The NoFollow Debacle...

I've been researching whether or not to utilize the "nofollow" attribute on my user-generated links for about a week now.

It is pretty amazing how many different valid opinions are out there on this topic.  From one perspective (Google), Doctor Matt Cutts insists that the world is indeed round, and that we are all safe to use the nofollow tag where ever user-generated content allows links to be added.  He then goes on to also say that IF you have the ability to filter trusted users over non-trusted users, you could then consider removing the nofollow on any links contributed by trusted users.

Easy enough right?  Google says use it, so we should use it? 

Well not so easy.  There also exists the viewpoint that applying such a blanket attribute to all your user-generated links may actually hurt your site.  Some believe that it is a red flag to Google that your site/content must not be that trust worthy if you have so many "unchecked/untrusted" links on your pages.  Then there is the theory that if you are not going to trust any of your outgoing links, well then karma will come back and bite you as no one else will want to trust a link back to your site.

Ok, so forget.  I'm not going to use nofollow.  Who wants to be flagged as untrusted content?  I want to be a good internet citizen.  I'm going to try something else.

 What about redirects?  WebmasterWorld does a nifty 302 redirect for any and all user-added links to their pages.  Is that legit?  Well according to Google, 302 redirects do not pass any PR, but is it safe to use?  Many feel you should avoid 302 redirects all together since they are often abused by spammers/hijackers.   Of course Matt Cutts himself stated that redirect scripts are one of a few recommended ways folks can "sell links" legitimately.  Since 302 redirects don't pass any PR juice, they are safe to use for that purpose.  Ok great, but if I utilize a redirect script, are I now labeling myself as someone who sells links, but legitimately?  Is Google going to view me as a potential hijacker now with all my new 302 redirects?  Well no, IF you make sure to tell robots.txt to exclude any access to your redirect script.  But how many webmasters actually know how to implement this correctly?  One mistake can cost you dearly in search rankings.

Why the hell is this suddening getting like 10 times more complicated.  I just want to know if it is okay to allow my users to add links in comments.  A basic fundemental aspect of the web, and I cannot come to a decision on how to do it!?!

Okay fine, let's just leave the links as natural links.  Heck, we trust our users.  But what if we get one rogue user that starts posting links to unsafe sites.  Or one of our trusted members sells out and starts offering links from our site to other sites for cash?  Who has the time or ability to monitor all that when you are getting hundreds if not thousands of comments a day? 

Ok, forget that idea.

So I'm back to where I started.  Comments full of links that are not really links (just text URLs) that totally suck for user-friendlyness... all because I am forced to give a crap about what search engines think about my site, instead of just having to worry about what my users think.

I guess I owe special thanks to all the comment-spammers of the world!  

UPDATE:  I've come to a decision.  I'm going old school javascript style.  I'm going to have a js function that does the redirect for any URLs shared by users in comments.   I avoid the no-follow paranoia, I avoid the potential 302 pitfalls, I avoid the naturnal linking risks... and I get to still offer "working" links to my users.  

Here is my simple solution:

Javascript function:

function goLink(o){

  var u = o.innerHTML;

  document.location = u;

  return;

}

[div class="link" onClick="goLink(this);"

]http://www.user-added-link.com[/div]

Then I simply made a matching style class to have the link appear as a link:

.link {

color: blue;  

cursor: pointer; 

text-decoration: underline;

}

Simple Trick To Increase Your Pageviews & Revenues By 20%

A few weeks back I was reading a forum thread over at DigitalPoint about a webmaster who had added some handy navigation links to his pages that helped him browse through his content more easily.  He was talking about how he had initially added the new navigation links to help him keep up with monitoring the content more easily.  However after implementing his new links, he found the total pageviews he was getting on his site had jumped up.  Users were finding his new links helpful as well.

This simple idea of adding easy navigation to your site is one that had escaped me up until I read this guy's post.  It was so simple why hadn't I noticed it before?  My site is cleanly designed, I have a good search tool, and plenty of "related article" links after each story.  But those links require the user to actually keep scrolling down beyond the article, and then actually read the links to see if they are something of interest before clicking to the next page.

