Rel=dofollow and rel=nofollow
-
Hi,
I found a link pointing to my client's site that looks like this:
<a <span="" class="html-tag">href</a><a <span="" class="html-tag">="</a>http://www.clientsite.com" rel="dofollow" target="_blank" rel='nofollow'>Anchor text
Could someone tell me if this links acts as a dofollow or as a nofollow? It's the first time I see such a link and I don't know how to handle it.
Best regards,
Edimar
-
Hi Tim,
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this.
Best regards,
Ed
-
Haha, I've already had three
-
hah you're right, what what I get for reading before my morning coffee!
-
The code is definately a bit of a mess.
Due to the second rel being rel='nofollow' this link will likely be a no follow.
Secondly in order for it to be accurately used as a follow it should be rel="follow" not rel="dofollow" as this does not exist. For a link to be a naturally followed link you do not even need to use the rel="" tag.
anchor text - FOLLOW
anchor text - NO FOLLOWHere is a bit more on use of nofollow
Hope this helps.
Tim
-
It should be a follow link though the code it completely pointless
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Rel=canonical on pre-migration website
I have an e-commerce client that is migrating platforms. The current structure of their existing website has led to what I would believe to be mass duplicate content. They have something north of 150,000 indexed URLs. However, 143,000+ of these have query strings and the content is identical to pages without any query string. Even so, the site does pretty well from an organic stand point compared to many of its direct competitors. Here is my question: (1) I am assuming that I should go into WMT (Google/Bing) and tell both search engines to ignore query strings. (2) In a review of back links, it does appear that there is a mish mash of good incoming links both to the clean and the dirty URLs. Should I add a rel=canonical via a script to all the pages with query strings before we make our migration and allow the search engines some time to process? (3) I'm assuming I can continue to watch the indexation of the URLs, but should I also tell search engines to remove the URLs of the dirty URLs? (4) Should I do Fetch in WMT? And if so, what sequence should I do for 1-4. How long should I wait between doing the above and undertaking the migration?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ExploreConsulting0 -
Rel=Alternate on Paginated Pages
I've a question about setting up the rel=alternate & rel=canonical tags between desktop and a dedicated mobile site in specific regards to paginated pages. On the desktop and mobile site, all paginated pages have the rel=canonical set towards a single URL as per usual. On the desktop site though, should the rel=alternate be to the relevant paginated page on the mobile site (ie a different rel=alternate on every paginated page) or to a single URL just as it is vice versa. Cheers chaps.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eventurerob1 -
Rel=“next” and rel=“prev” on category pages and galleries
Hi there, I am running an WordPress blog and i was looking a couple of days on the source code of the categories. From a SEO point of view would make sense to include into the header of the categories the rel=“next” and rel=“prev” tags ? Same question would be for the image galleries . Should i add the rel=“next” and rel=“prev” tags on the image galleries ? So for example if i upload 10 images to a gallery, the user will check the post and see the gallery. It will click on an image and will redirected on the attachment page of that displays that image > from where he can click next to see the next image or prev for the previous image. Therefore should i add the rel=“next” and rel=“prev” tags here too ? Many thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MirceazetelSerafim1 -
Noindex, rel=cannonical, or no worries?
Hello, SEO pros, We need your help with a case ↓ Introduction: Our website allows individual contractors to create a webpage where they can show what services they offer, write something about themselves and show their previous projects in pictures. All the professions and services assigned accordingly are already in our system, so users need to pick a profession and mark all services they provide or suggest those which we missed to add. We have created unique URLs for all the professions and services. We have internal search field and use a autocomplete to direct users to the right page. **Example: ** PROFESSION Carpenter (URL: /carpenters ) SERVICES Decking (URL: /carpenters/decking) Kitchens (URL: /carpenters/kitchens) Flooring and staircases (URL: /carpenters/flooring-and-staircases) Door trimming (URL: /carpenters/door-trimming) Lock fitting (URL: /carpenters/lock-fitting) Problem We want to be found by Google search on all the services and give a searchers a list of all carpenters in our database who can provide a service they want to find. We give 15 contractors per page and rank them by recommendations provided by their clients. Our concern is that our results pages may be marked as duplicate since some of them give the same list of carpenters. All the best 15 carpenters offer door-trimming and lock-fitting. So, all the same 15 are shown in /carpenters, /carpenters/lock-fitting, /carpenters/door-trimming. We don't want to be marked as spammers and loose points on domain trust, however we believe we give quality content since we gave what the searchers want to find - contractors, who offer what they need. **Solution? ** Noindex all service pages to avoid duplicate content indexed by Google OR rel=canonical tag on service pages to redirect to profession page. e.g. on /carpenters/lock-fitting page make a tag rel=canonical to /carpenters. OR no worries, allow Google index all the professions and services pages. Benefits of indexing it all (around 2500 additional pages with different keywords) is greater than ttagging service pages with no index or rel=canonical and loosing the opportunities to get more traffic by service titles. We need a solution which would be the best for our organic traffic 🙂 Many thanks for your precious time.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | osvaldas0 -
Simple Pagination and Rel Canonical
Hello, I am trying to find a solid solution to this. I think it is simple, but trying to think of a good setup for SEO. If you have a paginated result set, page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4. What i am wondering is, should I point my REL CANONICAL page to Page 1 always, so i'm not loosing power from the first page? Domain structure: www.domain.com/search/[term]/page1/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aactive
www.domain.com/search/[term]/page2/ Should I point all pages to page 1, so I don't get watered down as we go farther into the site? Thoughts?0 -
How can I tell if a website is a 'NoFollow'?
I've been link building for a long time but have recently discovered that most of my links are from NoFollow links, such as twitter and Youtube. How can I tell if a website is a 'NoFollow'?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul_Tovey0 -
What is the proper syntax for rel="canonical" ??
I believe the proper syntax is like this [taken from the SEOMoz homepage]: However, one of the sites I am working on has all of their canonical tags set up like this: I should clarify, not all of their canonicals are identical to this one, they simply use this naming convention, which appears to be relative URLs instead of absolute. Doesn't the entire URL need to be in the tag? If that is correct, can you also provide me with an explanation that I can give to management please? They hate it when I say "Because I said so!" LOL
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Any penalty for having rel=canonical tags on every page?
For some reason every webpage of our website (www.nathosp.com) has a rel=canonical tag. I'm not sure why the previous SEO manager did this, but we don't have any duplicate content that would require a canonical tag. Should I remove these tags? And if so, what's the advantage - or disadvantage of leaving them in place? Thank you in advance for your help. -Josh Fulfer
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mhans1