Google Passes Weight To Nofollow

[Waraas]

So, I did a test of my own, with the help of 2 buddies. To see if google does or does not pass weight with links using the nofollow, the results are not surprising for me but they may be for a few members here at the forums.

I bought the domain on 1/3/08
I made the site on 1/3/08 night
The site was officially indexed on 1/6/08
The site had 10 backlinks
All using nofollow
Just 10 backlinks, and nothing else.

So, it took the website 3 days to index in google serps. I say it will take another 5 or so to rank for the term. All with nofollow links. You may check the backlinks on yahoo if you would like.

The website is stymiee.info (hehe)

http://www.google.com/search?q=stymiee.info

The results:
Google still passes weight to nofollow links, not as much as regular links. The proof is present and in clear view.

Oh and who is right about wiki links helping

[fweikeong]

Interesting...but google might have follow some other channel to index the site, what is the anchor text on all the 10 nofollow backlinks, if after a month or two the site is listed for the phrase then it is likely to have some value passed on, and then wait till a PR update to see if the domain gets any PR.

[DaveWoods]

This doesn't prove that Google has given any weight to nofollow though.

All this proves is that Google uses links to list pages in its results regardless of the nofollow.

You'll be better trying a test by linking to the site using an obscure phrase:

<a href="http://www.stymiee.info" rel="nofollow">hungry hippos</a>

And then seeing if Google indexes the page for "hungry hippos".

I think you'll probably find that not only does the page not rank for the phrase but PageRank also won't be passed at the next PR update

[esds]

In my view google may have given you value on "domain view" and "content" rather than nofollow links. Anyway that site is not loading here.

[cheesedude]

Original poster: your premise is incorrect. There are other places where Google can find out about newly registered domains. aboutus.org is one of them.

[stymiee]

Plus PR is only updated every three months or so which means you don't even know what the true PR of those pages are. I think this experiment shows that whatever other experiments you have run were poorly done and that maybe you need to brush up on your SEO. Thank you for proving me right.

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by Waraas

The results:
Google still passes weight to nofollow links, not as much as regular links. The proof is present and in clear view.

That could be construed as evidence that Google will follow no-follow links and index those pages, that doesn't mean that the links have any weight in terms of ranking a page.

[robotic]

And why does Pagerank have anything to do with this test at all....oh yeah, it doesn't. Not to mention, Pagerank is basically a myth (stated this way b/c I'm not typing an essay about the discussion).

Jon, you should also test it for ranking for something since that doesn't prove that it passes weight, only that is will get the domain indexed. Test some obscure term with a few hundred results.

stymiee, how does this prove you're right? oh, it doesn't. the test was basically inconclusive. And also, 1 bad experiement in NO WAY proves all other experiements he's ran are invalid. In fact, why don't you publicly run an experiment so others can rag on you. This should be good Mr. Seo Guru 2007.

[DaveWoods]

Originally Posted by tke71709

That could be construed as evidence that Google will follow no-follow links and index those pages, that doesn't mean that the links have any weight in terms of ranking a page.

If you want to test this, I'd create a link on the stymiee.info page to a subpage

<a href="subpage.html" rel="nofollow">hyupoielhmbhukl</a>

If Google simply indexes the page then it should appear in a search for:

site:stymiee.info

However, if weight is being passed, then a Google search for "hyupoielhmbhukl" will also return the page.

[Waraas]

Ok, I will have a few nofollow subpages within the website, that will test to see if the subpages will get linked.

I will also built up another 10 nofollow link, and we will see if it rankes for the term "stymiee".

This test has nothing to do with page rank at all. I am only testing to see if nofollow links pass the "google juice". which it is proven to do so.

You have to remember that it has only been 4 days, I say in another 7 or so I will get on page 2 for the term "stymiee".

stymiee - I know I proved you wrong, but please explain how this test was poorly done and tell me how I need to prove my seo skills. I am dieing to know.

[felgall]

Originally Posted by robotic

Not to mention, Pagerank is basically a myth

Page Rank is not a myth, Larry Page can allocate Ranks to whatever he wants whenever he wants. His staff don't have to allocate it any weight in the search algorithm beyond what he tells them to. That his Ranks have any weight at all in the algorithm may be a myth but the existence of Larry Page and his allocation of "Rank' to web pages is an established fact.

