[wp-forums] Request to edit .ORG profiles

Wed Jul 16 11:17:12 UTC 2014

And that's where you're wrong. If nothing happens, there IS a long term
risk for wordpress.org's SEO.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Mark Riley <mark at automattic.com> wrote:

> “Our (as a web community) own bloody fault? Yes.”
>
> NO.
>
> Google introduced no-follow as their “This will beat the spammers into
> submission” solution and it failed just as a lead balloon would.
> This is 100% Google’s fault.
>
> The more sites bow to Google’s whims the more empowered they will feel and
> the more they become the standard.
>
> Posts should stay at they are. The SEO of wordpress.org is not at risk
> here.
>
> M.
>
>
> On 15 July 2014 17:34, Joost de Valk <joost at yoast.com> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, rel="nofollow" doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean
> > anymore, in part because many large sites (including Wikipedia and
> > WordPress.org in for instance plugin pages) started to blanket nofollow
> > links instead of properly policing their content. So even though those
> > links are nofollowed, they'll still show up in people's backlink reports
> in
> > Google Webmaster Tools. Annoying? Yes. Our (as a web community) own
> bloody
> > fault? Yes.
> >
> > So let's "man up" and just fix it. It doesn't need to be automated,
> > Wikipedia has a spam fighting team for exactly the same reason.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Half-Elf on Tech <ipstenu at halfelf.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > They're all marked rel="nofollow"
> > >
> > > Joost, you're smarter about that than I am, but I thought that meant
> > > Google'd ignore it? Or is that only for WPORG?
> > >
> > > Yes it would be nice if we could delete that garbage but it's a
> separate
> > > system. I can't think of how to safely automate it either, since Good
> > > People Get Bozo'd from time to time.
> > >
> > > Joost de Valk wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> He can disavow, but it's not in WP.org's best interest to leave those
> > >> links
> > >> up: it's spam, whichever way you look at it. It means our internal
> > search
> > >> will bring up that stuff as well, as soon as we don't use Google.
> > Cleaning
> > >> up spam is not a task that's full of glory, I realize that, but in the
> > >> long
> > >> run, it *really* is better if we get rid of it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Mark Ratledge<mark at markratledge.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> if the OP's domain is unlockiphone.co.uk, he does have lots of links
> > >>> from
> > >>> spam profiles. More than likely is own doing.
> > >>>
> > >>> He should know or realize that he can do a disavow list with GWT.
> > >>>
> > >>> --songdogtech
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Joost de Valk wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> LOL he's requesting the editing as part of a link cleanup because
> > Google
> > >>>> has penalised his site. He has probably had those links created for
> > him
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> by
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> an agency where he bought links himself.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The only interesting bit here is to see whether those profiles were
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> created
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> from the same IP, and if other profiles were created from that IP
> too,
> > >>>> could be an easy purge in that case.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If needed I'll hereby volunteer to clean up profiles on WP.org if
> > >>>> someone
> > >>>> gives me the appropriate rights.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best
> > >>>> Joost
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tuesday, July 15, 2014, Jan Dembowski<jan at dembowski.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Putting aside the fact that forum moderators can't edit .ORG
> profiles
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> (not
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> forum profiles, those we can edit) I do not think this request
> should
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>> entertained.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://wordpress.org/support/topic/please-remove-some-fake-
> > >>>>> and-spammy-profiles?replies=10&view=all
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Part of the reason posts are not edited except in extreme cases is
> > that
> > >>>>> editing posts on requests can be a full time job. One that would
> > >>>>> suck-wind-loudly at that.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Would someone like to chime in on that topic? I've already
> explained
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> that
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> SERP is not a good reason to generate that work load. I don't want
> to
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> argue
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> with that member but I do think that topic should be closed with a
> > "I'm
> > >>>>> sorry but those profiles will not be edited for those reasons."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Jan Dembowski
> > >>>>> https://blog.dembowski.net/
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> wp-forums mailing list
> > >>>>> wp-forums at lists.automattic.com
> > >>>>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-forums
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> wp-forums mailing list
> > >>>> wp-forums at lists.automattic.com
> > >>>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-forums
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> wp-forums mailing list
> > >>> wp-forums at lists.automattic.com
> > >>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-forums
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> wp-forums mailing list
> > >> wp-forums at lists.automattic.com
> > >> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-forums
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > wp-forums mailing list
> > > wp-forums at lists.automattic.com
> > > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-forums
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-forums mailing list
> > wp-forums at lists.automattic.com
> > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-forums
> >
> _______________________________________________
> wp-forums mailing list
> wp-forums at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-forums
>