Google Counts "no Follow" Links for Ranking

1) I like how words and sentences because penis.

2) Outing is no longer a threat because it's all noise. Sweet.

3) I'm pretty sure at this point we are all just threads of cardine's AI bot here at WF.
 


It still has to be relevant. Codecademy is a computer education website, is your site a computer education site? Do you both target the same keywords? It's not just about Authority.

I literally just did a Wikipedia test (exact keyword and same niche) with great results.

Say your keyword is "fat hoes" if you go to Google and type in "fat hoes" you will find websites related to your keyword. Any website ranking for my keyword in the top 100 should be a target for you to put a link on, do-follow, no-follow, brand mention, ect.

Authority is great if it is outside of your niche and do-follow. But there is no point grabbing no-follow links outside of your niche.

Why does it have to be relevant? I'm not saying relevance isn't important but as you know a whole lot of spammy domains are ranking on non-relevant, non-contextual links. Depending on the niche it requires a lot of link juice though. Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong, but basically it seems you're saying that dofollow links can be non-relevant, but for some "special" reason nofollow links DO have to be relevant to pass signals. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

Besides, what's relevance anyway? Does the entire domain have to be about subject "X", or is only a subset of the domain enough? Or is only 1 page, or maybe a couple of words enough?

Funny that you got completely opposite results with Wikipedia backlinks. What is it the only kind of link building you did?
 
It still has to be relevant. Codecademy is a computer education website, is your site a computer education site? Do you both target the same keywords? It's not just about Authority.

I literally just did a Wikipedia test (exact keyword and same niche) with great results.

Say your keyword is "fat hoes" if you go to Google and type in "fat hoes" you will find websites related to your keyword. Any website ranking for my keyword in the top 100 should be a target for you to put a link on, do-follow, no-follow, brand mention, ect.

Authority is great if it is outside of your niche and do-follow. But there is no point grabbing no-follow links outside of your niche.

Off-topic links help build your 'broader' link profile, which helps your individual pages rank well. That's why a Wikpiedia page almost always ranks well- not because of individual links to the pages, but because wikipedia.org has such a strong link profile.
 
LMAO, not a single post in this topic is right.

Nofollow doesn't pass link juice.
Nofollow doesn't pass anchor text.
Citations/implied links don't pass any kind of signal.

There are so many reasons why it's absolutely retarded to believe otherwise, but I guess rational thinking, and more importantly testing, isn't done anymore these days.

Strong first post, I know.

You miss the entire point of the post. Based on what I am seeing, NO FOLLOW link on a good reputable site will help your ranking.
 
Off-topic links help build your 'broader' link profile, which helps your individual pages rank well. That's why a Wikpiedia page almost always ranks well- not because of individual links to the pages, but because wikipedia.org has such a strong link profile.

Not sure what type of sites you're running, but my sites are no where near the level of a Wikipedia.
 
You really need to stop analyzing SEO from a pre-maching-learning perspective. At this point the Google ranking algorithm takes in a bunch of variables, builds a bunch of graphs, makes some comparisons, and decides how to rank.

If the algorithm detects some attribute of a page as an outlier (e.g. % nofollow links) compared to some population, it can compare it to other pages that are also outliers, and cluster them all together. Within the cluster, each page can be labeled spam/not-spam, by a combination of manual labeling and machine learning. If a cluster of N pages exists, where every page is an outlier based on the same attribute, then most likely, any page with that attribute is spam.

I'm sure there are manual tweaks to the algorithm, but I would assume that for the most part, the machine learning algorithms decide what to consider important for ranking, based on context of the search. That might include percent nofollow links, it might include bounce rate, it might include percent of american users who click the link. Who the fuck knows. It doesn't matter.

If you want to avoid the spam algorithm, minimize outlier attributes that would cluster you with other spam pages.



This.


This.


This.


This.


This is the ONLY post in this thread that nails it.

The rest, sometimes are flat out wrong, sometimes are sort of right... but are missing the full picture.
 
