On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:59:13 GMT, "Eric Johnston"
<nospam@redyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>following a link to such a dodgy site yet allows my visitors to get to their
>rather interesting and valuable information ?

I tend to use this code for affiliate type links-

<script>document.write('<a hre'+'f="htt'+'p://www.domain.com/"
target="_blank">anchor text</a>');</script>

You can add as many of these '+' as you like to mess up the URL. An
over the top example-

<script>document.write('<a
h'+'re'+'f="htt'+'p://ww'+'w'+'.dom'+'ain.c'+'om/"
ta'+'rge'+'t="_bla'+'nk">anc'+'hor te'+'xt</a>');</script>

And it will still work.

Come to think of it you could expand this a little just in case Google
etc... ever read javascript-

<script>document.write('<a hre'+'f="htt'+'p://www.domain.com/"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow">anchor text</a>');</script>

You could also use this to add all sorts of stuff you don't want the
spiders to see.

<script>document.write(' put your hidden stuff here ');</script>

Take into account about 10% of your visitors won't have javascript
enabled, so they won't see the link etc..

I've only ever used it for affiliate links for this reason.

You could also use <a href="http://www.domain.com/"
rel"nofollow">anchor text</a> which can be read by spiders, but Google
says it will ignore it.

I've been meaning to run some tests on the rel="nofollow" to see what
is ignored. For example will the anchor text count towards the pages
SERPs (the page the link is on, not to)? If it is that's great.

If you don't like to use these technique anything within an iframe
isn't indexed either. I use an iframe on my literature sites for
several reasons including saving bandwidth. If I add the page links to
every page of a book it would significantly increase the load times.

For example the Pages Of this Ebook links on the right menu of
http://william-shakespeare.classic-l...eo-and-juliet/
are within an iframe. The iframe loads another html page
http://william-shakespeare.classic-l...iet/pages.html
that only lists the pages of that book (the page file has PR because I
also link to it from other pages).

In this particular example (40 page book) it saves about 3kb per page
(average is 4kb saved), so where an average page would be around 8-9kb
with the iframe it's around 5-6kb. Might not sound a lot, but when you
consider this over 10s of thousands of pages it's worth it. Then there
are the SEO reasons for not wanting up to 60 links with the anchor
text "Page ##" on every page!

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

SEO Dave wrote:

> Take into account about 10% of your visitors won't have javascript
> enabled, so they won't see the link etc..

So the solution is no solution.

> You could also use <a href="http://www.domain.com/"
> rel"nofollow">anchor text</a> which can be read by spiders, but Google
> says it will ignore it.

rel="nofollow", as I already wrote.

Moreover, not only Google ignores this. More moreover, this is the
*recommended* way of doing it, instead of JavaScript wizz bang.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On 12 Mar 2005 03:24:05 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
wrote:

>SEO Dave wrote:
>
>> Take into account about 10% of your visitors won't have javascript
>> enabled, so they won't see the link etc..
>
>So the solution is no solution.

What is wrong with you, are you trying to start a new argument with
me?

Eric asked about javascript links that won't be spidered by Google and
that's what I gave him. Knowing Eric has been posting here for ages
I'm sure he already knows ~10% of his visitors won't see the link and
was willing to accept this to prevent any negative consequences to his
sites search engine listings.

What Eric posted-
"Do you know how to write a simple reliable javascript link that stops
Google following a link to such a dodgy site yet allows my visitors to
get to their rather interesting and valuable information ?"

>> You could also use <a href="http://www.domain.com/"
>> rel"nofollow">anchor text</a> which can be read by spiders, but Google
>> says it will ignore it.
>
>rel="nofollow", as I already wrote.

And your point is?

>Moreover, not only Google ignores this. More moreover, this is the
>*recommended* way of doing it, instead of JavaScript wizz bang.

Recommended by whom?

It is not the recommended way of doing what Eric asked for. If you
read the rel="nofollow" info you'll see it's primarily there to
prevent benefit from link spam, not to prevent PR leakage or so you
can link to bad sites.

http://www.google.com/googleblog/200...ment-spam.html

Q: What types of links should get this attribute?
A: We encourage you to use the rel="nofollow" attribute anywhere that
users can add links by themselves, including within comments,
trackbacks, and referrer lists. Comment areas receive the most
attention, but securing every location where someone can add a link is
the way to keep spammers at bay.

