what strategy would you adopt in this Panda and Penguin time, lots of sites have lost their ranking so we have to be careful at the same time we have to do SEO too...
Please let me know.
The strategy is providing quality contents, and cleaning the archives for wastes and throw them away.
I am more concern about "dofollow", "nofollow" and "keywords"
If you are linking trusted and helpful sites, there's nothing afraid about it - Google knows what's helpful links or not. If the outbound links point towards contents related to yours, don't bother to put "nofollow".
Keywords density might not work today - the use of keywords in its "natural way" is the one will help. It does not mean to avoid using keywords, but do not stuff your content too much
What do you mean about "dofollow" and "nofollow"? I am only familiar with keywords. Thanks in advance.
My strategy is not to worry about it. I just concentrate on producing the best sites I can, with high-quality original content, easy navigation, a bright design, and efficient page loads.
It may be true that "lots of sites have lost their ranking", but that also means that lots of sites have gained their ranking.
Search engines are developing better algorithms to deal with what they think is spam. Original related content will always be good on a site. Get rid of duplicate content. Links to your site need to be from sites related to your site.
Remove links to unrelated sites from your site. You can use Google's disavow too. Study Google's recommendations. You can learn a lot from them.
The same strategy that has always worked: Quality content that earns editorially given links. Always worked in the past and will always work in the future.
Always believe on content and excellent and genuine link building. While saying genuine link building, I mean building links from reputed and high pagerank websites and which are relevant to your business. When you do this, you would never have to worry about any algorithmic change.
rel="nofollow" and rel="dofollow" are link attributes. They will tell the search engines whether you allow them to index or crawl the links you have included in your posts, sidebar, or footer (whether it links to your pages, or outbound links, or social media links such as twitter and facebook)...
Commonly, the nofollow or dofollow issue happens a lot in your outbound links a.k.a your sources. Most of the times, when you publish contents, you include links from external sources. The question is, would it help you or not?
Hence the nofollow and dofollow are created to somehow safeguard publishers. If you are not sure that what you are linking is safe enough for your reputation, then try putting nofollow to the link that looks like this in your HTML post editor: <a href="the url of the site your are linking" rel="nofollow">anchor texts</a>, the nofollow attribute there tells the search engine to disregard that particular link when it is indexing your site... oh I, I am referring a lot the way Google indexes your pages.
But if you opt to pass your PR juice to the site you are linking, then feel free to use nothing, I mean if it's dofollow, leave the link as is without putting dofollow.
The real question is, when to put nofollow?
Somehow people are afraid about placing links to their pages, but the real deal is - if you are linking to trusted sources, and if you are linking to links that has contents that is important to expound or elaborate or support your topic - then do not be afraid to pass your link juice by not placing nofollow attributes.
Yeah, Google loves justice. If they know you are linking to relevant contents outside your webpage, nothing to worry about....
Really? I have never heard of the "rel="dofollow"". Is this new? or are you just making it up?
The opposite of "nofollow" is simply "follow", not "dofollow".
Actually, the opposite of "nofollow" is just "".
:lol: Very true.
The default for links is follow, so normally you would only need to specify when you require them to be "nofollow". However, if for some reason you feel you need to specify that you want a link or links followed, then you would need to use rel="follow" - which is correct syntax and will therefore be understood, not rel="dofollow" - which isn't and won't.
Better now? :)
Is that really true? I've just scoured the interwebs and can't find any definitive source saying that
rel="follow" is a syntax that is used by Google or any other robots.
Judging by Matt Coutts reply in this thread, then Google, at least, recognises it.
post panda/penguin time is all about white hat seo. Black hat no longer works. Build links naturally, mixing dofollow and nofollow link sources. Write good contents that are aligned to what your site is about as well as the keywords you are targeting.
I am afraid that the point of Google updates is to avoid strategies to build up and to get extract the real value of a website. Thoughtful SEO is the only way to go... You must banish the practices making a website look look nicer than it is in reality.
The ultimate goal of Google is the satisfaction of the visitors and they can assess the success of the ranking by correlating with Google Analytic data. If a website well ranked has a bouncing rate extremely high, surely Google will think about revisiting its ranking!
That's kinda true but it doesn't mean you shouldn't have a strategy at all. How do you know if you're getting somewhere if you don't have a strategy?
I make make back-links ratio 50 50
50% No-Follow Links and 50% Do-Follow Links
Please explain why? Do you have some data to back that up or are you just making it up?
Given that <2% of all links are nofollow, would it not make sense to aim for a 2%/98% ratio?
My 50% links are no-follow to make my link building strategy more natural for search engines. Also I diversify links as well and now days variation in keywords are more important. If you wanna change your link building strategy then first try to remove your all previous spammy or bad backlinks by the help of Google disavow then start your new techniques according to Google's new algorithm.
next page →