In 2005 all 3 search engines,Yahoo, Bing an google agreed to support an initiative to reduce the effectiveness of automated spam
Unlike the meta robots version of NoFollow, a new directive was employed as an attribute with within an or link tag to indicte the fact that the linking site " does not vouch for the quality of the linked page.
With In short the rel=nofollow tag was intended for search spiders not to pass on the link juice to the third party link which the website is linking to originally this enabled to " stop automated links appearing o blogs as comments, forums and other user generated content siteswhere links were liberally splashed around, to fool the search engine to crawl and pass on the usual benefits of the search benefits
In due course of time" it was seen" most website owners used content from other sites, but used the tag rel=no follow" to stop the link juice flowing to the linked page. However google guidelines say that " only paid links" or links attained through dubious methods should be used as rel=noFollow tag. Google also says that " when linking a site " which is editorially good" you should not be using the " rel=no follow tag.
Please note that although the rel=noFollow tag is used to indicate search crawlers from passing on the linking benefits, it does not stop indexing the link( despite the lack of semantic logic)
You can implement the no Follow link as follows a <a href="http://www.onlinemarketing-trends.com/" rel="NoFollow">
In 2009, Matt Cutts wrote a post which suggests that" link juice " associated with NoFollowed link is discarded rather than reallocated , In theory you can still use rel=NoFollow many times you want, however using it on internal links does not bring the type of benefit webmasters and seo preference which it once used to
One word of caution, is using it many times across external links too many times,can be flagged as a site being overoptimized. the thumb rule here is out of 10 posts use no follow for 7 of them , while for posts which you use from third parties" no do use rel=no Follow for sites which are editorially seen as very strong
Unlike the meta robots version of NoFollow, a new directive was employed as an attribute with within an or link tag to indicte the fact that the linking site " does not vouch for the quality of the linked page.
With In short the rel=nofollow tag was intended for search spiders not to pass on the link juice to the third party link which the website is linking to originally this enabled to " stop automated links appearing o blogs as comments, forums and other user generated content siteswhere links were liberally splashed around, to fool the search engine to crawl and pass on the usual benefits of the search benefits
In due course of time" it was seen" most website owners used content from other sites, but used the tag rel=no follow" to stop the link juice flowing to the linked page. However google guidelines say that " only paid links" or links attained through dubious methods should be used as rel=noFollow tag. Google also says that " when linking a site " which is editorially good" you should not be using the " rel=no follow tag.
Please note that although the rel=noFollow tag is used to indicate search crawlers from passing on the linking benefits, it does not stop indexing the link( despite the lack of semantic logic)
You can implement the no Follow link as follows a <a href="http://www.onlinemarketing-trends.com/" rel="NoFollow">
In 2009, Matt Cutts wrote a post which suggests that" link juice " associated with NoFollowed link is discarded rather than reallocated , In theory you can still use rel=NoFollow many times you want, however using it on internal links does not bring the type of benefit webmasters and seo preference which it once used to
One word of caution, is using it many times across external links too many times,can be flagged as a site being overoptimized. the thumb rule here is out of 10 posts use no follow for 7 of them , while for posts which you use from third parties" no do use rel=no Follow for sites which are editorially seen as very strong
