• http://www.whitehat-blackbelt.com RebeccaL

    Oooh, great notes! I’m especially intrigued by #1 since we’ve been trying to prune the footers on some of our older client sites down to the bare essentials on pretty much that premise. Plenty in here to spark some ideas. I’m making this my Friday Link Love post :-)

  • http://www.adrianeden.com Adrian Eden

    I highly doubt ‘asses’ is a good semantic field placement for this content.

  • http://2helixtech.com matthiaswh

    Hi Mark,

    Thanks for sharing this info. Nice to see how some great minds work, especially on really large sites.

    On #1, do you have any examples of a homepage footer drawing a penalty? I realize they’ve been devalued for a long time now, and they aren’t the best practice, but short of it being incredibly spammy I’ve never heard of a penalty involved. Could you elaborate more on this please?

    Crawl allowance is a good name for that concept. I’ve struggled on what to call it when describing it in-house. It is something I’ve been trying to make a point of in order to relay how important it is to eliminate duplicate content issues with our platform. When the search engines spend X amount of your “crawl allowance” on duplicate content, there is X amount of unique content not being crawled.


  • http://www.brownbook.net Marc Lyne

    Thanks Adrian for spotting the typo…

    matthiaswh, thanks for your comments, I will ask Tom if he could comment with a few examples of his findings that have drawn him to this conclusion.

    My thinking is really doing things in an open and honest way that benefit users. Watching the Matt Cutts videos (http://www.youtube.com/googlewebmasterhelp) continually re-iterates my view on this – less spammy, more user value is good and therefore more likely to do well.

  • http://searchengineland.com Tom Critchlow

    I don’t have any examples I can share regarding footer links specifically unfortunately but this post from SEOmoz has some interesting insights: