W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Suggestion: 'rel="unrelated"'

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:05:58 -0500
Message-Id: <a694d39d81997154ac4ce48a20594c85@w3.org>
Cc: kmarks@technorati.com, dean@w3.org, shellen@google.com, www-html@w3.org, tantek@technorati.com
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>

Le 22 janv. 2005, à 16:52, Dan Brickley a écrit :
> I've been following the threads in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2005Jan/
> about the
> http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html
> proposal, and the draft definition at
> http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/RelNoFollow

And I have just finished to read the whole thread…

so far, I have one problem with rel="nofollow", they encourage all 
publishing tools to put automatically "nofollow" to all links coming 
from external contributions and that is just plain wrong without giving 
the possibility to the user to change the nature of the rel. The 
problem is often the same, imposing a choice to the user without giving 
the possibility to deactivate it.

So I'm interested to know if publishing tools implement rel="nofollow", 
what do they implement if on my weblog (by an editorial choice), I want 
to say: "This link is worthwhile and should be followed."

As a second thing, I can't wait the abuse made by spammers of this new 
attribute. After the "meta name" indexing which has been abused, and 
then not indexed by some search engines, I'm pretty sure there will be 
surprises with the rel="nofollow".

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Saturday, 29 January 2005 09:06:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:55 UTC