1. Jake Freivald

    Super tip, Sarah. Thank you very much.


  2. Kenny Scott

    I am sure this started out as a good intention, but it seems to me that this turns web desigers into the thought police.

    “Donotlink is an easy way to prevent your site from sending “Google juice” to the bad guys. ”

    Who decides who are the “bad guys”?

    The internet has been doing just fine. People can make their own decisions about the content the believe or trust.


    • Johnathan Lyman

      I don’t think they can. I don’t know about you but I’ve seen a disturbing amount of falsehoods being shared on Facebook that run the gamut. if the Internet can weed out the idiots, the idiots must be hiding real well.


  3. Kimberly

    Very helpful tip, thank you! I have struggled with this myself when posting about questionable terms of service on a large, but unethical site, and wanting people to have an easy link so they could read the terms for themselves, but not wanting Google to interpret this as me associating my site with a shady site.

    There are many times when bloggers want to post about unethical or potentially damaging practices on another site to help other bloggers beware, or just to start a conversation (such as the Pinterest discussion of 2012 about copycat scraper sites).

    It’s not only about not wanting to give link juice to a bad guy; we all know a worthless scraper site when we see it, and we may want to use it for demonstration purposes in a post without sending Google a signal that it’s our new best friend. This link tool is a great solution.


  4. Greg Raven

    I’m with Kenny Scott. This enables elitist jerks to show the world that, while they are smart enough to read this material without falling off the edge of the Earth, others (I.E. readers of their blogs) are pretty hopeless, and ought to get information only after it has been filtered through an elitist jerk.


    • Jake Freivald

      This is getting silly. Who decides who are the bad guys? The blogger, of course. You may think the person I’m linking to is just fine, and that’s your right, but if I don’t want to increase the SEO of someone else’s disinformation campaign, why wouldn’t I use this tool? If it makes me elitist to think that people are susceptible to disinformation campaigns or just bad information, then you can feel free to call me names. I, at any rate, am grateful for this post.


  5. Matt

    Thanks for the post I found it very useful, while I understand some peoples points that we can all make decisions on if a site is genuine or not sometimes there are situations that this sort of linking becomes very useful – for example I wrote an article about scam sites for World of Tanks and War Thunder (online games) on my blog purely to warn people of the scum out there trying to rip people off. Originally I just linked directly to them, but why give them the SEO advantage? Also it makes me wonder if it can be a SEO disadvantage for our sites to link to dodgy sites?

    I am going to go through and update my post with the new links. Thanks again.


  6. swissspidy

    Why not just using rel=”nofollow”? That’s exactly what it is used for.

    Quote from Google (http://googleblog.blogspot.ch/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html):

    “When Google sees the attribute (rel=”nofollow”) on hyperlinks, those links won’t get any credit when we rank websites in our search results.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: