Using the new rel="nofollow" attribute

Would save the network from being seen simply as a links scheme.

Should it be adopted?

 

Not sure how sites can be validated if the links can not be spidered?

 

would that not defeat the object of having the links if the search engines ignored them ?

 

Exactly. That's the whole point of the network.

What are you smokin?

 

Exactly, who'd actually use the Co-Op for anything other than IBLs?

 

"It's a trap!" -- Admiral Akbar

I know lots of members who use the Co-op Ad Network because it's a steady stream of traffic and visitors for their sites. Don't you have something better to do, Glengara?

 

for those of you who don't spend your nights reading every SEO blog this is some sort of sissyfight that a few message board heroes are trying to start with the Co-op Ad Network.

Look, you're famous!

http://www.seobook.com/archives/000633.shtml

 

Earning respect in such a community requires a lot of due diligence.

 

Agree 100%. However Google is starting to wheat out importance of links when the content of postings has nothing to do with the content of the sites you are linking to.

 

what strikes me as strange about the whole thing is this mad rush to connect your ad exchange network to scheming Google. To my mind, Google would prefer that webmasters dont think of Google when working on their own pages. Everything I've read about your network indicates that this is exactly what you did. But, now you have people hiding in the shrubbery, leaping out, yelling "Ah-ha!" and posting shirty entries to SEO blogs.

 

no offense sitetutor, but are you sure? I mean do you have any facts to support that claim?

I don't know at all, but I think it sounds a little.... This would mean that blogging about your favorite keyword-anchor-link-to-website would be getting increased importance... Man, I better start writing content to my blog

 

The purported purpose for the rel="nofollow" attribute is for webmasters to indicate links published on their sites that are not expressly reviewed/approved. This comes in handy for sites that are publishing content from 3rd parties such as blog comments, forum posts & signatures, guestbook entries, etc.

Are webmasters participating in the co-op network expressly approving every link being published on their pages? IMO, the use of the attribute would be warranted if a webmaster could not maintain 100% review/acceptance of the sites that might be rendered on their pages. OTOH, if a webmaster implicitly trusts the gatekeepers of the program to maintain standards, not using the attribute should be OK as defined by Google, Yahoo & MSN (at least as described by DS).

It is not hard to imagine that the big 3 SEs might start tightening up the penalties for linking to bad neighborhoods now that they have given webmasters the tools to protect themselves from 3rd party content.

 

So maybe a category option for the coop would be a good idea if G does that......

 

Webmasters don't need to protect Themselves from 3rd party content. Seems to me, webmasters are being drafted to do the search engines job and separate out relevant from non-relevant content. That's not really a webmaster's responsibility. I don't particularly wish to become a Theme Nazi. This won't improve the quality of the web one bit.

If Google wasn't an exceptionally powerful commercial force on the Web, nobody would take rel="nofollow" seriously. But, if Google wasn't a powerful commercial force, there would still be a Co-op Advertising Network.

 

SSE, that not the purpose for the attribute. Also, the attribute is being adopted by Yahoo & MSN. This is not a pure Google issue.

It is intended to protect publishers from 3rd party, unapproved content posted to their sites. It has nothing to do with themes or relevance.

 

It seperates self advertisers from real recommendations.

 

Don't those publishers already have methods to control this content?

Doesn't it force some publishers now to take affirmative steps to OK 3rd party content they like?

It's a Google issue because they're the ones who have made linking issues like this of foremost importance. They have an algorithm you can scam with links, and now everybody has to dance to their tune.

 

I agree. Google's idea of ranking sites based on inbound links is just that - their idea. There's no reason for the rest of the world to jump just because they found a flaw in their own logic. People will game the search engines no matter what the rules are. If it turns out that link popularity is an idea that is past it's time, the world will evolve. There was a time not too many years ago that a Yahoo directory listing was the most important thing you could do to market a site. Yahoo had to change, and Google will eventually have to change too. If you asked on this board, there would be a hundred different ideas that people would come up with to bring meaningful search engine listings to the top of the SERPs and spam to the bottom. I would hope that Google is already researching these things. One more attribute on every a tag is just silly. There is an easier way that has less of an effect on the internet community's way of doing things and eventually it will bring itself forward.