On 4/27/07, Andrew Cates <andrew(a)catesfamily.org.uk> wrote: Then you're asking someone who is misinformed or working off impression rather than data. For example, the introduction of no-follow in user namespace almost completely eliminated the the constant influx of 'userpages' with hidden divs full of links. This can actually be measured, ... it's not just a random impression of some vandal fighter.

According to google e.g. http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=33582 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: