Should internal links in my table of contents be tagged as nofollow?
-
Hi All,
I have the LuckyWP Table of Contents plugin installed. I recently noticed that you can tag your internal links with and nofollow.
I understand that it's always a good idea to link internally and to pass link juice to my own content. But with detailed posts that have over 20 headings, I'm thinking that internal linking for headings may actually hurt me because it takes my links well above 100.
Any ideas what the best practises are in this scenario?
Thanks.
-
Thanks Martijn. I am indeed referring to heading links with an anchor #. Just to confirm, these should not be tagged with nofollow?
I'll take your advice and not fuss too much about the number of links. I just realised that it's also counting all 15 of my blog post sharing links.
Anyway, I'm just perplexed at why these plugins even add the ability to make table of content links no follow and add tag if it would hurt SEO. They've even placed these settings under an SEO title. Do you think they know something we don't?
-
Don't add nofollow to them, I'm also assuming that these are not original links but actually just link to an anchor # on the page itself (at least they should). If not, then I would advise you to make them work like that. In the end, I would never add nofollow to these links. The number of links doesn't matter that badly and in this case, it's actually helping users. I would say, there is many more other things to worry about in SEO than the number of internal links on your site.
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
-
Treatment of domain names in content that are not actually a link
From PR activity we've found that lots of newspaper sites will include reference to a domain name in an article but not actually make this a link through to the domain. For example we will see text like: For further information read the full report at www.bluewidget.com Of course we make attempts to contact the newspaper to request they make it a link but this doesn't always achieve a result. So the question is, does Google place any value for the identified domain in a case like this?
Technical SEO | | bjalc20110 -
Site Link Issues
For several search terms I get site links for the page http://www.waikoloavacationrentals.com/kolea-rentals/kolea-condos/ It makes sense that that page be a site link as it is one of my most used pages, but the problem is google gave it the site link "Kolea 10A". I am having 0 luck making any sense of why that was chosen. It should be something like "Kolea Condos" or something of that nature. Does anyone have any thoughts on where google is coming up with this?
Technical SEO | | RobDalton0 -
Database driven content producing false duplicate content errors
How do I stop the Moz crawler from creating false duplicate content errors. I have yet to submit my website to google crawler because I am waiting to fix all my site optimization issues. Example: contactus.aspx?propid=200, contactus.aspx?propid=201.... these are the same pages but with some old url parameters stuck on them. How do I get Moz and Google not to consider these duplicates. I have looked at http://moz.com/learn/seo/duplicate-content with respect to Rel="canonical" and I think I am just confused. Nick
Technical SEO | | nickcargill0 -
Should you use the canonicalization tag when the content isn't exactly a duplicate?
We have a site that pull data from different sources with unique urls onto a main page and we are thinking about using the canonicalization tag to keep those source pages from being indexed and to give any authority to the main page. But this isn’t really what canonicalization is supposed to be used for so I’m unsure of if this is the right move.
Technical SEO | | Fuel
To give some more detail: We manage a site that has pages for individual golf courses. On the golf course page in addition to other general information we have sections on that page that show “related articles” and “course reviews”.
We may only show 4 or 5 on each of those courses pages per page, but we have hundreds of related articles and reviews for each course. So below “related articles” on the course page we have a link to “see more articles” that would take the user to a new page that is simply a aggregate page that houses all the article or review content related to that course.
Since we would rather have the overall course page rank in SERPs rather than the page that lists these articles, we are considering canonicalizing the aggregate news page up to the course page.
But, as I said earlier, this isn’t really what the canonicalization tag is intended for so I’m hesitant.
Has anyone else run across something like this before? What do you think?0 -
Paid links that are passing link equity from a blog?
We have a well-known blogger in our industry with whom we've had a long-standing relationship. We've had inbound links from his blog for many, many years. Today I noticed that we are running a banner ad listed on all pages of his blog under a heading that says "Sponsors." He has dedicated an entire page of his site giving full disclosure of all advertising. However, all of the links on his site pointing to us are passing link equity. To my knowledge they've been this way ever since they were first established years ago. I am fairly certain this fellow, with whom we have an excellent relationship, neither knows nor cares what a "nofollow" attribute is. I am afraid that if I contact him with a request that he add "nofollow" attributes to all of our links that it will damage our relationship by creating friction. To someone who knows nothing and cares nothing about SEO, asking them to put a "nofollow" on a link could either seem like a technical request they don't know how to handle, or something even potentially "shady" on our part. My question is this: Considering how long these links have been there, is this even worth worrying about? Should I just forget about it and move on to bigger fish, or, is this a potentially serious enough violation of Google Webmaster guidelines that we should pursue getting those links "nofollow" attributes added? I should add that we haven't received any "unnatural" link notifications from Google, ever, and haven't ever engaged in any questionable link-building tactics.
Technical SEO | | danatanseo1 -
How different does content need to be to avoid a duplicate content penalty?
I'm implementing landing pages that are optimized for specific keywords. Some of them are substantially the same as another page (perhaps 10-15 words different). Are the landing pages likely to be identified by search engines as duplicate content? How different do two pages need to be to avoid the duplicate penalty?
Technical SEO | | WayneBlankenbeckler0 -
What if meta description tag comes before meta title tag? Do the search engines disregard or penalize if the order is not title then description in the HTML?
Do the search engines disregard or penalize if the order is not title then description in the HTML? A client's webmaster is a newbie to SEO and did just this. Suggestions?
Technical SEO | | alankoen1230 -
Does Google care how you write internal links?
I am changing ecommerce platforms. For my internal linking on the old site there was a lot of old links written like this: http://www.domain.com/page-name But now i am writing links mostly like this: /page-name Will that make a difference to search engines? Is one easier than the other for them to interpret?
Technical SEO | | Hyrule0