[HTML Gurus] Is the only nofollow = rel="nofollow"?
-
From my knowledge only way an HTML link is nofollow is using rel="nofollow".
I was wondering if you have a link , is there anything you can put OTHER than rel="nofollow" within the <a></a>tags that make a link nofollow?
-
as i say only the two options / well three including robots.txt to not index the page
-
Thanks Andy.
I was more curious in regards to the <a></a>tag.
-
correction the meta tag required index instructions too
NOINDEX would prevent search from seeing that page and nofollow the links -
-
page wide with the meta tag
not a perfect solution i know but its that or individually - i believe
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Exclude sorting options using nofollow to reduce duplicate content
I'm getting reports of duplicate content for pages that have different sorting options applied, e.g: /trips/dest/africa-and-middle-east/
On-Page Optimization | | benbrowning
/trips/dest/africa-and-middle-east/?sort=title&direction=asc&page=1
/trips/dest/africa-and-middle-east/?sort=title&direction=des&page=1 I have the added complication of having pagination combined with these sorting options. I also don't have the option of a view all page. I'm considering adding rel="nofollow" to the sorting controls so they are just taken out of the equation, then using rel="next" and rel="prev" to handle the pagination as per Google recommendations(using the default sorting options). Has anyone tried this approach, or have an opinion on whether it would work?0 -
Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag. We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong? Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time. A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these. Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
Will Google handle "this not that" pages differently?
If you create pages about "try keyword1 not keyword2" will there be any barriers to getting the pages ranked for keyword2? Example: You have furnished rental units in a small town, and you offer nightly/weekly rentals. You want to rank for "town hotel" since you offer the same service as a hotel. Since you're not really a hotel, you create a page called "Better than a hotel: Town nightly rental units". Anyone know if Google has an algorithm to detect this (they would have to detect the meaning of the words you were using and know that you were promoting something other than a hotel) and determine you're not really relevant to "town hotel" and not rank you well? I think they probably do not, as I've seen things like Google Adsense Alternatives articles ranking well for the term Google Adsense, or Boycott Godaddy sites ranking well for the term godaddy. But I would like to hear any evidence or facts others know of.
On-Page Optimization | | AdamThompson0 -
The "100 links/page recommendation" - Do Duplicate Links Count?
We have way too many links on our homepage. The PageRank Link Juice Calculator (www.ecreativeim.com/pagerank-link-juice-calculator.php) counts them to 300. But all of them are not unique, that is some links point to the same URL. So my question: does the "100 links/page recommendation" refer to all anchors on the page or only to unique link target URLs? I know "100" is just a standard recommendation.
On-Page Optimization | | TalkInThePark0 -
I built a website on magentogo - IrisScottPrints.com. The seomoz crawl report states 301 rel canonical crawl notices. What if anything should I change?
Wondering if I should remove "IRIS SCOTT PRINTS |" from all the title tags and/or change the url structure of the pages, to not include the breadcrumbs... I don't really understand the whole rel canonical structure thing. Also lots of errors on page title too long - does that really matter? Lots of faith in everyone here. Thanks in advance. Marcia
On-Page Optimization | | RedTrout0 -
Do you bother to nofollow links out to Facebook etc?
These days many sites link (often site-wide) to their social profiles on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.... etc Theoretical SEO on-page optimisation might condone adding nofollow to these links, but I have a feeling it might not do much in terms of conserving page authority and indeed might be a bit of an "over-optimisation" signal. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | Peterdallisomo0 -
I think my site's HTML is good but I get 22 Invalid markup erros?
Most are all related to things like facebook like buttons and such. I'm using DOCTYPE 4.01 Traditional but no good. Any ideas? www.jaaron-wood-countertops.com
On-Page Optimization | | JAARON0 -
Why isn't SEOMoz using File Extensions (*.html etc) on any of their web page URLs?
...and what is the SEO benefit of this? This video from Matt Cutts suggests using file extentions, except for a directory.
On-Page Optimization | | magicrob0