According to google e.g.
Nofollow means that "we cannot vouch for this link"... it could be
rubbish or spam.
If the link is valid our policies say it is there as a reliable source
(see WP:EL). So we say we use reliable sources but we cannot vouch that
they are reliable sources. Its a self declaration that we have put up a
white flag and cannot keep our content of high quality. It stinks.
Better to half a tenth as many links and a tenth as many articles and
police them better. Or, as I keep saying get some sort of approval
process for new links.
BozMo
==================
Rob Church wrote:
On 27/04/07, Andrew Cates
<andrew(a)catesfamily.org.uk> wrote:
SoBs aren't getting pagerank from us".
And nofollow is a 6m Neon sign
saying "our content cannot be trusted" so the true warming feeling goes
to Britannica.
Please explain how an anti-spam measure also states, "we can't be
trusted"? I'd be more inclined to blame that (perhaps correct)
reputation on the gutter press.
Rob Church