I added NoFollow to my TextLinkAds. Heheh.

On one of my websites, I'm doing a little experiment. But first some background.

Background

Recently, Google reduced the pagerank on my site from 3 to 0. The only possible reason (the only "black hat" aspect) could be that the site had Text Link Ads.

Although Pagerank isn't that big of deal, it matters to me because I use this particular site to link to my new legitimate sites on other servers to give them pagerank.

Here is the experiment.

I just added this code around my TextLinkAds:

<p class="robots-noindex">TextLinkAds are here. This paragraph should not be indexed.</p>

I'll let you know how it goes. I'm hoping Google will increase my pagerank and TLA will continue to pay me. That is, I want to have my cake and eat it too. If you have any advice, or if you have experimented with this yourself, feel free to pass on your ideas.

 

Purposefully defrauding advertisers?

I don't think I would run around bragging about my theft.

 

Do spiders read noindex on CSS classes? I don't think so...

 

There is no fraud involved. This code is public information on my site. If advertisers don't want to buy a link on my site, they don't have to.

I am allowing advertisers to have links on my site, and my visitors my click on them, but I'm trying to stay in compliance with Google's policy since nearly all my traffic comes from Google.

 

Very interesting point. I pulled the code from here: http://microformats.org/wiki/robots-exclusion-brainstorming, which seems reliable.

 

If there isn't any link buyer yet, this would be ok, but if there're some links are sold, how do you expect the buyers come to your site every day and look for rel=nofollow or not?

 

I think <a href="..." rel="nofollow"></a> is the only in-body microformat supported by search engines. In headers, you can use meta tag rel=nofollow.

 

I'm glad I'm not wasting my money on TLA on your site, that's for sure.

don't sell the ad's if you're going to hide them from bots, I'm sure your advertisers wouldn't be to happy if they seen this thread

 

Your presumption is that advertisers are solely concerned with pagerank (link juice). Isn't it fair to assume some advertisers would pay for the link without the link juice?

The goal here is not to offend advertisers. The goal is to stay in compliance with Google so the traffic continues to flow.

 

Since it's against the terms of service, advertisers expect you to abide by that ToS. Since you're not keeping up your end of the bargain, even though you tell advertisers that you do, you defraud them.

If you go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac, the expectation is that you'll pay. If you sign up and agree to a ToS, the expectation is that you'll stay within that ToS as long as your in the program.

http://scott.yang.id.au/2007/10/text-links-nofollow-and-google-pagerank/

http://www.text-link-ads.com/agreement.php
Read section 9a.

"A. The publisher is not permitted to alter the ad script provided by the Company in any way without written consent from Text Link Ads while delivering the advertisements."

 

I´m gonna get some popcorn now and keep watching this thread. Interesting actually.

 

Ya, degraded rather quickly

 

I don't agree with doing that. Seems a bit unethical to the ad buyers. Who is going to click on the ads really?

 

I don't know if <p class="robots-noindex"> will allow you to do a no follow. But in case it works, it will be a great way to use TLA without violating the Google search engine policy. If you read the TOS on TLA carefully, you are only "not permitted to alter the ad script provided by the Company (TLA)". But using the code <p class="robots-noindex"> isn't changing their code in any sense (probably they will update their TOS if this method works).

I doubt if <p class="robots-noindex"> will provide a nofollow effect. Any expert here mind sharing your idea?

 

Actually, I did not alter the ad script at all. I merely enclosed it in a "no robots" tag. (As a side note, I also enclosed some other scripts on the page that I figured robots didn't need to follow, including the Google Analytics code.)

TextLinkAds (TLA) drafted the Terms of Service. If TLA wanted to prohibit webmasters from directing robots around the links, TLA should have included language that requires that in the Terms of Service contract.

In contract law, the contract drafter is assumed to mean only what is written in the contract; ambiguities are interpreted against the drafter. I complied with the plain meaning of the Terms of Service by not altering TLA's code. TLA cannot now come back and say what TLA really meant was that I had to keep the link-juice flowing.

 

It's a matter of semantics.

The TOS says you are, "not permitted to alter the ad script".

In my opinion you are altering the script by enclosing it in tags.

Why not just do this:

<!--
TLA Script
-->

Code (markup):

After all, you're not editing the script right?

 

There are many ways to sell links. Why'd you use TLA?

 

Doesn't the TLA plugin itself give the option to use nofollow on links? Why the hassle and the ridiculous class="robots-noffolow" ...

 

I'm not aware that it does.

 

Good luck getting unpenalized for your nofollow additions. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's really not in your long term interest to offer paid links. You'll eventually (already, apparently) get penalized for them, which will damage your site and make your paid link worthless anyway. In the end you'll have a site with low pagerank and no organic traffic, and you won't be able to give your links away.