Using NOFOLLOW when linking to "woo woo" web sites

[six7s]

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.

Getting blood out of a stone? That'd be worth a million... as long as it was substantiated by testable, repeatable evidence in keeping with a mutually agreeable and pre-scribed protocol, of course

 

[Rasmus]

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

Please elaborate, Rasmus

TIA

As far as I can tell, everybody in the thread agrees that one should link to the woo sites to point directly at the sources of what one is discussing on their own sites.

Claus is the only one who seems to bothered that people might not want to place links like that.

Everybody else has been discussing whether those links should be placed with the addition of the nofollow directive.

I was trying to point out that there was no need to go on about that we should link to the sources because there simply was general agreement on that particular point. The only question is "how" we should place those links, right?

 

[six7s]

Thanks

 

[Rasmus]

Thanks

Oh, and in case I wasn't clear enough:

The comparison is valid - if nofollow deprives the woos of something they are entitled to it's just fair to ask what else they might be entitled to, including ad banners.

 

[RichardR]

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

One more time - yes we can. That is what nofollow is for.

 

[RichardR]

Claus:

Will you answer this question:

"Does nofollow prevent people from looking at the sources?"

Yes or no?

 

[six7s]

Claus:

Will you answer this question:

"Does nofollow prevent people from looking at the sources?"

Yes or no?

I wouldn't hold my breath for a coherent answer

But, thanks for asking the question, RR - I suspect that Claus is either using the forum software or his own brand of bacon-headedness to ignore my questions, the gist of which is echoed in yours

I find it truly farcical that the two nofollow naysayers in this thread - either self-professed and/or high-profile sceptics - are so sure of themselves, despite an apparent unwillingness and/or inability to argue (for want of a better word) the anti with anything more than ignorance and arrogance ad nauseam

 

[CFLarsen]

I already made it clear, but I can repeat myself:

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 our links don't affect the Google ranking upwards, the target automatically slides down. There can only be one site at number 1, and one site at number 157. If there are 1000 skeptical sites for each woo site, nobody is going to find the woo site. Precisely the problem we had, when there were few skeptical sites around: They were drowned out, and people didn't find them.

Nobody looks through 5 pages of Google searches. If they can't find it quickly, they try again with something else.

So, yes: Nofollow results in a lower Google ranking, and people are prevented from looking at the sources.

I fail to see why the discussion needs to be so personalized. Simply present the arguments, without snide remarks. Always helps.

 

[six7s]

I already made it clear

In your dreams, perhaps

If there are 1000 skeptical sites for each woo site, nobody is going to find the woo site. Precisely the problem we had, when there were few skeptical sites around: They were drowned out, and people didn't find them.

And this is a problem on which planet?

So, yes: Nofollow results in a lower Google ranking, and people are prevented from looking at the sources.

That you - a self-professed sceptic - have the audacity to both suggest that others here "severely misunderstand the nature of the WWW" AND promote such blatant and erroneous nonsense is, literally, farcically ridiculous

I fail to see why the discussion needs to be so personalized. Simply present the arguments, without snide remarks. Always helps.

It's personalised simply because, in the absence of reasoned, logical argument against the nofollow tag, you personally persist in posting nonsense

If you want to argue, logically, then counter this claim:

Universal use of the nofollow tag on vBulletin boards AND universal use of the rel="nofollow" attribute in conventional html anchors WILL NOT PREVENT anyone from looking at the sources of woo
​

But, please, don't make it 'personal, simply present the arguments, without snide remarks'

 

[CFLarsen]

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

 

[six7s]

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

I will if you will

So far, you haven't offered any arguments

I have:

Universal use of the nofollow tag on vBulletin boards AND universal use of the rel="nofollow" attribute in conventional html anchors WILL NOT PREVENT anyone from looking at the sources of woo
​

Attack that

 

[CFLarsen]

Who looks through 5 pages of Google hits?

 

[six7s]

Who looks through 5 pages of Google hits?

Be brave, attack my claim, don't pussy foot around it with rhetorical irrelevant nonsense

 

[CFLarsen]

The onus is usually on the claimant.

Let's go with the "if woo sites get a lower ranking, that's not a problem, people can still find them" idea.

If it is not a problem for a woo site to be so low that people will have to wade through pages of pages of google searches....

....then it isn't a problem for a skeptic site, either.

Right?

We don't need to boost our ratings for our own sites. No, no, people will still wade through pages and pages of Google searches. And they will find us.

Sure.

 

[RichardR]

I see some moving of goal posts here:

So, yes: Nofollow results in a lower Google ranking, and people are prevented from looking at the sources.

You wrote earlier:

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.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

If I place a link on my site to the source of the actual claims, how does nofollow prevent them from clicking the link and viewing the source?

 

[krelnik]

I would like to point out that the title of this thread contains the phrase "when linking". One of the reasons I brought up nofollow was to reduce some skeptics' fear of linking.

Sigh. In my opinion, the content-free objections raised by certain persons in this thread are precisely the type of thing that fosters dislike of skeptics by some in the general public.

 

[six7s]

I see some moving of goal posts here

I see a succession of own-goals being perpetrated by the 'home team' mascot

If I place a link on my site to the source of the actual claims, how does nofollow prevent them from clicking the link and viewing the source?

That this simple, straightforward question continues to be ignored speaks volumes

Perhaps because the glaringly obvious answer is it doesn't prevent anyone following the link

Let's go with the "if woo sites get a lower ranking, that's not a problem, people can still find them" idea.

If it is not a problem for a woo site to be so low that people will have to wade through pages of pages of google searches....

Whoa! This is dressage, not a steeple chase; jumping to conclusions won't earn you any points

Think about the mental leap required in order to pronounce "people will have to wade..." and - hopefully - you will comprehend the absurdity of such a statement

... No, no, people will still wade through pages and pages of Google searches. And they will find us.

Are you really so blinkered that you can't see that SERPs are but one (albeit very, very popular) method of disseminating URIs?

And...

Even if SERPs were the ONLY source of links... think about the criteria for ranking the results of any search query

Clue:

Back in post #25, I mentioned a phrase that may well be familiar to those who do not "severely misunderstand the nature of the WWW" - it's a white hat SEO maxim:

Content is king, linking is queen
​

If that doesn't make sense, then please do some research before posting any more inane twaddle sourced from your nag's behind

The onus is usually on the claimant.

And you wonder/complain that this discussion is personal? Get real Claus! Challenge any aspect of my claim, and I will respond

Universal use of the nofollow tag on vBulletin boards AND universal use of the rel="nofollow" attribute in conventional html anchors WILL NOT PREVENT anyone from looking at the sources of woo
​

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not aware that I have made a claim like that.

 

[CFLarsen]

NOFOLLOW is a tag used by search engines. Hence, the discussion about search engines.

 

[Terry]

Let's go with the "if woo sites get a lower ranking, that's not a problem, people can still find them" idea.

for instance, by oh, I dunno... CLICKING ON THE LINKS that we are discussing providing?