Wikipedia And The Nofollow Controversy

If you're not involved in the seo group, January 21st, 2007 probably held no importance for you. For another viewpoint, consider checking out: quality link building. But, if you're an internet search engine marketer or SEO, you probably remember January 21st whilst the time that Wikipedia died. To the inexperienced eye, Wikipedia is strictly the exact same today as it was six months before. But, after you have a look and look below the top, you is able to see one difference that's had an impact on the planet of search engine optimization: NOFOLLOW. For one more standpoint, you might hate to gaze at: high quality backlinks.

In the words of Matt Cutts, "rel="nofollow" credit is definitely an simple way for a site to tell se's that the web site cant or doesnt desire to vouch for a link." Before January 21st, NOFOLLOW was mainly utilized for blog comments. That helped weblog owners cut down on comment spam. NOFOLLOW was also used in some situations to represent a link, but this is a whole other controversy that may need to be preserved for another article. To get a different perspective, please check-out: rank checker tool.

On every single outgoing link the main reason that Wikipedias adoption of NOFOLLOW caused this kind of mix is really because many people considered it as the most hypocritical choice that Wikipedia could have made. The reason that Wikipedia has become so common and performs so effectively in the SERPs is that people and website owners commonly guide Wikipedia. They provide a link back once again to Wikipedia, when they try this. Every time this process occurs, Wikipedia gains a bit more recognition in the search engines. When Wikipedia decided to implement the NOFOLLOW label, they are telling the various search engines that though we reference a website and may use material from it within our report, we do not want one to give it any credit. It's because of this that many have started to view Wikipedia as a massive hypocrisy.

Even though NOFOLLOW has probably lessen the quantity of spam Wikipedia has to fight, but as much the others have said, Wikipedia might have chosen a different way of fighting spam that didn't punish quality those sites which deserve to be acquiesced by Wikipedia..