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by csswiz

However, if weight is being passed, then a Google search for "hyupoielhmbhukl" will also return the page.

Also ensure that the term in quotes is found nowhere on the page, in the url, or anywhere else or else you'll invalidate this test as well.

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by Waraas

stymiee - I know I proved you wrong, but please explain how this test was poorly done.

Several people have already explained to you how your test was invalid from the beginning.

You set out to prove one thing, (A) that google passes "link juice" from nofollow links, you then discovered something different, (B) that google follows no-follow links and indexes those pages and then you claim that you've proven A, which you haven't.

Technically you haven't even proven B, B could have resulted from several other factors including but not limited to:

- Google may have found your new site through the domain registration information. To remove this possibility would have been simple enough, you simply should not have a domain root page for your test. You should have used an orphan page on your domain that was only linked to from other pages with no-follow attributes.

- Google may have found your new page because you have the Google toolbar installed. To remove this possibility also would have been simple enough, you should have uninstalled the toolbar before running this test.

Honestly now, I don't think that everything that Stymiee believes in terms of SEO is right but if you're going to challenge someone based on a series of tests, at least:

a) Design the tests properly.
b) Ensure that other variables are controlled.
c) Understand the results of the tests.

You didn't hit any of the above on this "test" and if you're staking your professional reputation on this test for the world to see and fail all of the above I would shudder to see the holes in the tests that you ran just for yourself.

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by Waraas

You have to remember that it has only been 4 days, I say in another 7 or so I will get on page 2 for the term "stymiee".

You've already completely invalidated the experiment by posting the information into the wild so any results from this point are useless.

With that said, even if you didn't do this the fact that the search term is the domain name for a relatively weak phrase would also invalidate your research.

[tke71709]

Sorry to triple post but anyways...

Once you've finished all of the above changes on a fresh domain, then we can shoot down your comment

Google still passes weight to nofollow links, not as much as regular links.

Which you've completely failed to demonstrate. There is an easy way to test for this as well, I'm hoping that you'll figure this out for yourself though.

Ironically, I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong, just that how you came to them is.

[Waraas]

I proved that google follows and passes weight to nofollow links. The results are clear, how else would google find and index the site?

- Google may have found your new site through the domain registration information.
Please explain how this happens?

- Toolbar
I dont have the toolbar

I will add the page "hyupoielhmbhukl" with a nofollow, and I will also add the site to about another 10-15 websites for backlinks. Other than that I dont have time keep testing these seo myths, there is money to be made

If everyone thinks that I did a bad job with this test, I challenge them to try there own. I guarantee that no one else will, they will just listen to the people with xx,xxx posts because whey they say make "logical sense".

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by Waraas

I proved that google follows and passes weight to nofollow links. The results are clear, how else would google find and index the site?

This conversation is quickly becoming annoying, at no point have you demonstrated that Google "passes weight to nofollow links". You have demonstrated that Google may follow nofollow links, I don't think that that statement is a shock to anyone and it follows (excuse the pun) the tenets of Google quite well.

Google seeks to index every page on the web, they however don't want advertisement or bought links to carry weight that would "corrupt" their search results. Therefore it would make sense that Google would use nofollow links to assist them in finding pages and it would also make sense that it would not "pass weight" via those links.

Google themselves never state that they don't follow nofollow links, their own blog states that these links will simply not receive credit in terms of SERPs.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/...ment-spam.html

So for the hundredth time, yes you have shown (to a certain extent) that Google follows nofollow links, but you have not shown that Google passes any weight so please, for the love of God, stop saying that you have.

- Google may have found your new site through the domain registration information.
Please explain how this happens?

OK now, I used to think you had a clue but now I'm starting to wonder...

Anyway, Google has been a domain registrar for years. That gives them access to domain information, this information could be used to more quickly index pages. Therefore the mere act of registering a domain could cause it to be indexed without backlinks to the site existing.

