4 ms·

It's true that there's a difference between crawling, indexing, and ranking, but Google is pretty clear on the ultimate effect. http://support.google.com/webma

by luigi 15y ago

It's true that there's a difference between crawling, indexing, and ranking, but Google is pretty clear on the ultimate effect. http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569 http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38... How does Google handle nofollowed links? In general, we don't follow them. This means that Google does not transfer PageRank or anchor text across these links. Essentially, using nofollow causes us to drop the target links from our overall graph of the web. However, the target pages may still appear in our index if other sites link to them without using nofollow, or if the URLs are submitted to Google in a Sitemap.

masklinn 15y ago
That's the robots nofollow, we're talking about a/@rel=nofollow which google advertises quite differently: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-sp... and the microformats standardization[0] stuck very carefully to "provide no additional weight or ranking to target" period. Not that crawlers can't follow that link for new content, and not that crawlers can't reverse that link for "shared on" features, just that this precise link won't add to the pagerank of the target. [0] http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-nofollow http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-nofollow
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Dear god, your basically repeating one link from 7 years ago. Provided here as information for people who might think you are offering a valid resource: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569 http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...
- shadowfiend 15y ago
  The thing is, if Google were to say “x was shared by y on twitter”, that is precisely providing some additional weight to the result. Human weight, admittedly, though I believe this also factors into the weight on the page. So it makes sense that twitter links would also not be included in this sharing stuff either.

by luigi 15y ago

masklinn 15y ago

That's the robots nofollow, we're talking about a/@rel=nofollow which google advertises quite differently: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-sp... and the microformats standardization[0] stuck very carefully to "provide no additional weight or ranking to target" period. Not that crawlers can't follow that link for new content, and not that crawlers can't reverse that link for "shared on" features, just that this precise link won't add to the pagerank of the target. [0] http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-nofollow http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-nofollow

jasonlotito 15y ago
Dear god, your basically repeating one link from 7 years ago. Provided here as information for people who might think you are offering a valid resource: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569 http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...
shadowfiend 15y ago
The thing is, if Google were to say “x was shared by y on twitter”, that is precisely providing some additional weight to the result. Human weight, admittedly, though I believe this also factors into the weight on the page. So it makes sense that twitter links would also not be included in this sharing stuff either.