So it got me thinking, why not simply at a "Read Next Article >>" link to the end of each article?  With a little logic, I could even make it jump to the next related article.  

So now a user gets to the end of the article and does not have to scroll or think... They can simply click to see another article... click again to jump to the next.  Scrolling through my pages looking for something interesting to read.

Since I implemented this strategy, I've seen my pageviews jump by 20% across the board.  And as most of you know, pageviews relate to revenues.  I've seen a similar jump in revenues from both CPM ads and PPC ads.

If you have a content site, give it a try.  I'm guessing you will see similar results.

Ignoring Google Is Your Best Bet For Success

We read it every day in the webmaster forums around the web. Google changed their algorithm and my site disappeared. Webmasters around the world are in a constant state of flux as they chase Google's tail. My recommendation for a more stable site... forget about the Googles of the world.

If you launch a site that has gardening information that can be found in 1000 other sites, yeah, no one is going to talk about it or link to it unless you buy links. This is fine for traffic, but don't expect Google to give your site preference over the 1000 other sites with the same type of content just because you have a good team of writers and great content.

Google's approach seems to reward sites that have built up their trust and links over time... the natural way. Very few sites hit stardom in a few months... which is what everyone wants for their site. It takes many years... which is the way it should be...

Another interesting point relates to SEO folks who try to "adapt" to each of Google's changes over the years. This could also be the source of some of your problems, if indeed you are having problems.... I try not to follow what Google is doing, I simply work on providing the best site/service for our users. Yes, I make sure my site is accessible to search bots, I'd be foolish to design otherwise, but I don't get caught up in the latest Google algorithm change. Instead I focus on building relationships with news reporters and other sites, building quality communities where folks want to participate and share information, and keep my site running smoothly, fast and efficient...

This approach of pretty much ignoring the latest trends has helped my sites slowly grow each year in revenues and traffic.

Am I immune to losing our Google traffic? No, of course not. But if it does happen, I'll still have my community of users and members that I have grown over the years to help keep the site growing. I'll also have our newsletter I've built up over the years, along with all the naturally acquired inbound links from news sites and blogs. All of those were made possible due to the fact that my sites offer a good service that filled a need at a time when not many others were filling that need.

So the real answer is not to start building/updating your new site based on the latest Google trend, but rather build your new site based on what the consumers/users of the world need right now, or what they might need tomorrow

Adjusting site layout for members versus visitors

I was reading an interesting thread over on Problogger.net about readers versus visitors, and who do you try to accommodate more.

It got me to thinking about my own site of course, and some changes I had been putting in place recently. About a month back I started to make some changes to my site(s) that focused on enhancing the user experience for members. Previously my site looked and acted pretty much the same for both visitors and members (registered users). I decided to make some changes that would allow me to toggle the use of valuable page real estate depending on if you are logged in or not.

My first change was to take away my newsletter sign-up block in the header of every page. Members have already been given the choice to sign up when they first registered. Why should I bother them on EVERY page regarding a decision they already made? So for my registered members, that valuable page real estate was converted into a navigation block allowing users to quickly get to where they most frequently go. I also added some messaging between members, and used this block for message notifications, etc.

My next change involved the meat of my content pages. In my old site, I would pretty much promote all the same ads and offers whether you were a visitor or a member. In my new version, I go a lot lighter on the ads for the registered members. They are the heart and soul of the site and the community. Advertisements can be annoying, cause slow page loads and be distracting. Why should I put my regular members through the loop over and over again. Most of them become blind to the ads anyway. So I cut down on my advertising to regular members. The result was a much happier user community who could not navigate the site much faster and more efficiently.

These are just a few examples. I realize this is not a new concept, but felt it was worth taking about. Sometimes you forget that site real estate can serve more than one purpose when you have a user base of registered members. I've learned over the years that my top priority is to keep my community members happy. They can make or break a successful site.