rel="nofollow" ?

[Yaroslav]

well in the last period i saw many people that utilized that links aren't rel="nofollow" so i suggest to add a setting in the ACP that turn on the rel="nofollow" on the links.. (only in topics)

its tied to seo... like in blogs they using rel="nofollow"

[Mesmer]

I thought this was allready a setting

[Tony]

:whistle:

[Jυra]

rel="nofollow" is for the greedy and those who can't fight spam.

[Mat Barrie]

Care to explain that viewpoint Jura?

[Jυra]

Linking out is natural and is helpful to users of a site, especially on forums. Surely you'd want sites to give you a link back for your good content. Sites like Wikipedia and Youtube use it because they don't know how to prevent spamming or how to enforce their rules effectively. Putting nofollow still doesn't even prevent spam well enough against spam scripts...they just go to the next place.


http://www.seomoz.org/blog/nofollow-is-dying-the-impact-of-microblogging-and-nofollow-on-seo
Linking to untrusted content Paid links Crawl prioritisation (typically linking to yourself with nofollow)


You should prevent spammy links by actually preventing it.

Google lists the three main intended uses of nofollow as:

In the interests of finding the best content for their searchers, search engines are increasingly going to have to use their own (algorithmic) judgement to disregard some nofollows and include those links in their link graph.

[bfarber]

This is a setting in IPB3. It's already added. You can opt to turn it on or off at your own will.

[v0rtex]

Recently I found this article:


Can someone share opinions about those 13 reasons - what is true and false about it?

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/13-reasons-why-nofollow-tags-suck/4410/