2 ms·

> Site owners and publishers are now afraid to link to each other because they don’t know how Google might respond to that link. For example, Wikipedia and the

by jonknee 12y ago

> Site owners and publishers are now afraid to link to each other because they don’t know how Google might respond to that link. For example, Wikipedia and the New York Times have added the “nofollow" attribute to most of the links outside of their editorial control. I'm a little confused why he cares about nofollow links--if Google doesn't "own" the internet, what does nofollow matter? It's certainly better than not having a link at all. Furthermore, the "credit" he so desperately wants publishers to receive is only a thing because of Google Page Rank in the first place.

Silhouette 12y ago
Furthermore, the "credit" he so desperately wants publishers to receive is only a thing because of Google Page Rank in the first place. That makes no sense. Citing an original source, such as an article that inspired your own work or with relevant background for ideas you're building on, is common courtesy in any field, and it's directly useful to your readers in the Web case. Amazing as some people apparently find it, it is still quite possible to "surf" the web, following links from site to site without relying on a search engine like Google to find anything interesting or useful. The fact that Google appear to be promoting policies that could threaten to this alternative is rather the point here.
- jonknee 12y ago
  > That makes no sense. Citing an original source, such as an article that inspired your own work or with relevant background for ideas you're building on, is common courtesy in any field, and it's directly useful to your readers in the Web case. The OP is against "nofollow" links which only affect search engines. The links work just fine in a browser and visitors won't know the difference. Publishers aren't scared to link, they're just wary of vouching for a site by not using nofollow.

by jonknee 12y ago

Silhouette 12y ago

Furthermore, the "credit" he so desperately wants publishers to receive is only a thing because of Google Page Rank in the first place. That makes no sense. Citing an original source, such as an article that inspired your own work or with relevant background for ideas you're building on, is common courtesy in any field, and it's directly useful to your readers in the Web case. Amazing as some people apparently find it, it is still quite possible to "surf" the web, following links from site to site without relying on a search engine like Google to find anything interesting or useful. The fact that Google appear to be promoting policies that could threaten to this alternative is rather the point here.

jonknee 12y ago
> That makes no sense. Citing an original source, such as an article that inspired your own work or with relevant background for ideas you're building on, is common courtesy in any field, and it's directly useful to your readers in the Web case. The OP is against "nofollow" links which only affect search engines. The links work just fine in a browser and visitors won't know the difference. Publishers aren't scared to link, they're just wary of vouching for a site by not using nofollow.