I did appreciate the "JavaScript wizz bang" bit, very original :-)

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

SEO Dave wrote:

> On 12 Mar 2005 03:24:05 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
> wrote:
>
>>SEO Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Take into account about 10% of your visitors won't have javascript
>>> enabled, so they won't see the link etc..
>>
>>So the solution is no solution.
>
> What is wrong with you, are you trying to start a new argument with
> me?

No, but a JS solution is no solution.

> I'm sure he already knows ~10% of his visitors won't see the link and

Why did you ask him then to take it into account?

> What Eric posted-

I always prefer a better solution if available, even if the OP suggests
some other method. (Remember using CSV directly ;-) )

>>Moreover, not only Google ignores this. More moreover, this is the
>>*recommended* way of doing it, instead of JavaScript wizz bang.
>
> Recommended by whom?

Google, Yahoo, MSN, blogging software etc.

> It is not the recommended way of doing what Eric asked for. If you
> read the rel="nofollow" info you'll see it's primarily there to
> prevent benefit from link spam, not to prevent PR leakage or so you
> can link to bad sites.

<http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/...type_nofollow_
p.html>
"... to ignore links with this attribute set for the purposes of
spidering or increasing search engine relevance or *ranking*."

<http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/RelNoFollow>
"RelNoFollow is one of several MicroFormats. By adding rel="nofollow" to
a hyperlink, a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink
SHOULD NOT be afforded any additional weight or *ranking* by user
agents"

> I did appreciate the "JavaScript wizz bang" bit, very original :-)

I do my best ;-)

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On 12 Mar 2005 04:55:18 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
wrote:

>SEO Dave wrote:
>
>> On 12 Mar 2005 03:24:05 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>SEO Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> Take into account about 10% of your visitors won't have javascript
>>>> enabled, so they won't see the link etc..
>>>
>>>So the solution is no solution.
>>
>> What is wrong with you, are you trying to start a new argument with
>> me?
>
>No, but a JS solution is no solution.
>
>> I'm sure he already knows ~10% of his visitors won't see the link and
>
>>>Moreover, not only Google ignores this. More moreover, this is the
>>>*recommended* way of doing it, instead of JavaScript wizz bang.
>>
>> Recommended by whom?
>
>Google, Yahoo, MSN, blogging software etc.

As a bit of trivia: Googleguy, on one forum, also 'endorsed'
rel="nofollow" instead of wrapping URLs [you didn't want Google or
other SEs to follow] in javascript. At least that is what he posted to
one person wondering if they could use rel="nofollow" on affiliate
links instead of using javascript methods.

>> It is not the recommended way of doing what Eric asked for. If you
>> read the rel="nofollow" info you'll see it's primarily there to
>> prevent benefit from link spam, not to prevent PR leakage or so you
>> can link to bad sites.

Actually, those last two reasons (among others) is what some people
are using rel="nofollow" for and said that they would use it for those
reasons. rel="nofollow" ignores the link - so ingores the anchor text
used [no boost from that] and, in Google, doesn't pass along any PR.
At least Google has said it would not pass along any PR. MSN and Yahoo
don't use PR so they will just ignore the link and its anchor text.

The reasons were simple for the creation of rel="nofollow" - it's easy
for anyone to use, even those with minamal knowledge of HTML. Which is
why I posted, back when the news broke about it, that it would be
easier to misuse and abuse for such reasons as PR hording and such.
Yes, it was created to 'combat comment spam' but there is nothing to
limit it being used on a blog or on a comment area only.

But then again, plain text doesn't share PR either; I think around 80
to 85% of folks can figure out how to cut and paste.

*goes back to sidelines with cup of coffee*

Carol

Carol W wrote:

> The reasons were simple for the creation of rel="nofollow" - it's easy
> for anyone to use, even those with minamal knowledge of HTML.

Yup. I wanted to suggest to Google, ages ago, to have something like:

<meta no-follow="class" name="ad">

And being able to use the class ad, e.g.:

<a href="...." class="ad">....</a>

Would have been more nifty, since one could so things like:

<span class="boring">long and boring disclaimer</span>

Maybe I will suggest it anyway :-)

>Which is
> why I posted, back when the news broke about it, that it would be
> easier to misuse and abuse for such reasons as PR hording and such.