Google themselves admits to using the information for SE purposes

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...domain_seller/

- Toolbar
I dont have the toolbar

I find it difficult to believe that an SEO doesn't have the toolbar installed but I'll take your word for it so that is one possibility excluded.

Other than that I dont have time keep testing these seo myths, there is money to be made

Allow me to translate,

"Oops, I guess my test was incredibly flawed, rather than make the effort to run a correct test I'll just bow out now".

If everyone thinks that I did a bad job with this test, I challenge them to try there own. I guarantee that no one else will, they will just listen to the people with xx,xxx posts because whey they say make "logical sense".

The truth of the matter is a simple one, why would anyone care enough to test this sort of thing other than for the sake of pure testing. I don't care about the properties of the nofollow link that much to be honest. The only reason you tried (and failed) to test it was your personal feelings towards Stymiee.

they will just listen to the people with xx,xxx posts because whey they say make "logical sense".

And that's no worse than listening to the people with XXX posts who don't make any logical sense, use faulty methodologies and then misinterpret their results and refuse to admit it.

For the record, if Stymiee had posted the above information I would have shot him down with just as much vigor as I'm shooting you down. The level of accuracy and intelligence displayed in this "test" is something I would expect to see from a beginner SEO posting on DP not from someone who has an SEO blog and somewhat of a reputation to maintain. Seriously, this "test" really throws every statement you've ever made or will make in terms of SEO into doubt. The fact that you can't see the flaws in your work is disappointing as well.

[Waraas]

Originally Posted by tke71709

OK now, I used to think you had a clue but now I'm starting to wonder...

Anyway, Google has been a domain registrar for years. That gives them access to domain information, this information could be used to more quickly index pages. Therefore the mere act of registering a domain could cause it to be indexed without backlinks to the site existing.

Google themselves admits to using the information for SE purposes

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...domain_seller/

So your saying that if I bought a domain and let it sit with no backlinks or spiders crawling it at all than the site will index just because google has access to whois info? *chuckles*

You really think that will work?

wants to get a better understanding of the domain name system [and so] increase the quality of our search results

The article from 2005 never says that it will index or rank websites. They probably use the info for footprints. But who knows? I don't and neither do you.

Anyways, you can keep shooting me down and tell me that google doesn't pass weight to nofollow links. But we will let the test results speak for themselves, I'm adding the subpage right now and asking somemore people for nofollow links right now.

I don't care about the properties of the nofollow link that much to be honest.

Than why are you writing 500 word articles in my thread? hehe

[DaveWoods]

Originally Posted by Waraas

So your saying that if I bought a domain and let it sit with no backlinks or spiders crawling it at all than the site will index just because google has access to whois info? *chuckles*

You really think that will work?

Possibly but I wouldn't dismiss this theory without actually testing it. I've registered powermyself.com and with no backlinks and without submitting it to Google, it's somehow listed. It doesn't even appear in Yahoo's index at the moment so Google have picked it up from somewhere

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by Waraas

So your saying that if I bought a domain and let it sit with no backlinks or spiders crawling it at all than the site will index just because google has access to whois info? *chuckles*

You really think that will work?

Again, you manage to miss the point completely.

The point is that your test is flawed, you have failed to account for and isolate potential variables that would affect the results.

Do I think that "the site will index just because google has access to whois info?"

No, I do not and it would be easy enough to disprove such a theory. A proper test would have isolated that variable to ensure that they eliminated it before trumpeting their test results.

The article from 2005 never says that it will index or rank websites. They probably use the info for footprints. But who knows? I don't and neither do you.

See point above. This is why we must eliminate that variable because you've already stated that you don't know if it's used to index sites or not.

First you laugh at the concept of Google using the information for indexing, then you come out and say that you don't know if they do or not. You really need to make up your mind.

Anyways, you can keep shooting me down and tell me that google doesn't pass weight to nofollow links.

Again, you've miss the point. I've never said that Google doesn't pass weight to nofollow links. I've said that your claims to have proved that Google does pass weight to nofollow links are false. Those are two very different statements.

But we will let the test results speak for themselves, I'm adding the subpage right now and asking somemore people for nofollow links right now.

The original test results do speak for themselves, but they don't prove what you claim that they do.

