One of my readers told me RC started no-following links to certain sites. He detected this after I mentioned the possibility of nofollowing links to “www.blogactionday.org” while still participating. When you link someone, using Nofollow will cause Google to not count that link toward the blogs or sites authority. (The linking practices of “www.blogactionday.org” that group got me so steamed I deleted my posts discussing that day!)
Anyway, when the reader told me he noticed this, I though… really? But as it happens, I use Firefox and have an extension that highlights “nofollow” links in pink. Other links show normally. I visited RC today. Here’s what I saw:
(The pink, nofollowed links are to Andrew Bolt and Prison Planet.
Here’s another RC post with pink no followed links:
Ok. So I know you are thinking “That b*****d, Gavin!! He’s trying to make sure Google doesn’t think my site is super awesome! He’s killing my search rank!”
Well, he’s not killing your search rank. Or my search rank. He’s just not giving us any link love.
And before you spew out too much venom, take a look at Lubos’s blog:
I haven’t made a thorough study, but looks like Lubos nofollows nearly all his external links even those of sites I think he likes. Beats me why. I’m pretty sure this decision on Lubos’s part doesn’t improve Google’s estimation of his blog, (or if it does, it barely does.) However, his no-following those links ensures that Google won’t count his outgoing links toward the ranks of bloggers he actually likes and approves of. Very odd.
Not only very odd, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Lubos’s behavior had a greater negative effect on ranks in his own rank and that of his link neighborhood than RC’s decision to nofollow those links. After all, if Lubos doesn’t link Anthony Watts, Google doesn’t “count” that toward Anthony’s reputation. Then, when Anthony, who links a lot, gives a link, his link has less authority than it would have if Lubos had given him followed links.
The effect of Lubos’ behavior may even be worse than that. Here’s something Matt Cutts of Google said back in June:
Q: Okay, but doesn’t this encourage me to link out less? Should I turn off comments on my blog?
A: I wouldn’t recommend closing comments in an attempt to “hoard†your PageRank. In the same way that Google trusts sites less when they link to spammy sites or bad neighborhoods, parts of our system encourage links to good sites.
Since Lubos nofollows links to good, non-spammy sites, he may fail to trigger the part of Google’s system that gives him ++ points for linking to non-spammy sites. If so, Lubos is kicking himself in the shins.
Does all this political nofollowing matter a lot? Not really. It’s not as if SEO and link rank is going to affect the traffic at a climate blog very much. Most of the traffic seems to be driven by WUWT and climate depot.
Still, it’s interesting to see the politics played out with nofollow.
Update:
Note: To show how politicized the nofollow decision can be, in a post primarily about a peer reviewed paper that included both Roger Pielke Jr. and Roger Pielke Sr. as co-authors, Gavin nofollowed the links to Roger Jr.’s and Roger. Sr.’s blogs.
Lucia: why are “classified under” headers in your examples in French? e.g. “classe dans”? Just curious
Jack
Jack–
I have no idea. I frequently see French when I visit RC. I assumed everyone did.
French? At RC?
Off topic: Lucia, have you seen the rather heated exchanges today between Gavin and the two Rogers over Klozbach? Entertaining reading. Gavin seems to restrain himself a bit with Roger Sr., but is openly disrespectful with Roger Jr. What’s up with that?
SteveF–
No idea. I did notice the exchange. I have to admit that on specifics, I’m not going to download all the data to figure out for myself who is right. Gavin might help his case if he edited out all the 2 1/2 acts worth of histrionics and expanded the 1/2 act of substance to provide readers with a specific detailed explanation of just what he checked and precisely how it is relevant to Klotzbach.
As it stands, Roger is providing responses which sound substantive, and which at least sound plausible. (I’d say more, but, as it happens, I’m not going to down load all the data and check. Just.. not going to do it.)
Given the lack of specificity in gavin’s post, if he want to convince people on the fence, he’s going to either have to respond to what Roger said. Since Gavin has a blog, many (like me) aren’t going to be trying to follow the mess in comments at multiple blogs.
Oh. BTW. Gavin is nofollowing Roger’s blog. I’ll post the screen shot of the pink link soon!
