Webmasters : Take Responsibility for your Outbound Links

As soon as people figured out that Google used links to power its ranking system, any site allowing users to add links was open to attack from spammers and spam bots.

This wasn't just an annoyance; there was also a risk involved. Google's Webmaster Guidelines have long stated that linking to "spammers or bad neighbourhoods" "can negatively impact your site's ranking in search results".

So when Google adopted the 'nofollow' tag and encouraged people to use it widely in 2005, this seemed like a good idea to some webmasters. But it wasn't, and there were people who pointed it out at the time.

No-follow seemed like a quick fix, but has created a lasting problem

Google asked webmasters to effectively remove all links on parts of their sites to save Google the bother of spotting which were spam and which weren't. Webmasters did what Google asked so they no longer had to take responsibility for those links.

This was a very short-sighted and lazy move on everyone's part. As many bloggers stated at the time, much of the natural linking of the web has since been destroyed.

The link spammers have moved on; now they start their own blogs instead of commenting on others, or look for those sites that haven't yet adopted nofollow. A fairly regular question on forums these days is "Does anyone have a list of 'dofollow' blogs/forums?". Now that so many community sites use nofollow, those that don't (yet) are going to attract increasing amounts of unwelcome attention.

"There's no point spamming our site because we use nofollow" mods and admins smugly say. There's also less point in experts spending time adding content to your site, because it benefits them far less to do so. Everyone loses.

What is wrong with moderating your site in the first place?

• Do you care at all about what is being said on your site?
• Just because a comment or post doesn't contain a link, do you actually want it on your site?
• Does it add to sum of knowledge on the page?
• Will it benefit your visitors?

Exactly who nofollow really hurts

The genuine purpose of a link is to refer others to content that they will find of interest. Content that is regularly cited in forums, in comments on blogs and other sites gains links and - according to Google's algorithm - should be rewarded with a higher profile.

Google's mantra has always been 'Build a good website and you will succeed'. That was possible before nofollow - but nowadays, webmasters who have never undertaken link building before are considering it. Why? Because, although their content has hundreds of links - all freely given, and exactly the sort of links Google wants - the majority don't count because they're nofollow.

The blanket use of nofollow fosters an environment where the driving force behind the success of a website is not content, but marketing.

That is good news for people like me, but it's not good news for content providers, for Google or for their users.

What needs to happen?

People need to take reponsibility for their content.

Instead of announcing that links in user content are nofollow, announce that user content that includes a link is pre-moderated.

Consider creating tiered memberships so trusted individuals can post content and links without pre-moderation.

Offer links as a reward for quality content - I've seen forums that allow signature links but only on posts over a certain number of characters.

All of this will still discourage spam and the 'drive by' mentality, but it will also reward and encourage good content, whether you add it to your site or to others.