NoFollow Tag Means a Better Marketplace & Online Democracy
Earlier this month, all links on Wikipedia began featuring the nofollow tag. The purpose behind this decision was to discourage spammers from exploiting Wikipedia for their own SEO gain. Similarly, Google has begun to push the nofollow attribute on all sponsored links, suggesting that websites that featured sponsored links without the tag would be discriminated against in the Google search rankings.
Although the campaign to establish the nofollow tag as an industry standard has elicited considerable backlash in the SEO community, it is an improvement in online democracy. It will prevent advertisers from buying votes and ultimately make the internet a more ethical marketplace. In other words, the nofollow tag will make search results more relevant, and therefore better. As long as links are used to determine search ranking, the nofollow tag is integral to a better, more efficient internet. SEOers, moreover, are a resourceful lot and will adapt. If anything, Stephen Colbert's stage persona would speak out for his right to buy votes.
The Aim of Advertising
There is widespread concern in that if sponsored links must feature the nofollow attribute, it will drive online advertising underground and compromise the credibility of online content. However, the attribute actually gives webmasters more power as online citizens. Therefore, it will increase the credibility of online content by making search rankings better reflect market trends.
Opposing Google's drive to make the nofollow attribute an industry standard, Greywolf explains how paid reviews will begin omitting disclaimers that divulge that the review has been paid for, and this will compromise the credibility of online content. Greywolf writes:
I think [...] Google is being extremely hypocritical about the entire thing and using fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) to corral web publishers to their way of thinking.
[...] by making a big stink about it they are going to drive [reviews] back underground. The way reviews are now they are disclosed in a form that humans can read, understand evaluate and make decisions about on their own. [...] What’s really happening is we’ve got another FUD campaign going, this time designed to stamp out paid reviews in an inconsistent, arbitrary and undocumented manor. [...] What happens then, the market goes underground, the disclaimer requirement fades away, and no one, especially the people viewing a page know what editorial forces might be at work behind the scenes influencing that page.
Although Greywolf's concerns that review will be driven back underground are valid, they fail to acknowledge both what an advertiser is entitled to when they purchase an ad or review, and how Web 2.0 is changing the marketplace of ideas and opinions. In other words, search rankings should be based on reputation and relevance, and no advertiser should be able to buy that.
When people advertise, they are buying publicity and a brand name. They are not directly buying business or a reputation. A brand name is not the same thing as a reputation. A brand name is about being recognized. A reputation, on the other hand, is what the general consensus is about your company's products, services, and general ethos.
A massive advertising campaign might generate an initial influx of business, but if your products or customer service ethos are inferior, that surge will quickly dissipate. Sooner or later, you will develop a reputation, and that reputation will not only precede you, but your adver