Gavin nofollows link to Roger’s blog:
“Gavin nofollows link to Roger’s blog”
Might it be that he doesn’t like Roger? Just wonderin’…
SteveF… Well… yes… I think Gavin doesn’t like the two Rogers.
Somehow, I don’t gavin’s use of “nofollow” was precisely what Google was hoping for when they came up with the idea. Initially, the idea was that we should nofollow links in comments to make it impossible for spambots to juice ranks by dropping links. This move was supposed to make spambots obsolete.
Of course, spambots still exist. The reason we don’t see spamfilled comments is that people wrote various spamfilters. (I use BadBehavior and SpamKarma.)
I never put “nofollows” on any links I put into my blog. I figure if I’m going to talk about it or cite it, the lease I can do is give them traffic.
This sort of practice underscores the pettiness that characterizes Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the RC crowd.
But I’m not worried about the few hits this “nofollow” takes away, WUWT kicks RC’s butt every day of the week and twice on Sundays:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com+realclimate.org
Gavin and RC (and Romm and Tamino for that matter as well) are making about as convincing an argument for AGW as suicide bombers are making for Islam.
The sincerity of their beliefs is not in question, just the effectiveness of their behavior as a way of making converts. Like the suicide bombers, they are unable to see that there is anything about their behavior that could possibly give an unsympathetic impression of their beliefs. Its a sort of social pathology, a complete disconnection from the way ordinary people think and feel.
This sort of practice underscores the pettiness that characterizes Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the RC crowd.
Lol! Does it underscore the pettiness of Lubos too? Have you given him your opinion? You’re so funny, Anthony! 🙂 .
Anthony–
I sometimes use no-follow in posts. For example, I’ve posted a (very) few sponsored posts. I no follow the links. This is requested by Google and the sponsors also requested it. That’s because they wanted traffic but didn’t want Google to believe they were paying for links to game the system.
I also no-follow a few internal links I figure the google bot might just as well not crawl. (That is, the link to my “about” page, visitors “manage subscriptions pages, the “contact lucia” page. ) Plus wordpress no-follows author links in comments. So, there are definitely no follows on this blog.
Btw, Anthony, have you got the hang of the temperature records having different baselines yet? I realise you’ve deleted all the posts on your blog which revealed that you were challenged by that idea, but I’m just wondering whether or not you’re confident of the principles now?
It seems important to me to know whether or not you understand these basic things whilst I read your amusing little snarks about RC and how your traffic is so much stronger! 😉
Simon Evans,
“Lol! Does it underscore the pettiness of Lubos too? Have you given him your opinion? You’re so funny, Anthony!”
Lubos does not appear to be selective in his use of nofollows. The RC use demonstrates that RC is, first and foremost, a propaganda site dedicated to promoting a particular view. A site that only cared about science would not worry about giving ‘google juice’ to sites that it disagreed with.
Raven–
Lubos’s blog carries a lot of ads. I’ve always assumed he has some notion that no-following will somehow help him monetize his blog. My assumption may be wildly incorrect.
In contrast, gavin’s post was clearly picking and choosing.
Raven,
The RC use demonstrates that RC is, first and foremost, a propaganda site dedicated to promoting a particular view.
Ok, and what do you actually think Anthony’s site is in all honesty? Do you think that his selection of every freakin’ story he can find about it being cold somewhere, snowing somewhere, whatever, is ‘promoting a balanced view’? Do you? I’d like to know here and now whether you have integrity!
I think Gavin is a wanker, ok?
I would like everyone to try to be honest, so what do you think?
Do you think that WUWT is anything other than “a propaganda site dedicated to promoting a particular view”?
I’ll be very interested in your response, by which I’ll judge whether or not you’re an honest ‘injun. If you’re not, then I’ll know that you are “dedicated to promoting a particular view”.
Cheers 🙂
Simon Evans:
Both sites unabashed push a particular point-of-view, but that in itself doesn’t make either of them dishonest. Just partisan.
But Lucia is right, this “no-follow” thing stinks. So does Real Climate’s dishonest hackery in how they handle people’s comments.
I’m through with them.
