vBulletin "nofollow" modification

[Westech]

Here's something that might be of interest to those of you with vBulletin forums:

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=74703

It's a quick, easy modification that adds the new nofollow tag (http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html) to all links in users' posts and signatures.

The page also includes a way that you can add the nofollow tag only for certain usergroups, such as those below a certain number of posts. Pretty snazzy!

[moonshield]

interesting... I hope certain sites do not implement this. :)

[Cutter]

Interesting, could it make people post more or would it make them stop posting altogether?

On the other hand, it could encourage a lot of useless posting too. I know some people who have 20,000 - 50,000 posts on single webmaster boards. :D

[intelliot]

I don't think this is a good idea. A useful purpose of links is to follow them. Otherwise, what's the point? Why have a link at all?

aaron put it nicely:

Many of the major search engines and blog software vendors came
together to make a nofollow tag. The nofollow tag allows people
to leave static links in the comments and trackbacks which search
engines will not count for relevancy.

Essentially the tag is designed to be used when allowing others
to post unverified links into your site. You also can use it if
you are linking out to shady stuff as an example but do not want
to parse any link credit to the destination URL.
...
The nofollow feature looks as follows:
<a href=”http://www.fgfgsgqf.com” rel=”nofollow”>Link Text</a>
People will still continue to run spam bots to spam blog
comments. Many blog owers will see their rankings drop hard since
many of their old comment links will no longer help boost their
own search relevancy scores.

The rel=”nofollow” tag may make it easier for many webmasters to
cheat out reciprocal link partners.

The WikiPedia was the first major non blog site to adopt the
nofollow tag and search engines may find in due time that the tag
has many unintended negative consequences.

[chromate]

I don't think this is a good idea. A useful purpose of links is to follow them. Otherwise, what's the point? Why have a link at all?

I don't really get your point. People can still follow the link? I do think this whole nofollow thing is a double edged sword though. On the one hand it will help to rid certain pages from spam links, but on the other hand the tag could aid spammers in retaining PR.

Who's going to be more aware of the new tag - people with sites set up purely for the fun of it that haven't protected their blogs from links in the comments, or spammers that know and understand SEO? Knowledge is power, and unfortunately the power may lean slightly closer to the spammers in this case.

[Westech]

I think the idea is that most blog scripts will enable the nofollow tag in user posted links by default, so the blog owner doesn't even have to know what's going on.

I agree that it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, you have the link spammers, but on the other hand you have people posting legitimate links that genuinely contribute something to the article, conversation, or whatever. These useful links deserve to have PR passed to them, and if they don't the whole PR system is in jeopardy.

I think that the solution for forums is to put the nofollow tag in user-posted links for users that have below a certain number of posts. This will eliminate the spammers who just go from site to site registering, posting links, and leaving. Once a user has posted a few useful comments that aren't deleted they've proven that they can be trusted to post "real" links.

[James]

Yeah, but the forums that impliment it will likely not impliment something like you just mentioned, Westech.

I don't get PR from much places other than from forum links, so if the forums I visit start using this, I'll still post, but it'll probably lower my search rankings.

[chromate]

Unless you have thousands of posts, the PR you get from forums is pretty much zilch anyway.

[Xander]

Will googlebot simply not transfer any PR or will it just not visit the page? If its the latter it will be quite a massive change.

[chromate]

googlebot will not visit the page or transfer any PR. It will basically not be seen as a link at all from Google's perspective. At least, that's how I understand it.

[Xander]

I didn't realize it meant that, although it makes sense being "nofollow". It does look like it will be wide open to abuse, I am interested to see how it works out though.

[Cutter]

Unless you have thousands of posts, the PR you get from forums is pretty much zilch anyway.

Are you sure about that?

My site, Infected Marketing (http://www.infectedmarketing.com/), has PR 4. I haven't linked to it from anywhere else other than my signature on Website Publisher and SitePoint. I don't have close to 1000 posts on any of those. Checking the backlinks in SEs show those two as being the only sites linking to me. On the other hand my logo site has a PR 0. Go figure.

[MarkB]

Some of my sites have no backlinks from ANYWHERE, and still show a PR of 4. Explain that :p

[Chris]

I would only implement this for new members/members with low post counts, to deter spam.

[chromate]

Not sure how well it would even do that, unless you had bold red text when a user registers informing them that the nofollow tag will be used until they reach 400(?) posts.

[ozgression]

Yeah, it may not deter them from trying, but it would atleast stop them from gaining any benefits.

[MarkB]

I think that's a sound idea

[Cutter]

But you run the risk of having people make a lot of useless posts just so that their link "counts"...

[moonshield]

then you whip out the IP Ban and associated tools.

[MarkB]

With proper forum management, it shouldn't even come to that. If people are not made *aware* of the nofollow regulation, then they may not even look. Has anyone here checked to see whether Chris has implemented it? (I haven't!)

Who knows, maybe it will change the mindset of webmasters to get back to wanting links from quality, high-traffic websites rather than ones purely based on PR. (But I think we've had that discussion;))

[James]

Since these are my favorite forums I don't really care if he impliments it or not, so I haven't checked.

I agree, MarkB. This could actually show people that optimizing their sites, rather than getting lots of high-PR links could be benificial, can give high rankings.

[Xander]

If you've ever run a forum, you'll know its very difficult to ban a user who is determinded.

I think its an interesting idea to combat spam links but I do feel its more of an bandaid fix than a proper one.

[Blue Cat Buxton]

I agree with tntcheats. The value of a forum like this is not so much from sig links but fromt the knowledge that is shared and problems that are solved through participation.

[bratislavr]

thank zou verz much for help, i had this problem, but know thanks to zou ..everzthing is just fine ,)