Here is a PHP snippet I use to post the copyright date.
<? echo date("Y"); ?>
The copyright symbol is expressed as © and the spaces are expressed as
Then if I am linking it to a seperate page that explaines our copyrithe policy it looks like this
<a href="http://www.mysite.co.../copyright.htm" title="copyright" class="nav" rel="nofollow">Copyright © <? echo date("Y"); ?></a>
This way I do not have to worry about updating all those dates at the bottom of the page.
PHP needs to be turned on for this to work. I had to contact my hosting company and they gave me a bit fo code to put in my .htaccess file to make it work.
To which I replied:
I wouldn't nofollow a copyright page. That's throwing away a LOT of PageRank (assuming all the pages on the site link to the copyright page). It's better to let the PageRank flow through the page and back out to the rest of the site.
And then tommr asked:
I nofollow the page because it does not have content of value.
Is that wrong? Maybe this is sub-topic should be re-stated
Wrong? Right? I think most people will say that is a matter of opinion.
The idea of using "rel='nofollow'" on your internal, incidental content was first proposed years ago but only became popular in 2007 with the outbreak of so-called PageRank Sculpting -- a failed SEO concept that was based on ignorance and hyped up beyond all belief.
You cannot track and measure the flow of PageRank through your site so you cannot really sculpt its flow through your site. At least, trying to squeeze the hose more tightly in a few places to force the flow in a direction you want doesn't work.
It worked so badly that Google changed the way it allocates PageRank for pages that contain nofollowed links either toward the end of 2007 or in early 2008 (according to Matt Cutts, who raised the issue at SMX Advanced 2009).
One of the chief reasons why people wanted to devalue the links pointing to their "About Us", "Contact Us", and "Copyright" pages -- supposedly -- was that these pages were outranking the root URLs for the Website or company names. By denying PageRank to those pages, it was believed, the problem would be fixed.
Instead, choking off the flow of PageRank to incidental pages was followed by choking off PageRank to other pages, and suddenly some pretty big sites were sculpting themselves out of Google's index -- so Matt explained.
The correct approach is to optimize the root URL so that it ranks above incidental pages for a company/Website name. That's not hard to do. But you also should be leveraging those incidental pages to feed their PageRank back to the rest of the site.
In my opinion, if you feel a page is so unimportant that you don't want to link to it, then it shouldn't be on your site.
Some U.S. court jurisdictions have even stipulated that you MUST make this content easily findable and available to your users if you want them to hold the force of contract in a legal dispute. Whether a court would understand the implications of using "rel='nofollow'" on link attributes is another issue altogether -- they often don't get the technical details right. But to suggest to a court that you think these documents are unimportant MIGHT legally imply you don't want to enforce your rights or customer obligations under the law.
U.S. Courts take a really dim view of Websites that try to hide "gotchas" from consumers.
If you feel the content on the page isn't important, then you really don't need the page.
If you feel the content on the page creates a negative user experience, the fix the user experience by enhancing or restructuring the content.
If you feel the page is improperly outranking the root URL, then reoptimize your site so that the root URL is more relevant and the incidental page is less relevant to the primary keywords.
If you feel the page should not be appearing in sitelinks, then tell the search engine NOT to use that page in sitelinks.
I can understand and agree with using "rel='nofollow'" on user-generated content. I have never seen a credible argument for using it on your own content. That just makes no sense at all.
And now, according to Google, when you do use "rel='nofollow'" on internal links, the PageRank that would have flowed through those links to their destinations without the nofollow is instead distributed across the index -- "evaporated" as Matt put it. You're not squeezing the water hose and increasing the pressure on the flow of PageRank to the rest of your site. You're doing the exact opposite: you're cutting holes into the hose and letting the water trickle away, diminishing the flow of the pressure.
There is no way to truly hoard PageRank -- it doesn't stay on your site. It's an aspect of a dynamic state of the Web. But now, with this Google process in place, you CAN really leak PageRank -- something that just wasn't possible before.
So using "rel='nofollow'" link attributes ONLY leaks PageRank -- it doesn't sculpt, preserve, or enhance it in any way.
Edited by Michael_Martinez, 23 February 2011 - 01:51 PM.