Well, if people start to link nofollow it will be the "end" of SE :-D.

> Yes, it was created to 'combat comment spam' but there is nothing to
> limit it being used on a blog or on a comment area only.

Yup, for example if you link to big sites that really don't require your
vote.

> *goes back to sidelines with cup of coffee*

With a concha?

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:59:13 GMT, "Eric Johnston"
<nospam@redyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>John Bokma wrote:
>> Eric Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> XX edited above: now reads "gives grey PR for 5% of pages" (not
>>> sites)
>>
>> But only for 5% of *your* pages? Or in general?
>
>Sorry for the typo.
>
>It was about 5% of the pages on my web site. say 6 quite specific pages out
>of say 115. Always the same 6 pages and all the time grey for 3 days, until
>I renewed the toolbar when all went green immediately.
>
>On two other sites I examined, a similar 5% proportion of pages had gone
>grey and these also returned to green at the same time I renewed my toolbar
>as above. When I renewed my toolbar I selected a different country or
>something as compared with before.
>
>I think the toolbar pulls the PR from one of several PR servers and that the
>old toolbar was pulling from a PR server with incomplete database. There
>has been no significant change in the ranking of the pages. I was a bit
>worried however as one of my affected pages was an important page and when
>investigated I found that one link from my page was to a site using a link
>farm and which had a grey home page. I spent half the night removing links
>to my pages that I thought had been penalised to try and stop the plague
>spreading - talk about being paranoid !.
>
>The home page of the dodgy site has since gone green again, thank goodness,
>but I still disapprove of their site and don't really like linking to it.
>Do you know how to write a simple reliable javascript link that stops Google
>following a link to such a dodgy site yet allows my visitors to get to their
>rather interesting and valuable information ?
>
>Best regards, Eric.


Would there be a problem with using the nofollow tag?

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon.co.uk
Affordable SEO!
--

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:23:04 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:

>On 12 Mar 2005 03:24:05 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
>wrote:
>
>>SEO Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Take into account about 10% of your visitors won't have javascript
>>> enabled, so they won't see the link etc..
>>
>>So the solution is no solution.
>
>What is wrong with you, are you trying to start a new argument with
>me?

He doesn't really have to try, does he?

BB (tee-hee...)

>Eric asked about javascript links that won't be spidered by Google and
>that's what I gave him. Knowing Eric has been posting here for ages
>I'm sure he already knows ~10% of his visitors won't see the link and
>was willing to accept this to prevent any negative consequences to his
>sites search engine listings.
>
>What Eric posted-
>"Do you know how to write a simple reliable javascript link that stops
>Google following a link to such a dodgy site yet allows my visitors to
>get to their rather interesting and valuable information ?"
>
>>> You could also use <a href="http://www.domain.com/"
>>> rel"nofollow">anchor text</a> which can be read by spiders, but Google
>>> says it will ignore it.
>>
>>rel="nofollow", as I already wrote.
>
>And your point is?
>
>>Moreover, not only Google ignores this. More moreover, this is the
>>*recommended* way of doing it, instead of JavaScript wizz bang.
>
>Recommended by whom?
>
>It is not the recommended way of doing what Eric asked for. If you
>read the rel="nofollow" info you'll see it's primarily there to
>prevent benefit from link spam, not to prevent PR leakage or so you
>can link to bad sites.
>
>http://www.google.com/googleblog/200...ment-spam.html
>
>Q: What types of links should get this attribute?
>A: We encourage you to use the rel="nofollow" attribute anywhere that
>users can add links by themselves, including within comments,
>trackbacks, and referrer lists. Comment areas receive the most
>attention, but securing every location where someone can add a link is
>the way to keep spammers at bay.
>
>I did appreciate the "JavaScript wizz bang" bit, very original :-)
>
>David

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon.co.uk
Affordable SEO!
--

I have followed John's advice and used the simple: <a href="...."
rel="nofollow">...</a> format.
ref:
<http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html>

I've also managed to amend the perl code of my YaBB forum so all the urls
embedded in the visitor posting can now be switched on and made into active
links to be followed by vistors, but not by Google to any spam sites.

Best regards, Eric.