rel=nofollow affiliate links?

[jase951]

Tweet

Hi

Is it true that search engines will penalise affiliate links? If so, is adding a rel=nofollow to affiliate links suggested?

Or, do you do that?

Jase

[fizzbird]

Hi

Is it true that search engines will penalise affiliate links? If so, is adding a rel=nofollow to affiliate links suggested?

Some people say so, although I don't think it matters? I think those database driven stores that are basically a template and a datafeed get penalised for obvious reasons!

If you have good content then I wouldn't worry?

I'm currently building a site for a colleague which will be purely content with no affiliate links whatsoever. It will be interesting to see if this performs much better than a regular affiliate site?

[jase951]

Thanks for your reply. I agree actually personally.

Jase

[amisuggests]

I have seen this question asked in the forums time and time again

At the moment, there is NO evidence that the search engines penalize affiliate links

I think the concept was a confusion over paid links which are totally different

[Brendon]

>> Is it true that search engines will penalise affiliate links?

No, the Google Quality Doc that circulated notwithstanding

>> is adding a rel=nofollow to affiliate links suggested?

You want to specifically say you don't trust your merchants? Why?

[ep90]

At the moment, there is NO evidence that the search engines penalize affiliate links

Apart from this... Google's automated spam penalty and affiliate links - eWealth.com Internet Marketing Forum - Affiliate Forums

[fizzbird]

Apart from this... Google's automated spam penalty and affiliate links - eWealth.com Internet Marketing Forum - Affiliate Forums

I think this rather reinforces the point though? If all the outgoing links are affiliate links then what use is that site to anyone other than the affiliate?
Also, you can always put forward an argument which supports your theory - after all, the Moon Landing and Twin Towers conspiracy theorists can put forward a very convincing argument?

I would never claim to be an expert but I've found that common sense usually wins. If your site is relevant to the search enquiry then there shouldn't be a problem?

I've recently had 2 pages on 2 separate sites (which were previously PR2) de-indexed. There were no affiliate links on either. The outgoing links which I suspect to be the cause have been removed - we'll see what happens?

Meanwhile, the bulk of my pages on all sites which are obviously affiliate pages go from strength to strength. Not because the are so brilliant - simply that they are relevant to the search traffic they receive!

I could be totally wrong, but I've yet to be convinced by an argument to the contrary?

[ep90]

I think this rather reinforces the point though? If all the outgoing links are affiliate links then what use is that site to anyone other than the affiliate?

What about a price comparison site? They provide a service that is useful to the user but are ultimately a bunch of affiliated links?

[fizzbird]

What about a price comparison site? They provide a service that is useful to the user but are ultimately a bunch of affiliated links?

Much like voucher code sites? I would suppose that if they are actually providing a true price comparison then they would be deemed to be relevant?

However, many price comparison sites are nothing more than thinly veiled affiliate sites.
I would hope that Google have some means of distinguishing between the two and, I'm sure, it's an argument which has been considered?

In truth, we are probably a long way from an ideal world where all sites are ranked exactly to their relevance and usefulness, but I'm confident that my view will prove to be correct.

I hope so anyway?

[DavidCartlidge]

If you added nofollow to all your affiliate links that won't stop Google knowing all those links are to affiliates.

What it will do is not pass any 'votes' and it will also question the integrity of a site that does not trust any of it's own content...

[jase951]

Hi

Thanks for the replies.

You want to specifically say you don't trust your merchants? Why?

The reason I brought this up is because all the external affiliate links are bringing up errors in Google Sitemap: "URLs restricted by robots.txt", etc.

Jase

[Brendon]

Hmmm, that is kind of odd - your robots.txt didn't look like it should generate that kind of error

[jezaff]

Goog make all this information available in their help!

This is their official line:

"Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little
or no original content. "

So a site that is just aff links may not do well, or may be penalised in the future.

Goog do follow no follow links when spidering. They just attribute no weight to those links.

Subscribe to all the Google blogs, they give much more info away than peeps seem to think!

If you are really paranoid try using a redirect script. You might want to do this anyway so that all your affiliate links are dynamic and data driven. You can then swap out links or switch them off without any updating of your content!

[cyberfriend]

Thank for reply, yes google penalize .

[aotagain]

If you use a redirect, then Google will still follow the link unless you use robots.txt to block the redirect file.

That could look a bit odd to Google if there is no content on the originating page. Google might ask what sort of shop has a page with no content, with links to pages which the shop doesn't want indexed ? To the bot, that's an empty shop.

Whereas it might see a high content page with several redirect links blocked as a product page with links going to a cart, which of course a shop probably wouldn't want indexed and would therefore block.