Comments on: You&A With Matt Cutts

By: Jacob Stoops

Jacob Stoops — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:40:28 +0000

You’re right. You could almost cut the tension with a knife. Graywolf was not backing down, and it doesn’t look like Matt was folding either.

Each side has some very interesting points.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:10:20 +0000

OK. I had to come back today and reread this post. :)

So we shouldn’t try to sculpt the flow of pagerank internally on our sites. If you have an internal link, you might as well never use no follow because you can’t push “extra” juice elsewhere.

For outbound links, does no follow preserve value for your site? My blog went from PR3 to PR2 in the last update. The only thing in particular that changed was that we added more “social bookmarking” links. So the number of outbound links on the home page of our blog jumped considerably (from 4 to 9 with each article). They were follow links.

Will changing these to no follow preserve that value of the blog? Or should I just dump them off the home page? If so, then now we’re having to alter the visitor’s experience to preserve value.

By: Lee

Lee — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:09:03 +0000

Wow. We just integrated a bunch of NoFollow in a silo approach to help direct the flow of pagerank. Oops. I guess we’ll rip that back out of our code. Thanks so much for providing this information!

By: Michael Martin

Michael Martin — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:15:50 +0000

It was interesting being in the eye of the storm when having lunch with Matt Cutts, Danny Sullivan, & MG Siegler at Google IO a week before SMX Advanced.

Michael Gray tweeted me to ask Matt & MG to look at the offending TechCrunch post with the sponsor link and when Matt said he was kool with it Michael then went off on the Android Ion phone giveaway being a paid link bid.

,Michael Martin
GoogleAndBlog

By: Karl Foxley

Karl Foxley — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:13:46 +0000

This was a great read. I like the evasiveness of Matt Cutts …

The politicians of the SEO world. lol

Regards,

Karl

By: Fiona

Fiona — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:34:58 +0000

If you’re trying to mitigate the no follow, doesn’t that say it’s working the way we want it to? still seems to be on point to me and a good question. Obviously I wasn’t there and don’t know how Matt explained it away, but just find it interesting.

By: Señor Muñoz

Señor Muñoz — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:26:25 +0000

Ok, so… If I link with a nofollow, nobody will win, but, if I link with a do-follow somebody is going to win but I am going to be penalized…
If I need to have a TOC in all of my pages, now on, for Google is one of the most important file, at least, as important as the index… Ok, We will make new tricks, for sure…
Don’t think the big brother is moving in the right direction…

By: Taree

Taree — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:44:11 +0000

Hey Lisa,

Is that a Nofollow on your contact link, or are you just happy to evaporate juice?

Most interesting post i’ve read in a long time Lisa, thanks. This bit was really ehh odd?

“Google doesn’t care about links.”

Which kind of hinges on the sole fact Google can read minds, so if the site owner doesn’t care about links then giving monetary reward is ok but if they do care they must be nofollow/robots blocked?

If anyone finds Google’s form where we can submit our “Link Care Factor”, don’t leave me out in the cold.

By: Ken at HCG

Ken at HCG — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:55:40 +0000

Thanks Lisa … great info though perhaps a bit disturbing.
In this world of rules and chaos it is plain to see that indeed Chaos still Rules!
I must wonder, Is there joy in making the masses squirm?

By: seosapien

seosapien — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:26:55 +0000

Thank you for the great report. I still can’t understand what is going to happen to the “no follow” links now. Is it going to be the comment spammers heaven?