Get exclusive CAP network offers from top brands

View CAP Offers

improved seo documentation

splinterfree asked 1 year ago
stumbled across this blog post by matt cutts on improved seo documentation. most people know about these, but its still a good read and can be useful to those that are not so familiar with seo…
8 Answers
bleuze answered 1 year ago
Am I missing something? What’s the blog post?

GamTrak answered 1 year ago
Just so I understand. It’s okay to have paid link, but you need to make it known by using the nofollow right?

Report paid link info. here.

Dominique answered 1 year ago
Yes, you can have paid links if you no-follow them. That’s Google’s position.

That renders them useless for SEO, but it gives exposure to the advertiser.

Tarzan answered 1 year ago
Do I also read that IF you trust the partner you don’t have to nofollow them?

For instances

“Advertisers” should be no-followed, but what if you TRUST the person who is the advertiser. Seems like it’s more natural to let them be followed.

To me the whole thing is a little conflicting. Especially if you are careful about who you let advertise.

They said something like: let the user know they are paid advertisements. “Advertisers” or something….

but what about “Trusted Partners” if you trust them, why not let google follow them? double-edge sword is what I see here….. anyone else have thoughts on this? — seeems like if you trust them, they better not be spammy, or else you get the penalty. hmmmmmm :sarcasm:

GamTrak answered 1 year ago
I’m not expert tarzan, but I think it has to do with they call “link juice”. You want to keep it on your site (I heard it’s good stuff) <span title=” title=”” class=”bbcode_smiley” />

I’m sure others may have a better explaination of why to use nofollow even though you trust the site.

Tarzan answered 1 year ago
I understand that, BUT, what if I want to spread the link juice because I trust and respect the website…. AND they are advertising. Why would I not want them to benefit in every way possible. That would be the most natural thing in my opinion.

Hording the juice for myself would seem more “biased” which is what I thought they were trying to protect against. Herein lies the flaw of nofollow. (imho)

Seems to be if you investigate your advertisers to make sure you aren’t putting bad stuff on your site, then why would you not want them to benefit? Maybe you cannot afford to put up a banner on your site for a small trustworthy site because they can only pay you a very small sum? Then you put a link to them, somewhere else… but this link is not necessarily in the most visible position — the main benefit is the trust-factor you are passing to their site.

If we put up advertising in the form of say TWO banners on our site, then we are kind of limited in having to pick only TWO trusted sites, when maybe there are like 15? the banners get seen, so they get the traffic, but the links don’t have the visibility, so they are nearly useless for traffic and the only thing we can give to the other trustworthy sites is the link juice.

see my point?

Cheers , apeman

GamTrak answered 1 year ago
@Tarzan 164797 wrote:

I understand that, BUT, what if I want to spread the link juice because I trust and respect the website…. AND they are advertising. Why would I not want them to benefit in every way possible. That would be the most natural thing in my opinion.

That would be a good question for google, but fact is they want to know for some reason.

I think maybe the individual sites need to work on getting their site ranked naturally instead of by a ton of webmasters or advertisors? That way it’s a fair game for all involved?

What would be the use in working hard as hell to rank your site only to never be able to rank higher than the folks that have many backlinks? Your site will never outrank them so what good is it to have a site?