Using NOFOLLOW when linking to "woo woo" web sites

[CFLarsen]

Absolutely not.

What this boils down to is: Do we want people to be able to look at the sources?

 

[RichardR]

Absolutely not.

What this boils down to is: Do we want people to be able to look at the sources?

Yes.

Does nofollow prevent people from looking at the sources?

 

[CFLarsen]

The "Absolutely not" was about missing the point.

Google rankings are a consequence of linking to woo sites. If we want to provide the sources, we have to accept a higher google ranking.

As we should: If we work hard to lower a woo's google ranking, we are also saying that we want to lower the chances of people finding the actual claims.

We don't want to do that. Oh, no.

 

[krelnik]

The "Absolutely not" was about missing the point.

Google rankings are a consequence of linking to woo sites. If we want to provide the sources, we have to accept a higher google ranking.

As we should: If we work hard to lower a woo's google ranking, we are also saying that we want to lower the chances of people finding the actual claims.

We don't want to do that. Oh, no.

Claus, you are not making any sense. Have you read my blog article and the OP fully?

I am recommending that we indeed always link to the woo sites, for exactly the reasons you point out.

But I am also saying that we should always use NOFOLLOW as a matter of policy on these links. This is not "working hard to lower" the other site's ranking. There is a difference betwen actively lowering something, and refusing to be complicit in raising it.

Nofollow does nothing other than remove your site's "vouching" (to use Matt Cutt's term) or "endorsement" (my term) for the content of the other site. Are you saying that skeptics should endorse or vouch for woo sites?

(I continue to be dumbfounded as to how skeptics find a way to object to this recommendation).

 

[six7s]

Absolutely not.

What this boils down to is: Do we want people to be able to look at the sources?

Maybe, for you...

For me, this thread simply serves to illustrate that self-professed and/or high-profile sceptics are by no means immune from making statements that are logically inconsistent and/or based on a level of 'problem domain' understanding that is insufficient to issue authoritative conclusions

 

[CFLarsen]

Linking to a site does not imply any "vouching for", "endorsement" or any similar term.

To think that is the case is to severely misunderstand the nature of the WWW.

 

[krelnik]

Claus, again, are you reading the the sources I am supplying? Google's Page Rank patent, and Matt Cutt's blog (the inventor of NOFOLLOW) most certainly do indicate that Google considers a link to be an endorsement of the content at the other end of the link. See my posts earlier in the thread for the quotes in question.

 

[RichardR]

The "Absolutely not" was about missing the point.

Google rankings are a consequence of linking to woo sites. If we want to provide the sources, we have to accept a higher google ranking.

Er, no we don't. That's the point you seem to be missing.

 

[RichardR]

(I continue to be dumbfounded as to how skeptics find a way to object to this recommendation).

Me too.

 

[six7s]

Linking to a site does not imply any "vouching for", "endorsement" or any similar term.

To think that is the case is to severely misunderstand the nature of the WWW.

Claus, as is often the case, what is implied by you is at odds with what is inferred by a significant proportion of teh wrest of teh whirled^(tm)
For anyone to think that is not the case is to severely misunderstand the nature of reality

 

[six7s]

If we want to provide the sources, we have to accept a higher google ranking

From whose butt did you pluck that pearl of disinformation?

 

[CFLarsen]

Google does not consider linking to a site as "vouching for", an "endorsement", or any similar term.

Google considers linking to a site as an indicator of how important that site could be to other people.

For instance:

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the assigning includes:
identifying a weighting factor for each of the linking documents, the weighting factor being dependent on the importance, visibility or textual emphasis of the links in the one or more linking documents, and adjusting the score of each of the one or more linking documents based on the identified weighting factor.

Google is basically built on the assumption that "The more people link to X must mean that X is something that others will find useful too."

It's actually a pretty clever idea. But all this talk about "vouching for" or "endorsement" is sheer imagination.

 

[krelnik]

Google does not consider linking to a site as "vouching for", an "endorsement", or any similar term.

Matt Cutts, an employee of Google (who works in "search quality" and who invented NOFOLLOW) said this on his blog, which I have already linked twice and quoted once in this thread:

Nofollow is recommended anywhere that links can’t be vouched for.

Elsewhere in the Page Rank patent you just quoted:

Thus, a high rank indicates that a document is considered valuable by many people or by important people.

Do you consider woo sites "valuable"?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

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

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

 

[CFLarsen]

The "vouching for" doesn't mean "I approve of this message this site is proclaiming". It means "I can vouch for the interesting factor of this site."

Sheesh....do people really think that when sites like CNN, BBC, and other big news services link to sites, they approve of the messages? No, they link, and make sure that you understand that they do not "vouch for" the content of the site.

"Search quality" should have been a friggin' sign. Matt Cutts doesn't work for "Reliability quality".

Linking to something does not mean you approve of the message.

 

[Rasmus]

It's actually a pretty clever idea. But all this talk about "vouching for" or "endorsement" is sheer imagination.

How is that even relevant?

It is possible to link to another site without affecting their pagerank simply by using nofollow.

The question now is: Why should we not do that?

I agree: Pointing out the woo sites, linking to them and openly discussing their claims and content is good.

But that's not done to benefit them, is it? stopsylvia.com wasn't created to help Sylvia, to support and strengthen her business, was it?

Now, given the choice of either linking to her and boosting her page rank or linking to her without altering her page rank, why should we decide for the first approach?

Keep in mind that it is not making it any more difficult for anyone to find out about Sylvia Browne (or other woo) at all. It just means we are not making it any easier than it would already be to find it. (Actually, somewhat easier, since the link still exists!) You might as well blame us for not paying banner links to various woo sites to make it even easier for other people to find those sites...

 

[RichardR]

Yes.

Does nofollow prevent people from looking at the sources?

Just reminding you of this question, Claus.

(Oh, the irony. )

 

[six7s]

Google does not consider linking to a site as "vouching for", an "endorsement", or any similar term.<snip/>

...But all this talk about "vouching for" or "endorsement" is sheer imagination.

All this talk?

Red herrings, much?

Nonsense, much?

Hyperbole, much?

The clown prince of Denmark doth protest too much, methinks

Instances of the string vouch in page 1 of this thread:

The best-known use for nofollow is blog comment spam, but the mechanism is completely general. Nofollow is recommended anywhere that links can’t be vouched for.

The rel=”nofollow” attribute is an easy way for a website to tell search engines that the website can’t or doesn’t want to vouch for a link.

Instances of the string endors in page 1 of this thread:

Note that although this example mentions spam, it is only in the context of a blog post about the topic. Imagine the above quote with the words "comment spamming" replaced with "homeopathy" (and "recently comment spammed your blog" with "recently endorsed homeopathy"). I think it is a completely appropriate example.

Is Sylvia Browne's content "valuable"? Does JREF officially endorse Sylvia Browne's content as "valuable"? Whether you realize it or agree with it or not, that is what Google's robots are deriving from your links.

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

 

[krelnik]

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?

No, and that's not going to happen. Clearly Sylvia's site has enough linking from other woo-woo sites and supporters, and enough relevance to the search "Sylvia Browne" that this is not going to happen.

So there's one red herring down. Next.