The amended test, assuming it's done above board (beware of researchers with hidden agendas), which will be much more valid and may prove part of your hypothesis.

Than why are you writing 500 word articles in my thread?

Because I hate intellectual laziness more than just about anything else, especially when people try to pass off rubbish as facts. Seriously, this test wouldn't get a passing grade in a first year university course due to the flaws in it.

Besides that, a post like this one takes me about 2 minutes to write, it's no skin off my nose to write a well thought out post backed by facts. I actually enjoy threads like these a heck of a lot more than most of the "how do I get Google to rank my cat dandruff site number 1?" type threads.

You at least made the effort to test a hypothesis, that puts you light years ahead of most people. It's just unfortunate that you're incapable of accepting the criticism that comes with putting together a flawed test and calling the results facts.

The amended test should provide a more accurate set of results with which to base a discussion on.

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by csswiz

Possibly but I wouldn't dismiss this theory without actually testing it. I've registered powermyself.com and with no backlinks and without submitting it to Google, it's somehow listed. It doesn't even appear in Yahoo's index at the moment so Google have picked it up from somewhere

Shhh now, we can't have facts outside those supporting the original statement messying up the discussion.

[DaveWoods]

Originally Posted by tke71709

Shhh now, we can't have facts outside those supporting the original statement messying up the discussion.

Of course, I merely raised the issue as an example of something that may or may not play a part in the test results... I'm not claiming to have tested this in anyway (and nor am I interested in doing so) but think it's valid to the discussion in that it's a variable that wasn't even considered in the initial test and that the page may have been indexed with or without the nofollow links regardless

However, nothing currently proves that rel="nofollow" is ignored by Google either for PR purposes or for passing weight for the archor text and I think only one person is currently arguing that fact

[rcj662]

Just use no follow links do not add any links to directories or any other site that does not use no follow. Then wait for update and check pr that will tell you if they pass pr or not.

[tke71709]

Originally Posted by csswiz

Of course, I merely raised the issue as an example of something that may or may not play a part in the test results... I'm not claiming to have tested this in anyway (and nor am I interested in doing so) but think it's valid to the discussion in that it's a variable that wasn't even considered in the initial test and that the page may have been indexed with or without the nofollow links regardless

I was just being sarcastic to waraas I agree completely with your statement above.

However, nothing currently proves that rel="nofollow" is ignored by Google either for PR purposes or for passing weight for the archor text and I think only one person is currently arguing that fact

Stymiee? I never said that, I stated that I believed it to be so but I'd be more than happy to know one way or the other based on a sound test.

The point was the title of this thread is "Google Passes Weight To Nofollow". The original test doesn't demonstrate this whatsoever. If the title had been "Google follows nofollow links and indexes those pages" then it would have been a lot more valid, not necessarily correct, but valid.'

If anyone has any decent pages that they're willing to donate a link from then I'd be willing to put together a parallel test and document the methodology and results for all to see. PM me if you're willing to do so. I have no stake in the results, I don't care if Stymiee is right or Waraas is right and like I said I'll put the whole methodology on display to reduce the chances of introducing bias into the experiment.

/Edit

There goes my resolution to stopped getting sidetracked with interesting but financially useless experiments lol

[DaveWoods]

Originally Posted by tke71709

Stymiee? I never said that, I stated that I believed it to be so but I'd be more than happy to know one way or the other based on a sound test.

The point was the title of this thread is "Google Passes Weight To Nofollow". The original test doesn't demonstrate this whatsoever. If the title had been "Google follows nofollow links and indexes those pages" then it would have been a lot more valid, not necessarily correct, but valid.'

Nope, sorry, only the original poster is arguing the validity of the test and I agree with the above

Originally Posted by tke71709

If anyone has any decent pages that they're willing to donate a link from then I'd be willing to put together a parallel test and document the methodology and results for all to see. PM me if you're willing to do so. I have no stake in the results, I don't care if Stymiee is right or Waraas is right and like I said I'll put the whole methodology on display to reduce the chances of introducing bias into the experiment.

Happy to create a post on my blog for any experiment that's web related so just PM if I can be of service