4 ms·
This is the logical conclusion of the overuse of „nofollow“. As but one example, the German Wikipedia has for years nofollow‘ed external links. That’s a policy
by IAmEveryone 7y ago
This is the logical conclusion of the overuse of „nofollow“. As but one example, the German Wikipedia has for years nofollow‘ed external links. That’s a policy that reduces their work load because it discourages spammers. But it also denies the public to profit from all the information that these links convey.
Incidentally, English Wikipedia doesn’t use nofollow as far as I remember, showing it’s entirely possible to police edits adding links. (My impression is the German WP Community has a certain ideological bend where they consider links to commercial sites ineligible even if those represent best possible sources of information. It’s not exactly „left-wing“, but closer to the weird mindset that afflicts members of a club when they spend too much time with each other and isolated from he outside).
Anyway, Google is really doing us a favor here. There‘s information in those links and willingly disregarding it was hurting their users, i. e. everyone. Detecting spam has also improved quite a bit, so the downside for websites should have lessened somewhat.
- yorwba 7y ago> it’s entirely possible to police edits adding links. Yes, but it requires people to notice the spam and remove it. My first Wikipedia edit was removing link spam for an (ironically German) translation service on an article about linguistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linguistic_reconstruction&diff=prev&oldid=852186083 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linguistic_recons...
- erikpukinskis 7y agoIt seems like you might have a valid complaint. But the second half of your comment undercuts your credibility. Likening the editors to a cult and then calling them “not left wing” seem like dogwhistles. Like you’re trying to color the space around them without actually making specific claims.