Should you really keep nofollow attributes on your outbound links?

What does Google really say about the role of nofollow in 2020 and beyond?

Since March 2020, Google no longer treats the rel="nofollow" attribute as an absolute directive, but as a hint. In practice, the engine can choose to follow these links and consider them for ranking, even if they carry the nofollow tag.

This statement from Mueller aligns with that logic: if you placed nofollow on legitimate editorial links (academic citations, data sources, complementary resources), you are not fully leveraging their potential. Google can interpret these links as quality signals and semantic context, especially if they point to authoritative sites in your field.

Why does Google encourage the removal of nofollow from certain links?

The engine seeks to better understand the natural link graph of the web. A site that cites its sources and points to relevant resources sends a strong editorial signal. In contrast, a site that places nofollow on all its outbound links out of fear of "losing juice" exhibits a defensive stance that does not align with healthy editorial behavior.

Mueller emphasizes "if you are certain of their relevance". This nuance is crucial: it's not about removing all nofollow, but only those that protect legitimate links. Links to advertisers, user-generated content that is not moderated, or high-risk sites must keep their nofollow (or better: rel="sponsored" / rel="ugc").

What qualifies as a 'natural' outbound link in this context?

A natural link, in this context, is an editorial link that you chose to include because it provides value to the reader. Examples: citing a scientific study, referencing a third-party tool that you sincerely recommend, linking to the official documentation of a technology you mention.

Conversely, a non-natural link always requires a nofollow or appropriate attribute: link exchanges, commercial partnerships, widgets provided by third parties, comment signatures, affiliate links. The boundary is simple: if the link exists for any reason other than the pure utility of the reader, it must be qualified.

• Editorial links to reliable sources do not need nofollow and can even enhance your E-E-A-T
• Sponsored or affiliate links must carry rel="sponsored" to comply with guidelines
• Unmoderated UGC links (forums, comments) require rel="ugc" to signal their nature
• Removing a nofollow from a natural link incurs no penalty and can improve the semantic understanding of your page
• The relevance of the target site is the decisive criterion: a link to a spammy or off-topic site must remain nofollow, regardless of your intent

Is Google's position consistent with on-the-ground observations?

Yes, and tests conducted since 2020 confirm this. Sites that have removed nofollow from their academic citations and editorial references have seen an improvement in their thematic relevance in the SERPs. Google seems to better associate these sites with the semantic fields of their sources.

However, be cautious of the opposite effect: removing nofollow from links to low-quality or off-topic sites can send confusing signals. If you cite a competitor to criticize them, the nofollow remains relevant to avoid any unwanted thematic association. The nuance "if you are certain of their relevance" is not trivial.

What grey areas remain in this statement?

Mueller does not specify how many outbound dofollow links are "acceptable" on a page, nor what the ideal dofollow/nofollow ratio is. [To be checked]: some SEOs report that pages with 20+ outbound dofollow links to third-party sites lose ranking capability, probably because Google interprets this as a less specialized hub page.

Another unclear point: the differential treatment between a link to a trusted site (Wikipedia, .edu study) and a link to an average blog. Does Google value links to recognized sources more highly? Observations suggest that it does, but there is no official confirmation. When in doubt, prioritize high-quality sources for your dofollow links.

In what cases should nofollow absolutely be maintained?

Any link that presents a reputational or algorithmic risk should retain its nofollow, or even migrate to more precise attributes (sponsored, UGC). Third-party widgets, share buttons, links in footers provided by partners: these are all non-editorial link vectors that should be neutralized.

Links to unverified sites or those of questionable quality should also retain nofollow. If you haven't audited the destination (low trust flow, thin content, aggressive advertising), nofollow is a legitimate protection. Google does not penalize for being overly cautious, but it rewards smart editorial curation.

Which dofollow links should you prioritize on your pages?

Start by identifying your strategic pages (pillar content, in-depth guides, case studies) and audit their outbound links. Look for citations from reliable sources, references to recognized tools, links to studies or official documentation. These should be your primary candidates for nofollow removal.

Use a tool like Screaming Frog to extract all your outbound links with their rel attribute. Filter the nofollow links, and then review them manually. Ask yourself: "Does this link provide contextual value and credibility to my content?" If so, and the target site is healthy, remove the nofollow.

How can you verify that a site deserves a dofollow link?

Before removing a nofollow, validate three criteria. First criterion: the domain's reputation. Check its Trust Flow (Majestic), Domain Rating (Ahrefs), or Domain Authority (Moz). A score above 40-50 is generally safe. Second criterion: thematic relevance. Does the site cover the same semantic universe as your page?

Third criterion: the absence of toxic signals. Consult Google Search Console to see if the domain has manual actions, and check that it is not on a known spam list (Spamhaus, SURBL). A tool like SEMrush Backlink Audit can automate part of this verification. When in doubt, keep the nofollow.

What to do about links to competitors or neutral sites?

If you cite a competitor in a comparative article or a critical analysis, nofollow remains a defensible practice. You do not want Google to overly associate your page with theirs. However, if the citation is purely factual ("According to study X published by Y..."), a dofollow link can enhance your editorial credibility.

For neutral sites (SaaS tools you mention without partnership, general media), apply the relevance rule: if the link helps the reader and reinforces your point, change it to dofollow. If it’s an anecdotal mention, nofollow incurs no cost and avoids any ambiguity.

• Audit your 20 most strategic pages and list all outbound links with nofollow
• Check the quality of target domains (Trust Flow > 40, no penalties)
• Remove nofollow from academic citations, official sources, and relevant editorial resources
• Keep nofollow on all sponsored links, affiliate links, UGC, and links to unverified sites
• Document your changes so you can revert if a target site degrades
• Monitor your positions on Search Console after modifications to detect any negative impact (rare but possible)