Why does it have to be relevant? I'm not saying relevance isn't important but as you know a whole lot of spammy domains are ranking on non-relevant, non-contextual links. Depending on the niche it requires a lot of link juice though. Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong, but basically it seems you're saying that dofollow links can be non-relevant, but for some "special" reason nofollow links DO have to be relevant to pass signals. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

Besides, what's relevance anyway? Does the entire domain have to be about subject "X", or is only a subset of the domain enough? Or is only 1 page, or maybe a couple of words enough?

Funny that you got completely opposite results with Wikipedia backlinks. What is it the only kind of link building you did?

In this instance it was the only link I had done for that page/keyword.

Relevancy is pretty straight forward. Your goal should be to get links that are in the top 100 of your keyword, if you can't you have to build properties and rank those properties in the top 100 for that keyword. This can be done all sorts of ways. But for personal preference I don't see any point in having a no-follow link from Marty's car dealership, when I have a home and garden website.

Again just my preference. Some people swear by High Authority link building no matter the niche (Look at the BST full of PBNs) but I figure the sites already ranking in the top 100 for my keyword must be doing something right. If I can't make it to #1 piggy backing off of their success, well then I will start bringing in the big dogs. (Editorials, Authority Sites, Ect).
 
95% of his backlinks are no-follow. He comments on high PR sites, including newspapers with just regular name anchors.

What I also noticed is that all his no-follow backlinks are niche specific, and the article content is related to his niche.


Could also because Google is now supposed to be tracking visits through safe site useage data, and maybe this is not because of nofollow. If G can see that relevant traffic is hitting a relevant page and not bouncing.. then it "should" rank higher.
 
Roger, Hush. Proving yourself right on a public forum is not going to make you wealthier.

I'm starting to think you are a highly advanced spam bot.

if thread trends
then post: {Shut up|Stop Talking|Don't say it} + GIANT SIG

My only question is... how do develop an algorithm to work with xrummer to find quality posts to insult the posters who wrote them?


I'm saying this because clearly, no human would have the lack of all basic decency to constantly post, read and extract value from a forum, while insulting those who create the value you extract? I mean, even if you don't benefit from reading anything, you are at least getting eyeballs on your spammy sig, and those eyeballs are certainly not here to read your shitty posts.

The irony of your posts' attitude is increased by the fact that the tool you are always spamming is designed to out keywords.
 
I'm starting to think you are a highly advanced spam bot.

if thread trends
then post: {Shut up|Stop Talking|Don't say it} + GIANT SIG

My only question is... how do develop an algorithm to work with xrummer to find quality posts to insult the posters who wrote them?


I'm saying this because clearly, no human would have the lack of all basic decency to constantly post, read and extract value from a forum, while insulting those who create the value you extract? I mean, even if you don't benefit from reading anything, you are at least getting eyeballs on your spammy sig, and those eyeballs are certainly not here to read your shitty posts.

The irony of your posts' attitude is increased by the fact that the tool you are always spamming is designed to out keywords.

Lol. Literally laughing outloud.

It's actually a theory that makes sense.

My working theory is that he is on a mission to constantly reverse pyschology google infidels.
 
Why does it have to matter? I'm not saying significance isn't really crucial however as you understand a lot of spammy domains are ranking on non-relevant, non-contextual links. Depending upon the specific niche it requires a lot of link juice though. Perhaps I'm analyzing you wrong, but essentially it seems you're saying that dofollow links can be non-relevant, but for some "unique" reason nofollow links DO need to be relevant to pass signals. Sorry, however that does not make any sense at all.

Besides, what's significance anyway? Does the entire domain have to be about subject "X", or is only a subset of the domain enough? Or is only 1 page, or possibly a few words enough?

Funny that you got entirely opposite results with Wikipedia backlinks. Exactly what is it the only kind of link structure you did?
 
Why does it have to matter? I'm not stating relevance isn't essential but as you know a great deal of spammy domains are ranking on non-relevant, non-contextual links. Depending on the niche it needs a lot of link juice. Possibly I'm analyzing you wrong, but generally it seems you're saying that dofollow links can be non-relevant, however for some "unique" factor nofollow links DO have to relate to pass signals. Sorry, however that doesn't make any sense at all.

