- From: Beth Epperson <beppers2@cox.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:34:48 +0000
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Cc: w3c-html-wg@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Hi Mark, Again, I have to disagree - what may seem daft to you, may be brilliant to someone else, and if this option resolves a problem, then it isn't daft at all. If you have a more elegant solution for them, then clearly define it, and provide examples. //beth Mark Birbeck wrote: >Hi Beth, > >[Note that I'm cross-posting to the public list since there is quite a large >thread on this there.] > >If something is an advert, you only need to say it's an advert -- you don't >need to say "don't follow this link", since whether the user follows the >link is up to them. > >And whether Google follows the link is also up to them -- they could choose >not to follow adverts, for example. But I don't see why we should 'dumb >down' metadata so that Google can work out what to index. If the problem >really is about page rankings, then why not go the other way, and give more >weight to those links that have an explicit @rel value? > >Anyway, there are plenty of solutions better than "nofollow", and ultimately >it's just daft to put a qualification on a link (which is what @rel is) that >says the type of this connection is that there is no connection. > >Regards, > >Mark > > >Mark Birbeck >CEO >x-port.net Ltd. > >e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net >t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 >w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ >b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ > >Download our XForms processor from >http://www.formsPlayer.com/ > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Beth Epperson [mailto:beppers2@cox.net] >>Sent: 21 January 2005 14:30 >>To: Mark Birbeck >>Cc: dmh@dmh.org.uk; xhtml2-issues@mn.aptest.com; w3c-html-wg@w3.org >>Subject: Re: rel="nofollow" attribute (PR#7676) >> >> >>Hello, >> >>I disagree Mark, saying we are not related is a valid option. >>They may >>be connected via a link for a variety of reasons - i.e. an >>advert, but >>following that link would clearly not enhance the users >>knowledge of the >>object at hand. For example, many hosting sites force you to place a >>link on the bottom of the page directing your audience to >>read about the >>hosting company. If I am posting data about biotechnology and >>studies on >>MS, the link to ABC Web Company" is an illogical relationship - so to >>say "don't follow that one" is correct. >> >>//beth >> >>Mark Birbeck wrote: >> >> >> >>>Dave, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Google and others are introducing a 'rel' attribute value >>>>that refers to >>>>a document that shouldn't be indexed by search engines. (See >>>>http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment- >>>> >>>> >>spam.html >> >> >>>>for more information on why they're doing this.) >>>> >>>>Should this, or some alternative mechanism that achieves the >>>>same ends, >>>>be included in XHTML 2.0? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Speaking for myself, I'd say no, for two reasons: >>> >>>* @rel implies a relationship between two documents. It's a bit >>> weird to say that the relationship between two documents is that >>> a search engine should ignore the relationship between two >>> documents. >>> >>>* whether you like it or not, there *is* a relationship between the >>> two documents -- there's a link. >>> >>>Google wants this feature so that they can tell the >>> >>> >>difference between >> >> >>>real links and those placed there to improve someone's rating in the >>>search engine. It's a commendable goal, but it's got nothing >>> >>> >>to do with >> >> >>>HTML. Indexing should really be transparent. Will the next >>> >>> >>move be to >> >> >>>say which paragraphs of text should be indexed! >>> >>>So, to achieve this goal I'd prefer to see something >>> >>> >>'positive' rather >> >> >>>than something 'negative'. By that I mean, some mark-up that >>> >>> >>indicates >> >> >>>that the link is for UI only, rather than this link is not to be >>>indexed. Another alternative would be to state the type of the >>>document, and for Google to work it out for itself whether links in >>>that document should be followed or not. >>> >>>For the first solution, the new @role attribute would probably be a >>>good place to put it: >>> >>> <a href="http://pills-and-potions.com/" role="ui-only">spam</a> >>> >>>and for the second solution, the new QName @rel values could work: >>> >>> <head> >>> <title>A comment</title> >>> <link rel="rdf:type" >>> >>> >>href="http://www.google.com/blog-comment" /> >> >> >>></head> >>> >>>I'm not saying either is the answer -- but I certainly don't like >>>"nofollow"! >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Mark >>> >>> >>>Mark Birbeck >>>CEO >>>x-port.net Ltd. >>> >>>e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net >>>t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 >>>w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ >>>b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ >>> >>>Download our XForms processor from >>>http://www.formsPlayer.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 18:50:30 UTC