

That's crazy! We cannot - and shouldn't - demand that people only read what we say.

If me posting the opposite view is an exception, then that is a big problem. Let us not be afraid to post the actual quotes of Sylvia's, along with links to the actual transcripts. Let us give voice to the opposite site, and then provide the natural explanation.

Sources: We always seek to go to the source. And we should. Read Sylvia's books. Get them, even if you have to pay for them. But read them, read her actual claims - because otherwise, you cannot speak intelligently about her claims. It's that simple.

Robert and I (and Susan, and Kochanski stayed outside, just in case) went into Sylvia's lair for a reason: We wanted to look into the abyss, because we wanted to know.

Go to the source. Always go to the source.

As for what a google search is: That is when people search for things on Google. How can anyone possibly misunderstand that?

 

[CFLarsen]

Banner ads is not comparable to linking to sources of claims.

Banner ads is actively condoning a sale of something. Linking to sources of claims is merely good skepticism.

 

[six7s]

Look, we can argue about ethics until Sylvia comes home

No

We can't

We can only argue about something if all parties refrain from conveniently ignoring points that question their stance

 

[Rasmus]

Claus,

it is painfully obvious that you have no friggin clue what everybody else around you is even talking about it.

Still, your ignorance is hardly an excuse for ignoring the several instances where people have clearly and explicitly explained that nobody intends to not place links.

Now, do you intend to even try and understand what this is all about, or will you continue with your clueless and superfluous drivel? Because, who knows, if you did understand the issues you might possibly be able to add something of value to the discussion ...

 

[Rasmus]

Banner ads is not comparable to linking to sources of claims.

Nobody but you has been bothered about linking to sources of claims.

 

[krelnik]

We can only do that if we are not afraid to link to the actual claims.

We cannot possibly refer to bad information without actively "advertising" it.

Claus, those two sentences alone clearly demonstrate that you are not even reading the thread.

If you intend to change your policy and actually read what I and others are saying, including our links and supporting material, let me know in a PM. Until then, I'll feel free to ignore your posts.

 

[six7s]

Nobody but you has been bothered about linking to sources of claims.

Maybe I'm just caffeine-deprived, but I don't understand that comment

Please elaborate, Rasmus

TIA