Google - You utter Fools

12 comments

I wont bore everyone to tears by putting this on the RSS for now but sheeesh! One last little rant before I pop off to bed :)

WikiPedia - NoFollow on ALL outbound Links
Really google, this is the stupidest thing ive ever seen in my life - you monkeys.

Comments

That's the key, I think - the

That's the key, I think - the fact that this is optional. May the best plan win! If DMOZ or wiki clones start doing well because they avoid the tag - good for them. If not, then the tag will be shown to have merit.

Now, if this was being forced on webmasters without knowledge or permission, that would be a different story. Webmasters didn't Opt-in to the page rank algo - it was forced onto the web and you actually have to take steps to opt out (ie robots.txt,etc). The result was peoples sites being manipulated for reasons they may not have even been aware of for someone elses benifit. Especially in the early days, not everyone was aware of the releationship between links and rankings - they just put up websites.

Not that I mind the traffic from Google, but lets face it - it was a pretty heavy handed approach in practice.

At least this attribute is up to the webmaster to use or not use.

Ian

At least I still get...

...the occasional traffic from wikipedia :-)

IMO it's some of the clones that could do with a nofollow attribute. Wikipedia itself is in fact well-looked-after by its regulars.

Hope they will come to their senses...

Tossing crap

Well, i guess that's true for some.

Speaking as one who has thrown a little crap in his time though i can say that it's not the case for everyone :)

Any target's a good one

When you're tossing crap, you don't care what you hit, as long as it sticks.

And Google didn't create the currency of links; they recognized it. They saw links as a vote, so they created an algo that takes links into account. It's not their fault that that got gamed.

Have you got a suggestion of a better way for Google to deal with link spam, link mongering, etc?

Wikipedia and nofollow

I dont blame wikipedia - i blame google for creating a link currency and then when it gets out of hand trying to patch it in an ill thought out, potentially desctructive manner..

On that basis, i dont really blame the crap tossers either though you would think they could find better targets wouldnt you?

No, what I'm afraid it says i

No, what I'm afraid it says is that while there are a lot of high quality, human-edited links here, we've been under attack by people who throw crap onto our pages just to get link pop, and we can't keep up with culling the trash from the content, so we feel we have no choice but to take away the one thing the crap tossers are tossing their crap in order to get.

So, shame on the crap tossers for ruining it for the rest of us, but not on wikipedia for accepting that this is how they're going to have to deal with it.

And by the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything to stop the editors from going through their pages and removing the attribute from the links they find to be worthwhile.

Do you really think the major

Do you really think the majority of crap tossers (and I agree you can see it as a real and horrible problem) will stop spamming the pedia sites?

I fear, and think what will happen is that the more knowledgable spammers will leave you alone but the 99. something% of people who are using automated tools will see the pages as even more of a temptation as they won't be sharing link pop with all the other spammers.

Yup, they may well realise that links won't give them value in the search engines (But I guess they won't) but they will realise that a high end site that allows free production of it's content will mean links and targetted traffic anyway.

The reality is that the pedia clones will almost definately NOT be using the nofollow tag so spamming the wikipedia and other pedia sites will still be worthwhile

Ahhh but because it is human

Ahhh but because it is human edited and should be (and normally is) high quality information the URLs that are included in the pedia rightfully deserve the link pop.

Isn't this one of those examples where the search engine are shooting themselves in the foot? They want high quality human edited, original content and with the Wikipedia they have it, but they now say that links from there, although high quality and human edited are worthless.

Clarification

Let me clarify briefly why i think this is a stupid idea, in the context of wikipedia:

Wikipedia is an authority site right? It's one of many sites Google should be treating as an authority anyway - If we have to live with a nonsensical thing like pagerank anyway, it would best be served by sites like wikipedia passing on that authority to sites they deem as authoratitive.

Google may of course do a hand tweak for sites like that to not observe the nofollow - but man, talk about "how to shoot yerself in the foot!"

Needless to say, i'll stick with my original assessment: Monkeys, all of 'em! heh...

Welcome to Hyperbole Central

It's really the stupidest thing you've ever seen, Nick? Sorry, but I've seen stupider. Is this really such a bad thing? Exactly how many babies are getting thrown out with all this bathwater?

Look, the wikipedia was not created for the purpose of passing link pop. It's supposed to be a source of information, and nothing else, and it's been abused because people wanted link pop, and that sucks.

For what it's worth, if the only links people stick up there from here on in are actually valuable resources (which of course I'm not counting on), it's going to make the wikipedia better. And there's nothing stopping anyone from following a link from there, being impressed by the resource it brings them to, and linking to it themselves -- with a link that really does pass link pop. So what's that mean? It means that if you want link pop, you may actually have to put up some worthwhile content. Heaven forfend!

The point is that the no-follow attribute gives site owners a little more control, and that control would never have been sought if it weren't for the widespread abuse that's been going on.

And no, I'm not claiming that this will solve the problem, but I'd say it's a step in the right direction.

In one swoop the greatest (IM

In one swoop the greatest (IMHO) online resource has been killed!

May the WikiPedia live a long and restful life. Thank god the content is free and there are a zillion clones out there that will hopefully not follow the nofollow route!

Who will be next?

eeek!

Wonder who will be next, will dmoz? After all, dmoz aim is to build the best directory and not pamper to PR hunters, so what better way to cut down the number of spammy submissions :)