It can be frustrating when your company gets mentioned on a popular site and they “nofollow” the link to your site (essentially hiding it from Google), but I recently heard something about that which made me change my perspective on that a little bit.
You can see details on this conversation over at this post on Search Engine Roundtable.
Subscribe! You can subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Anchor, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Breaker, Pocket Casts, RadioPublic, Stitcher, Overcast, and a variety of other places. Be sure to rate the podcast wherever you choose to listen!
So we mentioned this a little bit in yesterdays episode, as large publications often set up their sites to automatically apply the nofollow attribute to all outgoing links. This means that they’re telling Google not to trust any of the links in their articles, removing much of the value that those sites would have otherwise received.
I’ve always felt that was a lazy solution, and it really is. A user named David Farkas shared that thought with Google’s John Mueller, and John gave a great response.
The note that David wrote said “I’ve always felt publications that no-follow all their links are waiving the white flag, as if to say — read at your own risk, we have no quality control”
It makes sense, and I agree with what David said, but John’s response was great. He said: “Either that, or they’ve just had it with folks asking for or sneaking in links and want to have a way of focusing on their primary content without having to worry about that part…”
The more time that authors spent sifting through spam is less time that they have for writing (or spending time with their family, or whatever). While I still encourage publications to spend the time to audit their content and keep links followed when possible (like we do in our show notes here, and I do for my other blogs), this is a great new perspective that I hadn’t considered before.