đŸ”č Practical pattern

html
Copy code
<!-- Correct (disclosed paid link) -->
### đŸ”č Practical Pattern

To mark a link as sponsored, you can use the `rel="sponsored"` attribute in your HTML code.

````html
<a href="https://example.com" rel="sponsored">Partner Site</a>

<a href="https://partner.example" rel="sponsored noopener" target="_blank">Partner Site</a>

<!-- Incorrect (undisclosed paid link) -->
<a href="https://partner.example">Partner Site</a>

đŸ”č TL;DR logic recap

Concept Logic
Why mark paid links? Because paid links are advertising, not editorial endorsement.
What happens if you don’t? Google may penalize you for “link manipulation.”
What attribute to use today? rel="sponsored" (preferred), rel="nofollow" (still valid fallback).
What’s the outcome? The link still works for users but does not influence search ranking.

So:

The logic of using nofollow/sponsored on paid links is to maintain the integrity of search ranking systems — ensuring that only earned, editorial links count as endorsements.

Would you like a quick HTML example showing both editorial and sponsored links on the same page (to illustrate how they differ in structure and SEO behavior)?

You said:

so, you're sayinhg. basically. "look. i don't have time to review this content. who knows what the hell might be there. so don't look at me, bitch! don't follow that shit. what are you, crazy? that's just some dumbass looking for readers..."

ChatGPT said:

😂 — yeah, that’s actually a perfect street-level translation of the logic behind rel="nofollow".

You nailed the attitude.

To restate it in your tone:

“Look, Googlebot — this link’s here because some rando or sponsor stuck it in. I’m not endorsing it, I’m not vouching for it, I didn’t fact-check it. So don’t you dare give it ranking credit on my account.”

That’s it.

It’s the webmaster’s way of washing their hands of whatever’s on the other end of the hyperlink.
You’re saying, “It’s for the user’s convenience, not my reputation.”

So yeah — in normal English:

  • rel="nofollow" → “Don’t hold me responsible for this link.”

  • rel="ugc" → “A user posted this, not me.”

  • rel="sponsored" → “Someone paid me for this.”

All three basically say: “This isn’t an organic vote of confidence — chill, Google.”

You said:

okay, rando! haha. but. why is it an option then on the WordPress addd link thing? to me... it seems like, if i'm going to author content and add a link. well? i'm clearly endorsing that link by default. and then there's advisories to add it to your internal links. all this nonsense to try to predict the ever-changing science of SEO

ChatGPT said:

Exactly — you’re seeing through the smoke and mirrors.

Let’s unpack it straight:

đŸ’„ Why WordPress even gives you a “nofollow” checkbox

You’re right: if you are deliberately adding a link inside a post, it usually means you endorse it. That’s the natural assumption — “I’m the author, this is my editorial judgment.”

So why does WordPress still shove a “nofollow” option in your face?

Because they’re trying to cover every possible case — not just your sane, intentional ones.

WordPress caters to:

  • people who host guest posts they don’t fully trust,

  • affiliate marketers who need to disclose paid links,

  • and SEO “gurus” who obsessively tweak signals to “sculpt” PageRank flow.

So that checkbox exists to satisfy the “better safe than penalized” crowd.

💀 The reality: 90% of SEO chatter around nofollow is superstition

You hit it — SEO advice churns like a religion built on guesswork:

“Maybe if we mark these as nofollow Google will like us more
”
“Maybe if we don’t mark internal ones we’ll rank higher
”
“Maybe Google changed how they treat it last Tuesday
”

In truth:

  • Google stopped using nofollow as a hard directive in 2019 — it’s now a hint.

  • Internal nofollow links are almost always counterproductive, since you’re cutting off your own navigation graph.

  • Most use-cases for nofollow are now better served by rel="sponsored" or rel="ugc".

So, yes: most of the “use nofollow here, not there” advice floating around is SEO theater.

🧠 The sane rule for a real author

Use this mental model and ignore the rest:

Situation What you’re saying to Google What to use
You’re linking to something you trust or cite “I vouch for this” No attribute (normal link)
You’re linking to a sponsor, ad, or affiliate “This is paid” rel="sponsored"
It’s user-generated (comments, forums, etc.) “Not my words” rel="ugc"
It’s a link you don’t trust or haven’t vetted “I’m not endorsing this” rel="nofollow"

Everything else — all those SEO blog voodoo recipes about internal link sculpting — can go in the trash.

đŸ§© Why it became a mess

Because Google’s algorithms have grown opaque and the SEO industry thrives on uncertainty. So everyone hedges. Plugins, CMS options, checkboxes — all to appease a black box that changes every quarter.

Meanwhile, the original purpose was simple:

“If it’s spammy or paid, don’t let it influence ranking.”

TL;DR — your instinct is dead right:
If you wrote the content and you trust the link, leave it alone.
If you didn’t, or it’s paid, mark it accordingly.

Everything else is just SEO people talking to themselves.