Comments on: Wikipedia Follows with No Follows http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/ Cutting edge advice on community management, monetization, and buying / selling websites Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:51:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: ödev sitesi http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-37044 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:21:49 +0000 http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-37044 i couldnt understand nofollow, follow, external nofollow links but i know every link is usefull for websites. i couldnt understand nofollow, follow, external nofollow links but i know every link is usefull for websites.

]]> by: green http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-8343 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:40:35 +0000 http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-8343 Personally, i don't care about follow or nofollow, i write orginal content i and i wanted to add some of my article links to wiki, it was about Computer BSODs and i got nice traffic. But it doesnt make any effect to pr calculation. Personally, i don’t care about follow or nofollow, i write orginal content i and i wanted to add some of my article links to wiki, it was about Computer BSODs and i got nice traffic. But it doesnt make any effect to pr calculation.

]]> by: Peter Davis http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-2839 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:31:29 +0000 http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-2839 I also think it was necessary. If they can't ensure the quality, and provide an editorial process where all the links are vetted, then they should nofollow. And, this is exactly what the nofollow is meant for, when a site has links that they can't guarantee the quality through an editorial process. It's not about penalizing non-spammers. It's about being honest that they can't control the quality of the links. Have you seen the list of banned spammers they have? Seems to grow by several hundreds per day. Amazing. I also think it was necessary. If they can’t ensure the quality, and provide an editorial process where all the links are vetted, then they should nofollow. And, this is exactly what the nofollow is meant for, when a site has links that they can’t guarantee the quality through an editorial process.

It’s not about penalizing non-spammers. It’s about being honest that they can’t control the quality of the links. Have you seen the list of banned spammers they have? Seems to grow by several hundreds per day. Amazing.

]]> by: Rex http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-2816 Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:43:39 +0000 http://www.leedodd.com/2007/01/22/wikipedia-follows-with-no-follows/#comment-2816 This was a dumb move IMO penalizing all of us non spammers This was a dumb move IMO penalizing all of us non spammers

]]>