Was Google really the only search engine treating nofollow as an absolute directive?

What does this really mean for the nofollow attribute?

Before the policy change announced in 2019, Google treated nofollow as a directive — an absolute instruction. A nofollow marked link did not pass any PageRank or reputation signals, period. Other engines? They were already interpreting it as a simple hint among other signals.

This statement from Gary Illyes reveals that Google was isolated in this rigid approach. Bing, Yandex, and alternative search engines retained the freedom to analyze these links according to their context — and had likely been doing so for years without making a big deal about it.

Why did Google change its stance on nofollow?

The official reason given in 2019 revolved around battling spam and improving understanding of links. But this statement suggests another reality: Google was catching up to its competitors.

By treating nofollow as a hint rather than a directive, Google aligns itself with a proven practice elsewhere. This allows it to leverage contextual signals — anchor, position on the page, user behavior around the link — that other engines had already been using to differentiate spam from legitimate content.

What inherited practices relied on this Google specificity?

PageRank sculpting — this technique of strategically placing nofollow links to channel link juice — was designed exclusively for Google. SEOs invested time and resources into optimizations that had no effect on Bing or others.

Strategies for internal nofollow links to preserve crawl budget or concentrate authority, complex editorial policies around UGC… all stemmed from a mechanical interpretation of nofollow specific to Google. Since 2019, these practices are partially obsolete.

• Nofollow is now a hint at Google, not an absolute directive
• Other engines (Bing, Yandex) have been operating this way for a long time
• PageRank sculpting via nofollow no longer has the mechanical effect it did before 2019
• Google can choose to ignore a nofollow if it deems the link relevant and contextual
• This evolution brings the SEO ecosystem closer to cross-engine standardization

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Yes, and that’s precisely unsettling. Since the change in 2019, practitioners have noted instances where nofollow links seemed to transmit signals — fluctuations in positions after adding/removing links, correlations in backlink tools. Google denied or remained vague, but field data suggested partial consideration.

What is shocking is the implicit admission: Google had been going it alone for years with a binary approach while the rest of the industry had already understood that a contextual hint was more effective. This raises the question: how many other “Google specifics” are in reality delayed dogmas disguised as standards?

What nuances should we add to this claim?

Gary Illyes does not specify when exactly other engines started adopting nofollow-as-hint, nor to what extent. “For a long time” remains vague — is it 2010? 2005? This imprecision hinders the historical validation of multi-engine SEO practices. [To be verified]

Moreover, saying that Google was “the only one” implies exhaustive knowledge of all engines — a claim difficult to support for players like DuckDuckGo, Qwant, or Asian engines. The risk of overgeneralization exists, even if the main competitors (Bing, Yandex) seem confirmed.

In what cases does this rule still not apply?

Google can still choose to strictly adhere to a nofollow in contexts of obvious spam, penalized sites, or artificial link patterns. The hint is not an inverted directive: just because Google can ignore nofollow does not mean it will systematically.

UGC and sponsored links (introduced in 2019 with the evolution of nofollow) may receive differentiated treatment — Google has never clarified the weighting between these three attributes. Is a rel="sponsored" link treated exactly like a classic nofollow? Public data is lacking. [To be verified]

Should existing internal linking strategies be revisited?

If your architecture relies on strategic nofollow to sculpt PageRank, yes. The mechanical effect no longer exists. Google can decide to follow these links if it deems they provide contextual value — editorial mentions in comments, links to ancillary resources, secondary navigation.

This does not mean everything should be removed. Nofollows remain relevant to signal an absence of editorial endorsement — user comments, third-party widgets, embedded sponsored content. But relying on them to mechanically block PageRank flow is an outdated approach.

What about UGC and sponsored links already in place?

These attributes were introduced to refine context beyond generic nofollow. Google recommends using them to clarify the nature of the links — but their differentiated impact remains opaque. Observations suggest that Google treats them similarly, with slight variations depending on context.

The pragmatic action: maintain consistent attribution (UGC for user-generated content, sponsored for commercial links) without betting on a direct SEO benefit. This protects against potential manual penalties and clarifies intentions for internal teams or future audits.

How to audit the current usage of nofollow on a site?

Export all internal links via Screaming Frog or an equivalent crawler, filter for rel="nofollow", and cross-reference with the strategic importance of the target pages. A nofollow link pointing to a priority product page in main navigation? Probably unnecessary today.

Also check historical patterns — some CMS added nofollow by default on certain types of content (authors, tags, archives). These inherited automations from the pre-2019 era deserve cleaning up, especially if the affected pages have untapped SEO potential.

• Identify nofollowed internal links to strategic pages
• Remove nofollow from the main navigation and strong editorial links
• Keep nofollow on UGC contents (comments, forums, user profiles)
• Apply rel="sponsored" on commercial links (affiliation, native advertising)
• Ensure CMS templates do not generate nofollow by default on key elements
• Document linking policy for editorial and technical teams