Carrick,
I don’t post on RC. I don’t like their moderation policy. I don’t post on WUWT any more either. I sure don’t like their moderation policy! It is a familiar and carefully-worked pretence that WUWT fosters contrary views (maybe it does so as long as they can be contained within the general ad hom barrage that comes in response to them and is tolerated, whilst any defence is snipped!).
Let’s grow up and stop pretending. There is a propaganda war afoot.
WUWT is a deeply dishonest site, in my opinion. And yes, Anthony Watts has my email and name, so he can sue me if he wishes.
You know it is too. We all know the truth of what’s going down.
Too late for me – good night.
Simon Evans (Comment#23355),
Aside from profanity, the use of terms like “deniers”, and clearly baseless ad homs, I’m not sure what at WUWT would be snipped. Can you give an example or two of what you find to be an unfair moderation policy at WUWT? I really am puzzled by your comment.
Simon I am personally thrilled that you feel the need to vent emtionally. The posts you say were deleted are in fact still there.6eel free to post on WUWT if you can leave your emotions at home. Cheers
Simon,
You may think Gavin is a wanker (23353) but you defend him and his views all the time — does that mean you think as highly about yourself? And sure WUWT likes to trumpet cooling news just like there are a lot of sites that trumpet warming news — the name What’s Up With That suggests it is a contrarian site, so it has to be contary to something don’t you think? In a perfect world all the climate sites would report all the news but the warming news sites don’t so why should WUWT. At least people don’t get banned for asking legitimate questions.
Again, I think this argument is rather pointless, unless somebody wants to obtain more objective numbers. Till then it’s all anecdote and opinion.
The issue at hand here is “no follow” links. And that is completely an objective issue.
“Politically Motivated Nofollows at RC?!”
Considering the whole ‘debate’ has been politically motivated from the start, you are a bit late coming to the party.
Roger Jr.s reaction at his blog is:
Yeah, at the moment if you look at the html source of RC, you find two nofollows, and no nofollows on the other links.
SteveF (Comment#23330)
“have you seen the rather heated exchanges today between Gavin and the two Rogers over Klozbach? Entertaining reading. Gavin seems to restrain himself a bit with Roger Sr., but is openly disrespectful with Roger Jr. What’s up with that?”
It would be foolish and incorrect (and an insult to climate scientists) to suggest that this parallels Sr and Jr’s influence on funding panels.
And I ~really~ like RC’s sun in their logo background graphic. Mean Ol’ Mr. Sun is all ‘splodey and menacing… poor Earth doesn’t have a chance.
I’m sure someone has mentioned this already.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
About the RC image…. Isn’t a red sun dying and giving off less heat than an almost white sun?
“This sort of practice underscores the pettiness that characterizes Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the RC crowd.”
Anthony Watts has never been petty!
Congrats on your success. Did you know Danielle Steele outsells Philip Roth?
lucia (Comment#23372)-That’s not something most people would understand. Red just equals menacing.
Actually, I don’t think your stellar science is quite right. I’ll have to check though.
Boris (Comment#23375)-So…because you don’t like Anthony that makes the behavior of these “professionals” and “climate scientists for climate scientists” OK? PUH-LEEZE.
Andrew_FL, I found this:
“Stars expand as they grow old. As the core runs out of hydrogen and then helium, the core contacts and the outer layers expand, cool, and become less bright. This is a red giant or a red super giant (depending on the initial mass of the star). It will eventually collapse and explode. Its fate is determined by the original mass of the star; it will become either a black dwarf, neutron star, or black hole.”
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/lifecycle/
Andrew
My submission to RC:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/response-to-gavin-schmidt-on-klotzbach.html?showComment=1258121615237#c2588760694649099463
How it appeared:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/response-to-gavin-schmidt-on-klotzbach.html?showComment=1258129116955#c4192310340774549918
“So…because you don’t like Anthony that makes the behavior of these “professionals†and “climate scientists for climate scientists†OK? PUH-LEEZE.”
I never made that argument. I have no problem with anyone nofollowing links. Why would you want someone who you think is wrong to move higher in search results? But please embarrass yourself and cry “censorship” like always because I do find that sort of thing mildly entertaining.
