UBB.threads PHP Forum Software Community Forums Resources and Customizing How Do I? How To Turn Off "no follow"?

I seemed to have missed this new feature in the changelog for 7.3 and now am finding new links receive the "no follow" attribute.

I can't seem to find where to turn this off - can someone direct me please?

I think it is hard coded in - you could always use a piece of software to remove the references to it in the code.

Hmmm. That is not good.

Thanks for your reply - I have no idea what you mean by using a piece of software to remove references to it in the code though.

I guess I will need to check at ubbdev and see if there is any info there on how to go about this...

Find & Replace is a function of most editors.

You can search all files in the directory with a piece of software called Notepad++ (google for free download) and remove the instances manually... but in some instances it is good; use your best judgment.

Doh! I should know "find and replace" since I use it daily - in Notepad too!

UltraEdit FTW! :rawk:

Sorry Doug - should have given you a fuller answer - apologies.

No Problem. It is first thing in the morning here and I have not had my coffee yet - mind is still fuzzy!

I fixed it - thanks for your help everyone.

EditPlus FTW!!

So no follow is default in 7.3?

This means that links aren't "given" googlejuice, right?

That is correct.

What's Google Juice?

What's this No Follow all about??

Google Juice = Feeding Google

See Giz's signature: <a href="http://www.undergroundnews.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">UGN Security</a>

Search engines won't follow such links, which seems counter to part of the purpose of including links in signatures...

The nofollow instance can be edited out of /libs/bbcode.inc.php if desired (for links in posts; still looking for signature)

But isnt linking one of the ways to improve your SEO with Google?

What's the pros and cons with No Follow?
I see cons at the mo?

The pros, I assume, would be to include nofollow for things like Reply/Quote/Notify/Email Post buttons and other such "internal" links that search engines don't need to know about. Search engines won't follow links designated as such (though I suspect they still could find them in other ways perhaps).

As web admins here, with links in signatures, it would be expected that Google would find them, but they won't if nofollow remains in place.

The more links to your site on the web, the more importance Google gives your site (and hence its ranking) in their index...

Ahh i can appreciate NO FOLLOW with the buttons as you say jgeoff.

So is no follow on signatures?
And in say a topic reply?

Just curious, as i have to believe its been included for
a positive reason?

I'm not really sure why it was added in. I'm sure Rick had his good reasons. But an option would be nice.

This link in a post is appended with rel="nofollow", as are links in sigs.

If you use Firefox, my favorite feature is "View Selection Source" -- highlight some text on the screen, View Selection Source, and it'll show you the HTML just for that section. Try it on the links and you'll see it.

bbcode.inc.php can be edited to remove nofollow from links in posts, but now sure how to disable it for sigs just yet.

Personally I would not have it.

I believe it's a part of the new url parser; myself for one i like it on my site, as I dont' want to be held responsible for those users who link to sites that don't fit in with our site (such as those with questionable content)

What the heck has "nofollow" has to with that?

nofollow helps google and google alikes on pageranks, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

nofollow on sigs imho could be okay, but no real need. In posts, nofollow should be abscent, as posting a link on many forums should increase the pagerank of that url.

In sigs, especially HERE, when those posting are obviously webmasters who I assume want their legit links known -- and ranked higher in search engines, while at the same time promoting UBB (who's denying that "Google Juice" (haha, love that term)) -- then nofollow needs to go...

But in general, nofollow needs to go for user-links because even if it was that 1/10000 (or whatever lol) chance that it is real spam, admins/mods could delete the post before Google (et al.) even notice.

But I DO agree with nofollow for links pointing to any pages that require user input (Reply/Quote/etc).

I don't use "no follow" on any of my sites and do not have a problem with ranking. As for user generated links - really the only time you need "no follow" is if you have a very large number of spam links that you leave up for a long time. In other words, if you ignore your forums.

There is discussion in SEO forums that if you "no follow" most or all of the links coming from your site - you are telling Google that you have no confidence in the content of your site and no control either - and this can result is a lower ranking from Google rather than the higher ranking webmasters are looking for.

Since not using "no follow" has never hurt me - that is the view I tend to agree with.

The most valuable use for "no follow" is for helping control duplicate content (and this is being used appropriately in UBB) which can ruin your rankings in Google more than almost anything else you can do to a website.

When a high page rank site links to another site it affects their rating; I don't want to allow this for tiny little crap sites which will be gone in two weeks; I like to encourage sites to sign an affiliation agreement before blindly sending them traffic (and thus vouching that I want to refer them)...

You'll actually find several sites online who will pay you for linking to them if your site has a PR of more than a 3... It's crazy how many people just go and spam sites which just allow any joe schmo to post links (and not nofollow)

Having an option to turn off "no follow" for certain groups would be an excellent option. Right now to control spam I am just not letting new users use the sig file and in certain forums not letting them use UBB or HTML. In my case, spam tends to come mainly from the pros - and that discourages them. Once a certain post count is met the probationary period is over and full membership privileges kick in - without the "no follow" in my case as I don't really have the problem of members having sites that disappear after a few weeks or real off-topic sites being posted.