|
|||||||
New to SitePoint Forums? Register here for free!
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Non-Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Posts: 987
|
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 ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
SitePoint Zealot
![]() ![]() Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 109
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Derbyshire - UK
Posts: 2,653
|
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: Code:
<a href="http://www.stymiee.info" rel="nofollow">hungry hippos</a> 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 ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 1,171
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,114
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
He's No Good To Me Dead
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Slave I
Posts: 24,090
|
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.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
SitePoint Enthusiast
![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Derbyshire - UK
Posts: 2,653
|
Quote:
Code:
<a href="subpage.html" rel="nofollow">hyupoielhmbhukl</a> Code:
site:stymiee.info ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Non-Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Posts: 987
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
SitePoint Mentor
![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 9,618
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
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 Quote:
Ironically, I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong, just that how you came to them is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Non-Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Posts: 987
|
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". |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | ||||||
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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/ Quote:
Quote:
"Oops, I guess my test was incredibly flawed, rather than make the effort to run a correct test I'll just bow out now". Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |||
|
Non-Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Posts: 987
|
Quote:
You really think that will work? Quote:
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. Quote:
hehe |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Derbyshire - UK
Posts: 2,653
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |||||
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Derbyshire - UK
Posts: 2,653
|
Quote:
![]() 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 ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,203
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | ||
|
King of Paralysis by Analysis
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
I agree completely with your statement above.Quote:
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 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | ||
|
SitePoint Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Derbyshire - UK
Posts: 2,653
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
![]() |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 17:31.















Linear Mode
