This makes me think, we need a new rel value "negative".
[a rel="negative"]the competition[/a]
rel=nofollow works because websites want discourage SEO spam, not because they want to spend their R&D resources on helping Google
Get Satisfaction responds to NYTimes' DecorMyEyes Article
31–33 of 33 posts
Re: Get Satisfaction responds to NYTimes' DecorMyEyes Article
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they need to put nofollow on links to their own site?
He's referring to this: http://i.imgur.com/KqMcq.png From here: http://getsatisfaction.com/decormyeyescom Despite what the blog entry says, they ARE contributing to the problem.
I see, so they missed a few links. It appears to have been fixed now, though, because I can no longer find that HTML on the page.
I wonder if Google will ever be smart enough to take ranking highly for searches like "scam" or "fraud" into account (without penalizing the people exposing scams and frauds) when computing someone's pagerank?
Re: Get Satisfaction responds to NYTimes' DecorMyEyes Article
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's referring to this: http://i.imgur.com/KqMcq.png From here: http://getsatisfaction.com/decormyeyescom Despite what the blog entry says, they ARE contributing to the problem.
I see, so they missed a few links. It appears to have been fixed now, though, because I can no longer find that HTML on the page. I wonder if Google will ever be smart enough to take ranking highly for searches like "scam" or "fraud" into account (without penalizing the people exposing scams and frauds) when computing someone's pagerank?
Your wish is their command: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/being-bad-to-your-cus...