Twitter links in profile page nofollow - No link love | Networking

Twitter no-follows the profile links

Twitter(follow me), a social networking website and a micro-blogging site as of what people say. Twitter helps in getting some good traffic, and in interactions.
And lately, Dave Naylor had exposed that the Bio section in the profile sidebar helps in getting a solid backlink from your profile page. This was until Matt Cutts(one of Google Engineers) got to know about that and told twitter to take care about that. And anyone can expect the next step –

Twitter changed that links to nofollow.

I got to know about this from Rae’s post about it. She asked Matt Cutts a bunch of questions and got no answer.

The same thought runs in my mind, why would Matt Cutts make twitter think about the links in the bio section. Is it just due to some small number of spammers who are coming over to twitter to get a backlink?

But do you think it is all good that a single link is not allowed to be counted as a backlink, for members who are not spamming and are there giving full day new content and updates! Every twitter profile page gets updates when a new tweet is made by that member and i bet most of the members are actively twitting out there. Don’t they deserve a single backlink?

The link to homepage was already no-followed so there came a trick on adding a followed link in the bio section of the profile, and now that too fades away.

I too think of the same of what Rae thinks and tells in her post –

I find it hard to believe that @biz (another twitter founder) and @ev would not feel their users deserved ALL the benefits of being active on Twitter and helping them build their own popularity and brand. I find it easier to believe that maybe Google wanted these links nofollowed in an effort to make up for their inadequacies and like the many others in Silicon Valley, Twitter has no interest to be made an example of. But who knows? Only they can answer.

An even bigger question for me is, if, IF, Google is really coercing companies like Twitter based on threats of dropping them from their index for non-compliance, at what point does someone decide that due to Google’s reach and power, that doing so is no longer a case of “guidelines” but rather one of blackmail?

There is no real need for twitter to place nofollow attribute to that single link at least!


  1. That is simply bad.
    Matt Cutts might be fully responsible for this. And partly David Naylor to openly share the secret.

    Lets see if still Twitter guys do something about it.

  2. Sometimes these policies are highly questionable, for example Google blocks sites who sell paid links on the other hand they advertise the site that is a broker of paid links.

    If they think something is bad, ban those who are the root, why go at the smaller tentacles who are only trying to make some money out of things they do.

  3. Twitter can used as backlinks? I have no idea at all.

  4. NOFOLLOW = NOMEANING (Except few traffic !!)

Speak Your Mind