Comments on: Wikipedia is right about nofollow http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/ A blog on entrepreneurship, user experience, and web innovation. Published by Fred Oliveira. Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:01:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: SEO http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/comment-page-1/#comment-41097 SEO Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:24:47 +0000 http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/#comment-41097 yeah… those stupid wiki’s! wonder what happen if we all use nofollow to them? Have a good one. yeah… those stupid wiki’s!
wonder what happen if we all use nofollow to them?
Have a good one.

]]> By: Laura http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/comment-page-1/#comment-26701 Laura Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:16:17 +0000 http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/#comment-26701 Hey, sorry for the link above. You can go ahead and remove it. I just wanted to test if adding another rel such as lightbox would override the nofollow attribute. Not trying to spam your blog! Hey, sorry for the link above. You can go ahead and remove it. I just wanted to test if adding another rel such as lightbox would override the nofollow attribute. Not trying to spam your blog!

]]> By: about:blank » Blog Archive » Wikipedia e nofollow: a palavra final http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/comment-page-1/#comment-23337 about:blank » Blog Archive » Wikipedia e nofollow: a palavra final Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:45:29 +0000 http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/#comment-23337 [...] Wikipedia is right about nofollow [...] [...] Wikipedia is right about nofollow [...]

]]> By: igoo » Wikipedia Introduces the nofollow attribute - search engines, spam wikipedia - accessible website design, liverpool http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/comment-page-1/#comment-22810 igoo » Wikipedia Introduces the nofollow attribute - search engines, spam wikipedia - accessible website design, liverpool Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:18:46 +0000 http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/#comment-22810 [...] So is wikipedia right or wrong? As with nearly everything that ever happens on the internet, wikipedia’s move to turn itself into an all-consuming “black hole” of incoming links has caused some controversy among the web community. No-one really agrees on which is the lesser evil, their fight against spammers and strive to maintain a certain quality of content, or the importance of them ‘contributing’ back to the web community. Search engine expert Philipp Lenssen is very much in the ‘its a bad idea’ camp, and feels wikipedia are being selfish. Heshares his views on why he feels wikipedia’s decision is dissapointing one; What happens as a consequence, in my opinion, is that Wikipedia gets valuable backlinks from all over the web, in huge quantity, and of huge importance … this is what makes Wikipedia rank so well – but as of now, they’re not giving any of this back. The problem of Wikipedia link spam is real, but the solution to this spam problem may introduce an even bigger problem: Wikipedia has become a website that takes from the communities but doesn’t give back, skewing web etiquette as well as tools that work on this etiquette (like search engines, which analyze the web’s link structure). Amit Agarwal provides an illustration of how the no-follow rule may have a negative impact on other smaller websites: Say you discover a cool feature in the iPod (called Stylus) and blog about it. Tomorrow, the Wikipedia contributors append the details of iPod Stylus (your discovery) to the Wikipedia page on iPod. They do attribute your blog but search engines will never see that attribution (or read your blog via Wikipedia) because of the rel=nofollow tag. Now that Wikipedia enjoys higher credibility and trust, the search algorithms will rank the Wikipedia iPod page higher than yours (for queries like iPod Stylus) because the search engine bots are not aware that Wikipedia’s content is actually based on your blog page. Result, your site appears after Wikipedia in the “iPod Stylus” search results and you get less or no traffic while Wikipedia gets to enjoy all the fruits of your labor. some people agree with the change, arguing that this may be the only viable way of preserving the credibility of wikipedia; Wikipedia needs to protect their data in order to remain a credible source of information. Part of that data protection initiative must encompass putting a brake on the spam they get daily - and this is the best way to do it. By adding the nofollow attribute to their links, wikipedia is effectively telling spammers that by adding links to their pages from wikipedia, they get no “juice” (or search engine ranking boost, if you prefer) in return. Which is good because that way there’s no point in them spamming in the first place - wikipedia readers win, and the web in general wins as well, as there’s less garbage being crawled. Theres no dispute that the less garbage their is on the internet the better, especially on sites like wikipedia where purity of content precedes all other priorities. [...] [...] So is wikipedia right or wrong? As with nearly everything that ever happens on the internet, wikipedia’s move to turn itself into an all-consuming “black hole” of incoming links has caused some controversy among the web community. No-one really agrees on which is the lesser evil, their fight against spammers and strive to maintain a certain quality of content, or the importance of them ‘contributing’ back to the web community. Search engine expert Philipp Lenssen is very much in the ‘its a bad idea’ camp, and feels wikipedia are being selfish. Heshares his views on why he feels wikipedia’s decision is dissapointing one; What happens as a consequence, in my opinion, is that Wikipedia gets valuable backlinks from all over the web, in huge quantity, and of huge importance … this is what makes Wikipedia rank so well – but as of now, they’re not giving any of this back. The problem of Wikipedia link spam is real, but the solution to this spam problem may introduce an even bigger problem: Wikipedia has become a website that takes from the communities but doesn’t give back, skewing web etiquette as well as tools that work on this etiquette (like search engines, which analyze the web’s link structure). Amit Agarwal provides an illustration of how the no-follow rule may have a negative impact on other smaller websites: Say you discover a cool feature in the iPod (called Stylus) and blog about it. Tomorrow, the Wikipedia contributors append the details of iPod Stylus (your discovery) to the Wikipedia page on iPod. They do attribute your blog but search engines will never see that attribution (or read your blog via Wikipedia) because of the rel=nofollow tag. Now that Wikipedia enjoys higher credibility and trust, the search algorithms will rank the Wikipedia iPod page higher than yours (for queries like iPod Stylus) because the search engine bots are not aware that Wikipedia’s content is actually based on your blog page. Result, your site appears after Wikipedia in the “iPod Stylus” search results and you get less or no traffic while Wikipedia gets to enjoy all the fruits of your labor. some people agree with the change, arguing that this may be the only viable way of preserving the credibility of wikipedia; Wikipedia needs to protect their data in order to remain a credible source of information. Part of that data protection initiative must encompass putting a brake on the spam they get daily – and this is the best way to do it. By adding the nofollow attribute to their links, wikipedia is effectively telling spammers that by adding links to their pages from wikipedia, they get no “juice” (or search engine ranking boost, if you prefer) in return. Which is good because that way there’s no point in them spamming in the first place – wikipedia readers win, and the web in general wins as well, as there’s less garbage being crawled. Theres no dispute that the less garbage their is on the internet the better, especially on sites like wikipedia where purity of content precedes all other priorities. [...]

