Member Avatar for Dani

According to this page we switched links within our forum posts from using rel="nofollow" to rel="ugc". However, Do you think that it makes sense to use rel="nofollow,ugc", or is the nofollow part already implied? Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence as to whether they've noticed a real world difference between the two?

  • 2 Contributors
  • 4 Replies
  • 78 Views
  • 21 Hours Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by Dani

Dani AI

Generated

Short answer: using the newer UGC marker alone is sufficient for modern crawlers, but adding the legacy nofollow token is harmless and sometimes useful for third-party tools that still expect it. already noted that multiple rel values are allowed; the HTML spec also permits multiple link-type tokens and browsers/validators accept them (HTML Living Standard - link types, MDN rel attribute).

If you want real-world evidence instead of guesses, run a controlled test rather than broad guessing. Pick comparable sections or subdomains, apply one approach to Group A and the other to Group B, let both run several weeks, and measure: crawler activity from server logs, indexation status and impressions in Search Console, and ranking/traffic for a stable set of target pages. Keep other variables the same (canonical tags, noindex settings, internal linking). That gives a practical signal you can act on.

Operational advice for forums: default to the new UGC marker for user-post links; mark paid/affiliate links with the appropriate sponsored flag; only include the legacy token if you have integrations or monitoring tools that need it. Combining values is safe, but don’t rely on changing rel attributes as a method to manipulate link signals — moderation, content quality, and clear labeling are the reliable controls.

Recommended Answers

All 4 Replies

Member Avatar for pritaeas

According to: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2019/09/evolving-nofollow-new-ways-to-identify

Can I use more than one rel value on a link?
Yes, you can use more than one rel value on a link. For example, rel="ugc sponsored" is a perfectly valid attribute which hints that the link came from user-generated content and is sponsored. It's also valid to use nofollow with the new attributes—such as rel="nofollow ugc"—if you wish to be backwards-compatible with services that don't support the new attributes.

So it only says you can. Other than that, no real explanation found on using the two together.

Member Avatar for Dani

Yes but this is the SEO industry! That means you can’t just go off official Google guidance because Google doesn’t disclose what works best in their algorithms. Real world SEOs do A/B tests to see which actually gets better results, and then shares those results with the SEO community. I was just curious if any of that information was out there for this yet.

Member Avatar for Dani

… other than, of course, knowing Google treats nofollow as a hint now as opposed to a directive, as it used to.

Member Avatar for Dani

So it only says you can. Other than that, no real explanation found on using the two together.

That's why I asked in my question if anyone has any anecdotal evidence. ;)

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.