Is phpBB going to be ready for Google's rel=ugc nofollow?

[Swanny]

I searched but didn't see an existing topic. First the background: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/ ... ntify.html

Today, we’re announcing two new link attributes that provide webmasters with additional ways to identify to Google Search the nature of particular links:...

rel="ugc": UGC stands for User Generated Content, and the ugc attribute value is recommended for links within user generated content, such as comments and forum posts.

The question is will phpBB modify it's source code so it will automatically add rel=ugc to links posted by members before/by March 1, 2020?

I would recommend that only external links (pointing to a domain outside the phpBB forum is currently on) be flagged as rel=ugc.

[3Di]

The question is will phpBB modify it's source code so it will automatically add rel=ugc to links posted by members before/by March 1, 2020?

Well, you could open a ticket at the tracker and see what the devs think about that.

[AmigoJack]

modify it's source code

You wanted to write "its", not "it is".

add rel=ugc to links posted by members

There are boards where selected accounts do not have user generated content, but instead automated. Typically those accounts are called "bots" (but are unrelated to i.e. search engine crawlers).

I would recommend that only external links (pointing to a domain outside the phpBB forum is currently on) be flagged as rel=ugc

I wouldn't: everything that a user has linked to should be attributed, even if it's on the same domain or host - Google doesn't give more details about this, so why coming up with your own restrictions in using it?

[JLA]

To the OP - thank you very much for this Google update. 1st we've heard of it.

[Swanny]

Well, you could open a ticket at the tracker and see what the devs think about that.

I was not aware of that process, I will look into that.

There are boards where selected accounts do not have user generated content, but instead automated. Typically those accounts are called "bots" (but are unrelated to i.e. search engine crawlers).

To be fair though the vast majority of forums do contain almost exclusively user generated content. Very few that I've seen use automated posting.

I would recommend that only external links (pointing to a domain outside the phpBB forum is currently on) be flagged as rel=ugc

I wouldn't: everything that a user has linked to should be attributed, even if it's on the same domain or host - Google doesn't give more details about this, so why coming up with your own restrictions in using it?

hmm I suppose. I was just thinking that you are hurting yourself as the site owner if links to other content on your own site (which is under your control) are somehow devalued or worth "less" in Google's eyes. To me the ugc flag tells Google "that link / content" is not an endorsement of any kind. If it's on your site you should be safe linking to it.

To the OP - thank you very much for this Google update. 1st we've heard of it.

[JLA]

What about just sending all external links through an encoded external links page? Opinions on this? We do this and no-follow them.

[KYPREO]

I don't really understand why you would want to instruct Google not to follow links to third party sites. Provided you are not trading in backlinks and keep on top of spam, then the URLs posted by users should an endorsement for the third party site and they really ought to have the benefit of any value/authoritativeness attributed to them by Google. I would expect that any links to topics on my forum posted on other websites are treated in the same way - if the link is useful, then using no follow or ugc is just poor etiquette in my opinion.

[Lumpy Burgertushie]

I agree. The whole internet depends on links between websites and people clicking on those links to get more and better info.

if your website has no links out to other websites then your google ranking will not be very good. if other websites are not linking out to yours the same thing applies.

I have never understood the whole "nofollow" thing and now whatever this new things is just sounds like a nother way for site owner's authority ranking to be reduced for some reason.

robert

[KYPREO]

For what it's worth, I think that it should be possible to make a small modification to the External Link in New Window extension to add rel=ugc attribute to external links. This extension already allows the admin to decide whether to add "no follow". A manual code edit could easily change this to rel=ugc, or even add an additional parameter in the ACP.

This is the extension I'm talking about: https://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/exte ... ew_window/

I use this on my board to open external links in new windows, but I don't have the nofollow attribute selected.

[John connor]

I use that same extension. Do I need follow on or off pertaining to this new Google metric?

[AmigoJack]

all external links through an encoded external links page? Opinions on this?

The major disadvantage of this is: once your site/service dies all those URIs die, too. Depending on how it is implemented the URIs may be recognizable and as such reconstructable, but most of those rerouters fail to support the fragment identifier, effectively killing it and thus corrupting the URI.

Do I need follow on or off

That's unrelated: indicating the type of content and wanting to follow it or not doesn't collide.

[thecoalman]

I have never understood the whole "nofollow" thing and now whatever this new things is just sounds like a nother way for site owner's authority ranking to be reduced for some reason.

robert

This was introduced because high profile sites were selling links on their pages. E.g if phpBB offers you link on their homepage that's a lot of link juice for your site without the nofollow. If you have paid ads or paid links on your site it's required you use that attribute, if Google determines it's paid link or ad without that attribute they will penalize your site.

Google also ranks your pages based on what they are linking too because it's an endorsement of that site. If you are porn site linking to another porn site no problem, if you are phpBB.com linking to porn site because some user has an issue with their forum this is not something you want to endorse. You are associating your site with the porn site. There is other issues as well, if you have older forum you are going to have tons of old links going to sites that aren't desirable becsue the original content has been replaced with spam or worse case malware infested site.

The addition of the ugc attribute is great idea because now you can tell the SE I'm not endorsing this, the person that posted it is. Adding this is not necessarily going to prevent link juice flowing to that site.