Does Adam Lasnik like Rel=Nofollow or not?

Spotting the headline "Google's Lasnik Wishes 'NoFollow Didn't Exist'" I was quite astonished. My first thought was "logic can't explain such a reversal". And it turned out as kinda blog hoax.

Adam's "I wish nofollow didn't exist" put back in context clarifies Google's position:

"My core point [...] was that it'd be really nice if nofollow wasn't necessary. As it stands, it's an admittedly imperfect yet important indicator that helps maintain the quality of the Web for users.

It'd be nice if there was less confusion about what nofollow does and when it's useful. It'd be great if we could return to a more innocent time when practically all links to other sites really WERE true votes, folks clearly vouching for a site on behalf of their users.

But we don't live in perfect, innocent times, and at Google we're dedicated to doing what it takes to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in search quality."

I like the "admittedly imperfect" piece ;)

Tags: Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Link-Condom rel=nofollow Google

Stumble It!

Post it to del.icio.us