Roger,
Maybe Gavin nofollows links to you because you are often wrong and often insulting. If it means so much to you not to be nofollowed, then I would try to be right more often and insulting less often.
However, you may find your popularity declining in other quarters.
In any case, good luck reaching the level of attention you desire, whatever it may be. You could be the next Anthony Watts if you are dedicated.
Your pal,
Boris
I don’t think that the fellows at Real Climate have ever considered themselves just another bunch of bloggers with a point of view.
It appears their purpose was to speak [i] ex cathedra [/i] on matters of climate orthodoxy and identify heresies so that the offenders could be read out by the faithful. That may be why they find it so hard to ever admit that there can be any merit to any heretical work or any defect in works produced by members of the [i]magisterium[/i] such as Prof Mann.
What Simon Evans does not get is that the anti-orthodox side (e.g., Anthony Watts) admits that there is a debate and that there are points of view. The other side sees only credentialed truth versus insolence. For the anointed, Truth is not a mere point of view that requires demonstration.
And calling Gavin “a wanker” and attacking Anthony Watts on a rather personal level does not make Simon a transcendent figure seeking only scientific truth. It makes a him a partisan who simply refuses to accept that label but wants to apply it to others, a pattern of behavior characteristic of alarmists.
I do no think Gavin is a wanker. I think that he has staked out a difficult public position which continues to claim more certainty than it deliver and that he is stuck with it. He carefully eludes issues doggedly presented by Pielke Sr (boundary layers, measurement issues etc) while pretending to refute them. He attacks Pielke Jr for (a)the heresy of merely noticing that the Official Science has some rather conspicuous weak spots and (b) giving aid and comfort to the satanic notion that in some instances, mitigation may be more feasible than rapid economic decarbonization.
i think all the reasoned voices who are trying to get fair attention for other climate factors (land use, clouds, solar) and those who look at broader ranges of strategies other than moving all global industry and technology to India and China cannot be kept in Al Gore’s shadow much longer. RealClimate will increasingly seem more archaic in its orthodoxy, perhaps shortening blog entries to mere demands for others to “abjure, curse and detest” new-fangled notions about climate.
See, apparently the belief that professionals should hold themselves to a higher standard is not common sense but whining. When I get a job I’ll tell them that they shouldn’t whine that I should act professional. Let’s see how long that lasts.
Boris:
Wait… are you talking about Roger or Gavin?
It is hard to read the links posted by Roger above and not think that Gav has gone rather unhinged. He has always been shrill and whiny but here he totally loses the plot. It is quite amusing how he lectures Roger about discussing issues without getting personal when the title of his own rant is “Muddying the peer-reviewed literature”. He also includes responses to Pielke senior of the type: “Your refusal to take the correction on board appears to be quite deliberate. Why?” and “under the naive assumption that you would want to get it right all on your own”. I guess in Gav’s own mind, these aren’t personal.
Gav’s selective snipping of Roger’s comment and then replying to the edited sections is also quite distasteful.
You know, if I don’t want to boost someone’s google rank, I just don’t link to them at all.
Partly it’s because I don’t even know how to do nofollow (nor had I heard of it before) but mostly it’s because you have to be a real jerk to make me that mad at ya!
Andrew–
To no follow a link you just add rel=”nofollow” to the html for the link. So after the a href=”whatever.html” you add rel=”nofollow”. It’s very easy.
SteveF (Comment#23357) November 12th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Aside from profanity, the use of terms like “deniersâ€, and clearly baseless ad homs, I’m not sure what at WUWT would be snipped. Can you give an example or two of what you find to be an unfair moderation policy at WUWT? I really am puzzled by your comment.
It’s more a matter of what is not snipped from the attacks upon anyone who dissents. As you say, “deniers” would not be allowed, but the whole gamut of pejoratives aimed at dissenters stands. And comments like “Hansen is a fraud” stand but I doubt that “MnIntyre is a fraud” would (I don’t think either are, for clarification). So, I don’t like that any more than I like the equal and opposite elsewhere. The reason I mostly don’t like it is that it allows threads that are just plain boring one-sided slanging.
anthony (Comment#23358) November 12th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Simon I am personally thrilled that you feel the need to vent emtionally.
I’m thrilled you’re thrilled, Anthony.
