Very cool analysis. Matt keeps the link love in-house. And sleeps between 2.00am and 7am. Apparently.

More interesting analysis of top blogs, and linking structure, here.

“Engadget: So, here are the major takeaways:

• Engadget is very big. Damn big, infact. I use too many infacts.

• They got more about 100,000 comments in a single month by giving away, among other things, a Zune.

• Cellphones and Portable Audio devices are the most posted about (and maybe most produced (and purchased)) things around

• But, Engadget readers prefer to comment more on articles about gaming and featured editorials written by experienced industry veterans.

• Of the top ten most commented articles (excluding the giveaways), 8 are about gaming. The remaining two are about the iPhone.

• For the first three months of their existence, they got exactly 25 comments!

• They post more about transportation than about HDTV“

Matt Cutts does a Q&A after many webmasters became concerned about his paid links post.

Interesting bits relating to how to evaluate a quality directory:

 ” Hey, as long as we’re talking about directories, can you talk about the role of directories, some of whom charge for a reviewer to evaluate them?
A: I’ll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When considering submitting to a directory, I’d ask questions like:
- Does the directory reject urls? If every url passes a review, the directory gets closer to just a list of links or a free-for-all link site.
- What is the quality of urls in the directory? Suppose a site rejects 25% of submissions, but the urls that are accepted/listed are still quite low-quality or spammy. That doesn’t speak well to the quality of the directory.
- If there is a fee, what’s the purpose of the fee? For a high-quality directory, the fee is primarily for the time/effort for someone to do a genuine evaluation of a url or site.

Those are a few factors I’d consider. If you put on your user hat and ask “Does this seem like a high-quality directory to me?” you can usually get a pretty good sense as well, or ask a few friends for their take on a particular directory“

Also:

“Are you interested in hearing about directories in this report?
A: Nope, I’d be most interested in feedback like the examples that I mentioned above, or things like paid posts that might affect search engines.“

In relation to a site on the topic of Unix, Matt mentioned that the paid links had been detected and discounted, which appears to indicate Google don’t tend to ban the site, just prevent PageRank from passing.

“Our existing algorithms had already discounted these links without any people involved. However, our manual spamfighters had detected these links as well“.

On the topic of competitor buying links on your behalf:

” I’m worried that someone will buy links to my site and then report that.
A: We’ve always tried very hard to prevent site A from hurting site B. That’s why these reports aren’t being fed directly into algorithms, and are being used as the starting point rather than being used directly.“

Matt again mentions the word “discounted”, as opposed to, say, ban or de-list.

So Matt Cutts decided to attack V7N.

We do not have a script that randomly places links on web sites. Human bloggers review links before placing them on web sites. We review websites before accepting them into the program. We have rejected websites and refunded payments when they have failed to meet quality standards.

The Google standard of editorial review of links is met not once, but twice.

In a post on his blog, Matt Cutts spanked the WebmasterRadio folks for a cheap, link baiting POS story on Google funding terrorists. (I’ve already commented.)

Funny thing here is, Matt cited many sources in his post, but he only nofollow-ed one - a link to SEO Blackhat’s blog post on the subject.

He used SEO Blackhat’s post to bolster his own position, but nofollowed it nonetheless.

Q: What types of links should get this attribute?
A: We encourage you to use the rel=”nofollow” attribute anywhere that users can add links by themselves

If nofollows are meant to be used for user-contributed links, and for paid links, why is a Google employed author using a nofollow on a link in to an article which he cites as supporting his point of view?

Just goes to show the extent of misuse of the nofollow attribute.

/end random thought of the day

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/quick-comment-on-nofollow/

…someone asked if Google was in favor of enabling nofollow on wikis, so I wanted to give a quick reply: I do think it’s a good idea. For example, I’ve talked to a couple SEOs recently who said that they have a full-time person on their staff dedicated to scamming links from Wikipedia and wikis.

Matt, another place people that a lot of SEO’s hang out is DMOZ. Maybe DMOZ should nofollow those links.

It is mind boggling the amount of attention the nofollow attribute is getting. People are putting nofollow links on everything these days. People are nofollowing links to Google for Pete’s sake.

Wasn’t it Google who said:

Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves “important” weigh more heavily and help to make other pages “important.”

So what happens when all links on the Internet are nofollow? That’s where we are headed folks. The only links that won’t have nofollows will be links owned by SEO’s, and then SEO’s will effectively own Google.

Yippee.

It seems like the fad of the day is to complain about the nofollow and Google’s insistence upon it.

Matt Cutts has recently reaffirmed his stance on the nofollow.

Q: If one were to offer to sell space on their site (or consider purchasing it on another), would it be a good idea to offer to add a NOFOLLOW tag so to generate the traffic from the advertisement, but not have the appearance of artificial PR manipulation through purchasing of links?

A: Yes, if you sell links, you should mark them with the nofollow tag. Not doing so can affect your reputation in Google.

Is this bullying? Yes, it is. But then again, you pay taxes don’t you? We do a lot of things we would rather not do, in order to avoid adverse consequences.

Link buying and link selling will continue to be a big market. But if you sell text links be prepared to deal with the consequences, just as you should be prepared to deal with the consequences if you refuse to pay taxes.

Here is my stance on nofollow.

1. On blog comments, screw the nofollow. I moderate comments, and only legitimate comments get published, and nobody is paying me to comment on my blog so why the hell would I attach a link condom?

2. Paid advertising. I don’t sell text links. Selling and buying text links on a website that otherwise generates income is stupid, not to mention ugly. I do not sell links on my websites so I don’t have to worry about nofollowing paid links. I do sell advertisements, such as the banner ads on V7N to such places as Tech Guy Forums.

I only sell ad space to relevant people, and no mention is made of PageRank or link condoms. If an advertiser asked me about link condoms, I would probably slip one on so fast his head would swim. Yeah, V7N is my baby and I am not going to risk its PageRank for a spammer.

When it comes down to it, why are people complaining about the nofollow? Just don’t use it if you don’t like it.

Seriously people, nofollow should be a non-issue. Just don’t link to crap in the first place.

If you link to crap, nofollow or not, you deserve whatever Google dishes out.