Matt Cutts has confirmed that the Washington Post blogroll links will not pass PageRank.
Here's what a typical link looks like:
a href="https://www.VivaLasVegasBlog.com" target="_blank" onclick="sa_onclick('https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/tracking/textlink/blogroll/');"
Matt says:
...it may look like a clean link, but the fact is that the onclick behavior invokes a new page and different behavior from a typical hyperlink, and that's visible to anyone viewing/analyzing the source code.
This is very good information to have. If I had guessed, I would have thought that this would be a clean link that would pass PR, but now I know differently. And you do too. 🙂
That said, who wouldn't want a link, whether or not it passes link popularity, on the home page of the Washington Post? I'd take that traffic any day of the week.
You know DD, I’m not technical at all. I can’t figure out why the link doesn’t pass PR. Can you explain it in some depth or does Cutts go into more depth on it.
As you know I have a business in the DC area and over a year ago I worked like a dog to have a reference in the Post on a deep interior page turn from a reference to a link. Well they finally did it…after working and cajoling and consistent effort and leaning on some contacts.
And that old link didn’t pass much juice at all….so this situation has been around for a while.
Now occaisionally they write about my biz and each time we get some press we pick up traffic. It’s still a powerful great paper. In fact we hear there is another article on the way. But the writer said it is behind another article she is doing so I have no idea when it will come out.
Frankly IMHO they missed the boat as did other major metro newspapers. They should have developed IYP directories for their region. They woulda been killers.
Dave
I don’t understand why it doesn’t either, Dave. I would have thought it would have passed PR. Matt really doesn’t explain it any further, although he’s being pressed to do so by Danny Sullivan, so I’d bet Matt may give more info soon. I’ll be watching that thread to see if he explains it in any further detail.
I’ll follow the thread at SEW also.
But you are correct DD, a link from that source would drive traffic to your site…..with or without link juice!!!!
I *presume* that the Washington Post was checked extensively (and manually) and the G people thought the difference between the href and the onclick was too large to be overlooked. So consequently the W. Post was put on the list of sites that don’t pass PR, like some other high PR ones and sites known for selling links for their PR…
{ /speculation type=”educated guess” } LOL
Stonecold commented in the SEW thread and confirmed Wit’s speculation, saying he had discussed this w/ Google engineers many times.
Dave
So, either the comment about the onclick behavior is a red herring so we don’t notice the handjob, or it’s a little of both.
Stonecold adds subsequent comment that indicate there are both technical and human reviews of links. The technical review, per stonecold, is based on proximity of signs on the page that indicate the link might be paid adertising.
That would seem to me that google or someone is misdirecting us w/ technical discussions of onclick whois whatsis.
Dave
I just reported the Washington Post to Google about cloaking pages about Govenor Patterson of New York, and redirecting the links to an article “New Govenor Admits to Affair,” a rather banal topic that nobody cares about. The govenor put it out there so that it wouldn’t plague him during his administration, in the wake of Spitzer’s humiliation..
I am disappointed Google is already aware of this, because that means they might not take the proper steps to ensure Patterson’s SEO is not damaged, although I asked them to discount SEO on that item. At this time, Google searches on the governor, even with the Post in the search, show popular opinion is on the governor’s side, and interest solely in his policies.
The site is obviously aware they’re manipulating the SEO. The article in question, the one to which others are being re-directed, closed after only five comments, the final of which points out that in fact the Washington Post may have played a role in Spitzer’s fall, after he outed the fact that the Bush Administration was interfering in state’s efforts to save the mortgage industry, and in fact had let the entire industry fall. After Spitzer released this information, his own reputation was attacked,