The posts you say were deleted are in fact still there.
Woops, I had 404s from my links. I’ve now found one by going back to Feb 2008, so my apols for thinking they were not there somewhere. Here’s the one where you compared histograms of the four temp metrics without accounting for their different baselines:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies/
I can’t find the post where you recognised your error and withdrew your conclusion. Do you have a link to one such? Cheers 🙂
Andrew Kennett (Comment#23361)
You may think Gavin is a wanker (23353) but you defend him and his views all the time
Where have I defended Gavin, Andrew? I suspect you’re making stuff up!
George Tobin (Comment#23384)
What Simon Evans does not get is that the anti-orthodox side (e.g., Anthony Watts) admits that there is a debate and that there are points of view.
That’s not the impression I get from the lead posts. Any old rubbish is put up so long as it can be interpreted as being anti-AGW.
And calling Gavin “a wanker†and attacking Anthony Watts on a rather personal level does not make Simon a transcendent figure seeking only scientific truth.
Hee hee. Anthony Watts once called me a wanker on WUWT, so I thought I’d try it out. Anthony later apologised and withdrew the term, for which I thanked him. Equivalently, I hereby apologise unreservedly to Gavin. He is clearly not a wanker, and I don’t know what came over me. I guess I must have been subject to the same influences that Anthony was when he used the term of me. 😉
As for attacking AW, I hardly think what I have said amounts to much against accusing scientists of fraud.
It makes a him a partisan who simply refuses to accept that label
You haven’t asked me to! Try asking.
Are there other choices in the rel = nofollow?
RP Jr, Gavin is projecting there.
I’m not in the least bit interested in your bruised feelings because of some manufactured slight that you perceive in the comments.
who provide good object lessons of how people can disagree over substance and yet discuss issues without getting personal and without misrepresenting the other person’s statements.
Response: Science would work a lot faster if authors corrected their own work when errors were found. – gavin]
MikeN
I think you either include ‘rel=”nofollow” or you don’t. I don’t think google has created any other type of tag to communicate to search engines.
Rather than classify sites according to propaganda versus not propaganda, It’s much more fruitful to classify sites according to the following factual criteria.
1. does the site post the data and code backing up the claims made in posts.? Not link to code, not link to data. Does the site
have a code and data archive backing the posts it makes?
If not, then, I read it for enjoyment. propaganda is fun to read. opinion is fun to read. the funnies are fun to read. Arguing about whether something is propaganda or not is a meaningless fun activity. it’s a diversion. a distraction. popcorn for the brain.
carry on.
Now, why do I have this AGENDA of getting blogs to post their code and data? I’m a propagandist for open science. I think journals are moribund and stuck on stupid. I like citizen science. so should you.
Yes, Lucia you need to establish a code and data archive for your blog. hehe, pretty please.
steven–
Nope. Not going to do it. Too much work.
I agree with the notion of archiving stuff for journals. But I don’t think everything needs formal archinves. I just don’t. I know many of my readers disagree with me…. but there you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 GET SOME REAL INFO this is whats really happening and what the left wont tell you .
What about this politically motivated blogger? http://www.slanderyou2.blogspot.com/
It is just juvenile behaviour. Nothing more nothing less.
Sad, but all to believable.
Simon Evans (Comment#23393),
I have made a couple of guest posts at WUWT, and I stuck around through the (very long) comment threads that followed, responding to many. For a single post I was accused in comments of being both “obsessed” by greenhouse gas warming and “obviously” understating that warming. Comments are most certainly not only allowed by people who hold skeptical views of global warming.
A few commenters at WUWT are badly misinformed about the basics of chemistry and physics (no doubt the same applies to many other blogs as well), which leads to some non-sense comments that are just politically motivated. But many commenters at WUWT do have a reasonable understanding of science, do have open minds, and want to learn something.
I think that equating the moderation policy of WUWT to RealClimate is not even close to accurate. RealClimate (for the most part) will not allow anyone to comment who questions the magnitude of global warming predicted by GCMs. Comments by skeptics are edited to remove reasonable questions, references to publications that RealClimate disgrees with are removed, and many comments simply disappear.
