- From: Micah Dubinko <micah@dubinko.info>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:47:34 -0700
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Hi Mark, I look at it a bit differently--markup as a way of serializing intent. Most of the links this will be applied to have no preexisting rel attributes. This in itself expresses a kind of endorsement, as Google et.al. have noticed and incorporated into their algorithms. Being able to interpret this intent has been one of the factors in Google's success, and it's changed how people express themselves in HTML. Now comes rel="nofollow" In your blog you wrote: "its presence tells a spider not to navigate the link" but that's not exactly right. its presence indicates that the author's intent in providing the link doesn't count as an endorsement, but mere information. Spiders, once they are programmed to recognize this intent, can do with it as they please. So I agree with folks who say that "nofollow" is a crummy name. Maybe something like "noendorse" or "fyi"?? But despite the name, it is already influencing how people express themselves in HTML. (How many times have you read a web page that says 'this person said something really [stupid|shocking|untrue] but I don't even want to link to it'? Or sites that refuse to link to competitors?) Getting people to express themselves better, and writing more intentional markup is a win to me, even if it's not 100% architecturally pure. .micah Mark Birbeck wrote: > <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2005/01/meta-muddle-at-google.html> > > -- Available for consulting. XForms, web forms, information overload. Micah Dubinko mailto:micah@dubinko.info Brain Attic, L.L.C. http://brainattic.info Yahoo IM: mdubinko Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 07:48:07 UTC