• http://www.planetc1.com/ chiropractic

    For once my procrastination has paid off, had not gotten around to doing much pagerank sculting on my site, other than on some footers and links to contact forms.

    Impressive that with all going on at SMX, you still manage to organize such a solid post, my head would be spinning with all the surrounding activities.

  • http://ninebyblue.com/ Vanessa Fox

    I’m not Matt, nor do I play him on TV, but I wonder if when he said:

    “Googlebot isn’t going to know how to sign into expedia.com, so why waste that PageRank on a page that wouldn’t benefit users or convert any new visitors? ”

    if what he really was getting at was more a crawl efficiency than a PageRank issue. (“PageRank” tends to get used by the industry as a catch-all sometimes inadvertently.) Because I would say that it’s still good practice to nofollow links to registration and sign-in pages (and other pages you don’t really need indexed) just because the fewer of those pages Googlebot crawls, the more time there will be to crawl the pages you really do care about having indexed.

  • Chris Kellum

    I’m not quite sure what to think yet. I’ve used PageRank consolidation with success. And even in watching the toolbar PageRank changes, the pages in question went from no PR score to having a PR score, and there were no links built to these target pages during this time. Pages that didn’t rank until I sculpted the navigation across the site.

    I will be interested to see how all of this shakes down as we get more thoughts/opinions from more folks in the SEO community, and possibly Matt, himself. At the end of the day, I gotta go with what works, not what someone says. Looks like inside of my little world that things have not changed, but definitely something I’m going to be keeping a close eye on.

  • http://auto-insurance.co.il roie

    Too bad Google isn’t taking the obvious measures against paid links (at list not Google Israel). If a site has 1,000 back links coming from 5 domains, it’s a pretty good indication for paid site wide links, yet Google (again, in Israel) seems to even reward you for such links…

  • http://dynamical.biz/blog Ani Lopez

    Besides the use of nofollow at internal link structure for PR sculpting I like to use it as another resource to reinforce content structure and let search engines understand better what is all about in a site.

    The thing is that PR sculpting and Siloing walk so close that results difficult to distinguish where the intention is more close to PR gaming or AI for SEO. Any thoughts?

  • Chris Reynolds

    Not withstanding that Google “acts as the investment banker” (nice metaphor) it seems that people who have applied this practice will now loose out as there will be no additional PageRank conferred to the ‘favoured’ pages and no PageRank going to the ‘nofollowed’ pages – thus a net loss of PageRank.

    Therefore the example of the sites that still have “meta keywords tags” isn’t necessarily appropriate, as those tags are doing no active ‘harm’ to the site.

    It seems strange to me that Google / Matt Cutts would discourage the index of login pages when you consider that these are often the most popular pages on a site and prime candidate for an authority link on, for example, a brand term SERP.

  • http://www.dazzlindonna.com dazzlindonna

    Why do I feel like my little post at SEO Chicks (http://www.seo-chicks.com/917/why-listening-to-matt-cutts-is-a-bad-idea.html) just got upstaged by the big kahuna, Danny himself? Sorry, Danny, maybe it was coincidence, but it sure feels like you read my post (or heard about it), and then decided to write the same thing, only longer just an hour or two later. Ah well, I’ll pout for an hour, or until coffee kicks in this morning, and wish I had the same kind of clout Danny does. :) C’est la vie.

  • http://www.rankedhard.com/ RankedHard

    The question still remains will Google actual do something about PAID LINKS. They cry wolf, say it’s a no-no but when do they actually enforce their policies. Even when you use the Webmaster Tools to Report gross offenders, Nothing seems to be done about it. An SEO Comic http://www.rankedhard.com/crazy-eddies-link-emporium.php actually does a good job in a satirical approach to the issues.

  • rexolio

    And just when I think I know about something that other SEO’s don’t take the time to do! DOH! Oh well – guess we all have to stick to the stuff that actually matters!

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Donna, I didn’t see your post or hear about it. It’s kind of crazy with the show — when I wrote this, I hadn’t even gotten through 200 pieces of email that had come in yesterday, either. I wouldn’t be surprised if similar to your post and mine, there were others out there on the same topic.

  • alexc

    It’s not suprising at all – nofollow was meant to prevent web graph ranking manipulation via blog comment spam, consequently when faced witha side effect of lots of nofollow links on internal pages messing up with web graph ranking Google had to address it in some way before (and this might be inevitable) they might be forced to ignore nofollow on internal links completely.

  • Winooski

    dazzlindonna: Great minds think alike? And, trust me, you have *plenty* of clout with me.

  • bonniegibbons

    When we talk about using Javascript to “safely” serve paid links, we aren’t talking about gaming the system, since those links could never have been expected to pass PR, correct? We’re talking about the fact that certain kinds of links (such as those with recognizable adserving or affiliate network URLs in addition to script links) were inherently nofollow — either because they were uncrawlable or because they were clearly ads. And now that some scripted links have become crawlable, websites that were minding their own business are suddenly “in violation” of Google’s paid link policy? Seems that any way to handle this problem has, well, some problems. Google could simply treat these links as the dreaded paid links, which wouldn’t be fair to the unsuspecting masses who don’t open SEO blogs every day. Or they could add “grandfather” logic saying basically “this link is in a script, which used to be OK, so let’s give this paid link the benefit of the doubt.” Whereupon folks would start putting followed paid links into scripts in hopes of getting grandfathered in.

    Even if one concedes the notion that paid links are so compromising (when, let’s face it, very little of what we do is “unpaid”), I’ve never understood why they need to actually penalize the violation rather than simply not rewarding it.

  • http://webcat webcat

    Thank you for your excellent article. Become even translated into Russian.

  • bobthebuilder

    It stunk when it was first proposed but it served two purposes:

    1) It continued the perceptions that the Google algo was really advanced, and kept it at the top of the engines to watch (let’s make everyone jump through hoops) and in voice via people’s discussion boards. Favoured brand awareness.

    2) It was also a cost-saving exercise – le’ts make the webmasters work to save our bandwidth, and unfortunately some people fell for it.

    Thank goodness I’ve never listenedd to Matt or his blog, although I am sure he is a nice guy.

    Yours has always been a pleasure Danny. I liked you’re presentation on Local the other day – you are right it’s too damned hard for people!


  • spgazette

    >>>”I recall it being described as a means to ensure your best pages got the most PageRank. I also recall being kind of annoyed about it (and think I said so during the meeting). For years, we’d been told that site owners shouldn’t have to do extraordinary things to help search engines.”

    You don’t have to do extraordinary things to indicate your “important” pages. Naturally, they’ll be linked to the most (and from other important pages) and will accumulate more PR in due course. Yes, you have to do some kind of link manipulation to artificially assign more importance than a page deserves – is that what you mean?