What are the folks are RealClimate afraid of? Good science does not need censors.
Boris, Simon et Steve M alias the moshpit.
Your bagage is showing. Mosh hits the nail on the head as usual. Simon I’ve seen nothing here or elsewhere that suggests you have the means to critisize other peoples knowledge of the physics of climate.
Lucia, oooh, you can be soooo ………:))
StephenR
I assume you are referring to my decision not to archive ever scrap of everything at this blog?
I think we do sometimes need a sense of proportion. I think:
So, I agree with some of the “free the code”, “free the data” mantra. But I don’t agree that every blogger everywhere needs to provide turn key code and archive every single flippin’ little thing.
stephen richards (Comment#23498)
Simon I’ve seen nothing here or elsewhere that suggests you have the means to critisize other peoples knowledge of the physics of climate.
Are you referring to my criticism of Anthony Watts’ post comparing histograms of temperature anomalies without accounting for different baselines? In which case it matters not a hoot whether you think I have the “means”. Go figure out for yourself what is obviously wrong with it. If you can’t then you will have demonstrated to yourself that it is you who lacks the means. This is not a matter of my opinion, Stephen. You can check the error for yourself. If you have the means.
SteveF (Comment#23491)
I agree there are many good comments posted at WUWT, also at RC, I think. I don’t post at RC (only once, I think), so I can better describe my experience of posting at WUWT, which I ended up feeling was not a good use of my time, shall we say.
If what you describe of your experience with RC is a balanced view (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) then I would say that I think their approach is regrettable and even reprehensible. But then, I’ve already said that I don’t like the impression I have of their moderation policy (I don’t like comments having to go through moderation before they appear, for a start). So we probably don’t disagree about RC, but I maintain my view, based on experience, that the notion of WUWT “welcoming” dissident views is something of a stretch.
Hmm, my post disappeared.
Simon Evans, regarding cherry-picking, there are many different types of cherry-picking that one can do.
One can cherry-pick trees to form a chronology that look like a hockey stick.
One can cherrypick chronologies when making a reconstruction, for example selecting Yamal instead of Polar Urals.
One can use an algorithm that has the effect of cherrypicking those proxies that match the recent temperature increase.
And if I understand Jeff Id’s work correctly, one can use an algorithm to build a chronology that artificially creates a hockey stick shape(RCS).
Go ask him about it — when you ask on the RealClimate post page about the nofollows, even as part of a larger post, your post won’t pass moderation. Nice, huh?
I don’t think this no-follow issue has any importance. I personally find that Anthony’s habit of fully copying someone else’s post into his blog should be even more annoying for the blogger being coppied, even if Anthony links to the original site and properly acknowledges the author. If I can read it in WUWT, ¿why should I follow the link? It’s not only a no-follow count, it is a real “no-follow”. I won’t click it because I don’t need to click to get to the info.
As it happens, the people being coppied don’t seem to mind it at all. I guess it’s because of the colleagues-like relationship they have, all in the same ship against the same foes.
Nylo–
Is nofollowing important? Maybe, maybe not.
But I noticed it and mention it. I think Gavin’s editing comments and responding to the edited comment is more important. (His practice is lamentable.)
I think Anthony copied my blog post once. If you think Anthony copying reduces my traffic, you are mistaken. When Anthony links, copies or mentions my blog, that sends me a lot of traffic!
On the other hand: If anyone is going to copy entire blog posts, they would be wise to ask the blog author. If the blog author doesn’t like it, they are going to file a DMAC, and scream holy murder. It’s very difficult to justify copying entire blog posts under fair use, so you would have to take down the copied post. At the very least, this could cause the copier embarrassment. If the copyright holder got angrier… well… I don’t know.
Hi, I am using the tag even for most links to my own resources outside the blog.
It’s a routine that I began to do when some pages were delisted because of pointing to a page that was found problematic by some algorithms, probably spurious ones, and it was indicated somewhere that the tag may remove the threat of sharing the bad status with the targets.
My blogroll etc. is having almost no “nofollow” tags.
Lubos–
Thanks for the answer. I was curious. It looks like you are relisted now. But I could tell you were even handed in the nofollows, so it obviously wasn’t personal!