11–20 of 306 posts
While I'm not sure I understand your objection to nofollows as a compromise, have you any alternative methods in mind to improve the web without "breaking" the internet?
Jeremy Palmer is a SEO marketer, who also appears to be doing some scammy affiliate thing. Google considers his links low quality because they are low quality.
Yep. http://www.newspapergrl.com/affiliate-marketing-training-wit... It's hard to cry when justice is served.
Any ranking system that gave any value to links would suffer this problem.
nofollow is a necessary evil if you allow untrusted sources to publish content on your site that contains links. It's a way of saying "I don't vouch for these links in the same way I vouch for other links on my site".
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Jeremy Palmer is a SEO marketer, who also appears to be doing some scammy affiliate thing. Google considers his links low quality because they are low quality.
> Google considers his links low quality because they are. So what? Why should I have to care that Jeremy Palmer (or any other person) is linking to my site? The point of the article is that webmasters are going around trying to get links to their sites removed because it might get them penalised by Google. That is not natural or desirable behaviour. Site owners shouldn't have to care about that. Many have resorted t…
I had a DMCA takedown notice sent to me on behalf of a website owner who didn't want me linking to their site. My hosting provider gave me 24 hours to remove the link or else they'd cancel my account.
The owner of the link claimed that their Google rankings were dropping because my site, iHackernews, linked to their site. With this, they were able to force me to remove it via a DMCA takedown notice.
Jeremy Palmer is a SEO marketer, who also appears to be doing some scammy affiliate thing. Google considers his links low quality because they are low quality.
Not really "breaking the internet".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. http://www.newspapergrl.com/affiliate-marketing-training-wit... It's hard to cry when justice is served.
Justice? The people who were afraid of Google's reaction where the ones he linked to, not Jeremy Palmer himself. Even if he is a spammer, how is this justice?
I believe you mean "implore."
I talked about this phenomenon recently on This Week in Google with Leo Laporte and Gina Trapani: http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-google/248 Skip to 4:15 in to listen to the discussion. Note that there are two different things to keep in mind when someone writes in and says "Hey, can you remove this link from your site?" Situation #1 is by far the most common. If a site gets dinged for linkspam and works to clean up…
Did you read the article? The reason that site is asking for the links to be taken down is that they believe (apparently based on feedback from the Webmaster Tools) that it will please the Google Gods.
Spammy links and irrational fear of spammy links are both unnatural linking behaviors that result when sites are more concerned with pleasing search engine algorithms than with pleasing human users. That's what the article is talking about.