(3)
A Cre8asiteforums discussion called The Divide Between Search Engines And Seo's - "No Follow" Fiasco points to two somewhat emotional discussions elsewhere on the possible ramifications or practices of using the "rel=nofollow" tag in links.
In one case, the US Federal Trade Commission enters the arena to stir up the pot for paid links.
In another case, a blog directory has been accused of not passing "link juice" to the blogs who have submitted to it and using JavaScript "onclick" code in their URLS.
The thread at Cre8asiteforums points to both discussions and members returned to voice their opinions. Both the Sphinn and SEOFastStart discussions provide a chance to learn more, regardless of who is right or wrong. I was voted completely out into the universe in Sphinn for remarking that PR can't possibly be the "only" reason people submit to blog directories.
Apparently, I'm terribly wrong about that.
Comments:
Rose
09/14/2007 05:49 am
Tricking people into believing that they are gaining from a link is bad business ethnics in my opinion. The directory in question is benefiting from an SEO prospective, but all those who submit to them are not.
Michael Martinez
09/14/2007 05:34 pm
The Federal Trade Commission has not in any way addressed the issue of paid links. It has only addressed the issue of paid endorsements. Links are not considered to be endorsements under current U.S. law.
Katinka Hesselink
09/18/2007 12:29 pm
Since most visitors come from google for most webmasters, the effect of a new link on the serps is far higher than the effect of that same link on direct visitor numbers. So yes - a directory that does not impact google rankings (I'm avoiding the word 'pagerank' here) is less valuable for an SEO and in most cases a waste of time / money.