Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I got into a discussion with someone who was telling me that a "No Follow" link from a PR4 or PR5 site is better than a "Do Follow" from a PR1 or PR2 .....

I am fully aware that you should have "some" percentage of no follow links so your back link profile looks natural. But I find it hard to believe that a "No Follow" from a descent

PR site is better than contextual anchor text in a post or article on a homepage where the PR is the highest.

 

Am I wrong here, or do I need to re-adjust my thinking. 

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got into a discussion with someone who was telling me that a "No Follow" link from a PR4 or PR5 site is better than a "Do Follow" from a PR1 or PR2 .....

I am fully aware that you should have "some" percentage of no follow links so your back link profile looks natural. But I find it hard to believe that a "No Follow" from a descent

PR site is better than contextual anchor text in a post or article on a homepage where the PR is the highest.

 

Am I wrong here, or do I need to re-adjust my thinking. 

 

Thanks,

 

You can find more than a few threads on the subject and you always end up with groups on both sides with no real agreement.

 

A couple of things to think about though.

 

First is that it has been so long since Google has updated the PR toolbar you really have no idea what the real PR of those pages are at this time.

Second is that the no follow tag was originally created so that those links would not pass on Page Rank. However Page Rank is only a small part of the ranking equation.

Third is that Google can and does ignore the no follow tag so it really is going to depend on the sites involved. Twitter is a perfect example, all Twitter links are no follow but they do in fact pass on Page Rank so Google is completely ignoring the tag when it comes to Twitter. Now Twitter is obviously an important site but how many other sites are there where Google is ignoring the tag? We really have no way of knowing.

 

Bottom line as far as I am concerned is that it depends on the sites involved. Do  you really think that a "do-follow" link on a PR1 blog would be better than a no follow link on the front page of Forbes, CNN, or some other high profile, high PR site?

 

For me the answer would have to be no and that I would take the high profile no follow link every time. Now those are two extreme examples so where do you draw the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above answer, page rank is no longer a factor. Domains are not being ranked any more pages are. However you have a natural mix of both do follow and no follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe you can actually compare it like that as there are many factors that can determine how "good" a link is.

But let's just look at things like-for-like.

Do Follow = Passes Link Juice (meaning if you get a link from a site, the juice will pass onto your site)
No Follow = No Link Juice passed (your site will not gain juice or authority).

Here is the thing though. Imagine you get a Do Follow link from a site that is completely unrelated to your site, has no traffic and is TOXIC.... what is going to happen? You may get penalized.

On the other hand, image you have a No Follow link from a site and that page has HUGE amounts of traffic. If 30% of that traffic clicks the link and go to your site (AKA referral link - which Google monitors), then that is far more beneficial than getting a Do Follow backlink from a mediocre site.

So there are too many factors to make it a black and white debate..... essentially, high volumes of traffic + backlink = GOOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×