Dave Rohrer: If you don`t trust any site... why link to it?
Abindra Raj Dangol: Dave Rohrer so it`s better to have no links in the website rather than no follow links. What about doing it do follow then? That certainly follows the authority. What`s your thought on this one?
Dave Rohrer: Is it good for the user? Does it add context? Does it help answer questions? If you don`t trust the site, why link? Create some version of the content if possible that you want to link too on your site then.
Dave Rohrer: You seem to be hung up on the All or None. Why is that?
Travis Bailey: This is a bit of an exaggeration, but hopefully it helps. Say for instance you have Bob`s Landscaping, out of Newark. Bob`s site links to Bill`s Proctology, out of Los Angeles. Even better, they both link back to each other with followed links.That`s the basic footprint of a reciprocal link scheme. Seemingly unrelated sites, linking (followed) back to each other, in order to manipulate search engines. Things like that happened a lot more, in the past. Hence, the nofollow option. Though it`s generally okay to point *a* followed link to some penalized site. You don`t really want to, but you could. Usually with little consequence, if any.But with Google, it seems you are what you do every day. Or at least what you do over time. You shouldn`t really fear a followed link, if everyone is legit.
Michael Martinez: "is it good to make every external link nofollow?" <-- No. The nofollow attribute was only intended to protect Websites from links that third-parties (users) dropped without appropriate site owner review. Think of the links in comments on blogs. That is what "nofollow" should be used for."What will be google`s perspective on these websites?" <-- Google loves Websites. Google loves links. As long as you feel the links create a good user experience, don`t worry about them or the sites you`re linking to.