Exactly what's significance anyway? Does the whole domain need to be about subject "X", or is only a subset of the domain enough? Or is just 1 page, or maybe a few words enough?

Funny that you got entirely opposite outcomes with Wikipedia backlinks. What is it the only type of link building you did?
 
I'm not stating significance isn't really important but as you understand a whole lot of spammy domains are ranking on non-relevant, non-contextual links. Maybe I'm translating you wrong, however basically it appears you're saying that dofollow links can be non-relevant, but for some "unique" factor nofollow links DO have to be pertinent to pass signals.

What's relevance anyhow? Does the whole domain need to be about subject "X", or is only a subset of the domain enough? Or is just 1 page, or perhaps a few words enough?

Amusing that you got totally opposite outcomes with Wikipedia backlinks. What is it the only type of link structure you did?
 
I am glad people are getting the idea, but some are mistaking the assumptions.

From what I have gathered, NO FOLLOW links on relevant articles from a good site will help your ranking regardless of the double talk by Google rewarded seo pundits.

It is also true that do follow on a good relevant site would help your ranking. Remember all do follow links can trigger link spam notice. Goodluck trying to prove you got it the natural way

This conglomerate got us going back and forth in a blind alley, with absolutely no direction as to the rules of conduct.

Get as many links as you can from relevant sites with good metrics, and you should see good ranking results, provided your articles are structured properly.

I mean the traffic is free, do you blame them for jerking us around!
 
Agreed! You need a good mix of both no-follow and do-follow otherwise your backlinks will not look NATURAL to Google.

I have a good friend that uses almost no follow links and ranks for some crazy keywords. While most people are convinced no follow passes no link juice, closer look at his site proves otherwise.

95% of his backlinks are no-follow. He comments on high PR sites, including newspapers with just regular name anchors.

What I also noticed is that all his no-follow backlinks are niche specific, and the article content is related to his niche.

I am now conducting my own independent test, but please do not expect posting of the results.

You can either keep believing the lies that no follow offers no ranking value, or just conduct your own personal test.

Since our "BIG UNCLE SEARCH ENGINE" started hiding ranking data, mysterious things are happening in the ranking world.

Backlink volume is out, but I have also noticed more value placed on weird backlinks most people would care not to get or look for.

Just other observations:

Web 2.0 died a natural death. You can still use them, just like millions of other websites around the world. It has reached saturation point, if you know what I mean.

Anchor test don't carry much weight nowadays, just naked urls. Raw url will not get you that dreaded site audit notice.

Comments are back in a big way, if carefully done on niche specific websites. Use your imagination, you can twist it to get more value.

Editorial links are still effective, but expect massive crackdown since it is now openly sold at "BLACKHATWORLD" like crack cocaine. Some of the newspapers lost ranking from the last time I checked. Only buy from reputable sellers, like one of the original creators on this forum "daseoman". When newspapers catch on to the trend from Google actions, they will just eliminate the writers accounts along with most of the articles, and you can kiss your backlinks bye-bye.

Blog Networks are still effective, just make sure you know what you're doing as your competitor will call the ranking police on you. Niche specific blog networks are more effective in my opinion. As far as using publicly sold blog networks, let your common sense be your guide.

When you get too many social signals all at once, it will do your site no long term good. You want to get social signals just like a rat nibbles good food. Getting 200 facebook likes in a day or two, with nothing afterwards delivers no value in my opinion. I know big sites can get massive social signals with one post, but they have other metrics to help make it look legit. I sense Google can now spot fake social promotions, but I would rather not reveal the tell-tale signs in a public forum.

Submitting your backlinks to indexing sites will kill your rankings sooner rather than later. Why let Google know that you just cheated and created a bunch of links? The Algorithms are now able to follow and calculate massive link footprints, and using indexing stuff just makes it easier.
 
Nice spin job G

sodamnsexy73.jpg