]]> By: JasonM http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/comment-page-1/#comment-22803 JasonM Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:17:08 +0000 http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/#comment-22803 Another argument against <i>nofollow</i> is if a large proportion of any web community adopt the nofollow usage - then Googles algorithm for weighting more popular sites simply stops working. Many mainstream bloggers / blog software have implemented <i>nofollow</i>. I admit the web is made up of a lot more pages, but removing quality content from the mix of pagelinks doesn't seem to be a sustainable solution in the long term. Another argument against nofollow is if a large proportion of any web community adopt the nofollow usage – then Googles algorithm for weighting more popular sites simply stops working.

Many mainstream bloggers / blog software have implemented nofollow. I admit the web is made up of a lot more pages, but removing quality content from the mix of pagelinks doesn’t seem to be a sustainable solution in the long term.

]]> By: Michael Buckbee http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/comment-page-1/#comment-22483 Michael Buckbee Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:24:02 +0000 http://blog.webreakstuff.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-right-about-nofollow/#comment-22483 I can't speak for others, but I think the biggest reason not use no-follow is that it plain doesn't work. Has adding no-follow to blog comments stopped comment spammers for whacking the living heck out of the internet with their filth? No, because there remains an economic incentive (albeit a lesser one) in direct views of spam (just like email spam). It's so cheap to "send" a comment spam/wiki edit that as long as nearly any economic incentive exists comment spammers will still exist. If you're interested, I've suggested an alternative approach and why no-follow isn't really about solving anybody's spam issues but google here: http://www.buzzwordcompliant.net/index.php/2007/01/23/why-not-to-follow-nofollow/ Thanks, Mike I can’t speak for others, but I think the biggest reason not use no-follow is that it plain doesn’t work.

Has adding no-follow to blog comments stopped comment spammers for whacking the living heck out of the internet with their filth? No, because there remains an economic incentive (albeit a lesser one) in direct views of spam (just like email spam).

It’s so cheap to “send” a comment spam/wiki edit that as long as nearly any economic incentive exists comment spammers will still exist.

If you’re interested, I’ve suggested an alternative approach and why no-follow isn’t really about solving anybody’s spam issues but google here:

http://www.buzzwordcompliant.net/index.php/2007/01/23/why-not-to-follow-nofollow/

Thanks,

Mike

]]>