Thursday, January 20. 2005About rel="nofollow"The topic rel="nofollow" is hot now, originally seeded in the Googleblog post Preventing comment spam. Many developers are discussing it to a large extent, like Anne Van Kesteren, Erik J. Barzeski, Jeff Moore, Molly E. Holzschlag and Chuq Von Rospach (just to name a few), who brings out the essentials.
So, what's it all about? First, let me quote a part of the Googleblog post:
Especially the last phrase is true: The spammers won't benefit, yes, but I, as a blogger, won't benefit, too, sadly. Simply put, that is because rel="nofollow" won't keep spammers away from my comment form. Although it's a good idea, what I don't like, is, that this kind of spam solution doesn't help me as blogger at all - however, it just makes sure that comment spam does not get indexed by Google, Yahoo and MSN Search. Furthermore, I don't think spammers would care about that, as they don't care about spam filters or Blacklists, anyway. They would just continue spamming as ususal. In fact, spammers do care very little about, if their URLs get through, or they emails reach their intended recepients. They don't even check blogs, if HTML tags are allowed to format the comment source. So, in this field, too, remains doubt, if the suggested technique will bring more good, or more harm... Additionally, by using rel="nofollow" one will also miscredit trustworthy commenting users. What about them? I think, it's great, that "normal" commenting users eventually get a better pagerank through my blog (as I do by commenting in other blogs). Therefore, this prevention restricts the "normal" user, because usually you wouldn't even keep a spamming user's comment on your blog. Or would you? So, to summarize, I think Jeff Moore said it best:
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Well said. Spambots don't care.
Devaluing spam won't work. Each individual spam message is already low-value... how many spam messages result in a sale? The point is the volume. If you throw out enough spam, you get a sufficient return on it to justify the neglegible expense. All this does is reduce the return, but you're fighting a volume so massive the effect on spambot use will be minimal. This is the first I've heard of the 'nofollow' tag. To me it sounds like a great idea. If spammers get no benefit from comment-spamming, they will have no reason to continue spamming. Spammers are not stupid. They will not spend effort and bandwidth spamming if they stop seeing results.
Also, regarding 'real' comment posters, if you are only posting a comment to get a link back to your site, how are you different to a spammer? Well, firstly: You're right! Spammers aren't stupid, and Google's suggestion will (I'm almost sure) have effects on the amount of comment spam. But I think, it isn't the optimum. It's a start. Like better than nothing.
Secondly: That, honestly, wasn't my point. Of course, I will not only post a comment, because I want a link back my site, but I'm really interested in the posting's topic. This argument was only mentioned to demonstrate that rel="nofollow" will not only do something good. Add Comment
|
| You are currently browsing .redSPLASH, the personal website of Christian Machmeier (contact me, if ya dare), which features valid XHTML and CSS, its own accessibility statement, a sitemap for the sake of clarity, and a bunch of other stuff. All content is copyright (c) 2001-2005 Christian Machmeier, unless otherwise noted. I hope you enjoy your visit as much as I do growing this website. Be good. |