Every backlink discussion eventually runs into the same question: does this link actually count? The do-follow versus no-follow distinction is where that question usually gets answered — and it's also one of the most commonly oversimplified topics in SEO, often reduced to "no-follow links are worthless," which hasn't been fully accurate for years.
This guide breaks down what these link attributes actually do, how Google's treatment of them has changed, and how to think about link value beyond a single binary label.
What Do-Follow and No-Follow Actually Mean
By default, every hyperlink on the web is "do-follow" — search engines follow the link and, historically, passed some amount of ranking signal (often called "link equity" or "link juice") from the linking page to the linked page. No attribute needs to be added for this default behavior; do-follow isn't a tag you add, it's simply the absence of any blocking attribute.
A "no-follow" link has an explicit rel="nofollow" HTML attribute added to it, originally introduced by Google in 2005 specifically to let site owners mark links they didn't want to vouch for — blog comment links, forum signatures, and other user-generated content where spam was rampant.
How Google's Treatment of No-Follow Has Changed
For over a decade, the standard understanding was simple: no-follow links pass zero ranking value, full stop. That changed in 2019, when Google announced it would treat nofollow (and two newer, more specific attributes) as a "hint" rather than a strict directive — meaning Google might still consider a no-follow link as a ranking signal in some contexts, at its own discretion, rather than ignoring it entirely and unconditionally.
This shift also introduced two additional link attributes for more precise disclosure:
rel="sponsored"— for paid or compensated links (required by Google's guidelines for any link exchanged for payment, product, or other compensation)rel="ugc"— for user-generated content links, like blog comments or forum posts
Link Attribute Comparison
| Attribute | Original Purpose | Google's Current Treatment | Typical Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| (none — do-follow by default) | Pass full ranking signal | Full signal, as the baseline | Editorial links, genuine citations |
nofollow |
Block ranking signal entirely | Treated as a hint, may still be considered | Untrusted or unvetted links |
sponsored |
N/A (introduced 2019) | Hint, specifically flags paid placement | Paid links, sponsored content, affiliate links |
ugc |
N/A (introduced 2019) | Hint, flags user-generated content | Blog comments, forum posts, reviews |
Why No-Follow Links Still Matter for a Real Backlink Profile
Even setting aside Google's 2019 hint-based shift, no-follow links serve purposes beyond direct ranking impact:
- Referral traffic — a no-follow link on a high-traffic page can send genuine visitors regardless of its SEO attribute
- Natural link profile diversity — a backlink profile made up entirely of do-follow links, especially from paid or pitched sources, is itself an unnatural pattern that can draw scrutiny. Real, organic link profiles include a healthy mix of both
- Brand visibility and citations — being mentioned and linked from reputable sites (even no-follow) builds brand recognition and indirect trust signals that don't require a direct ranking boost to be valuable
Why Paid Links Should Be Marked Sponsored, Not Just No-Follow
A common but incorrect assumption is that marking a paid link as nofollow is sufficient for compliance. Google's guidelines specifically call for rel="sponsored" on links exchanged for any form of payment or compensation — using plain nofollow instead is technically non-compliant, even though it accomplishes a similar practical effect of not passing full, unconditional ranking signal. For buyers purchasing placements through any marketplace, checking that paid links are correctly marked (sponsored, not just nofollow or completely unmarked) is worth verifying, since both under-disclosure and mislabeling carry risk if reviewed manually.
What This Means When Buying Backlinks
When evaluating a backlink purchase, the do-follow/no-follow question matters, but shouldn't be the only lens:
- A do-follow link from a low-quality, irrelevant site is often worth less than a no-follow link from a highly relevant, high-traffic, reputable source
- Relevance and site quality remain stronger predictors of real value than the link attribute alone
- A healthy backlink acquisition strategy includes both attribute types, mirroring what a natural link profile actually looks like
Auditing Your Current Link Attribute Mix
- Pull your full backlink list with attribute data (most backlink tools report do-follow vs no-follow status per link)
- Calculate the ratio of do-follow to no-follow links across your profile
- Compare against typical patterns in your niche — a profile that's nearly 100% do-follow, especially if most links were deliberately built rather than earned organically, is a pattern worth reviewing
- Don't over-correct — deliberately seeking out no-follow links purely to "balance the ratio" misses the point; the goal is a natural mix that emerges from genuinely diverse link sources, not an artificial target percentage
Common Misconceptions
- "No-follow links are completely worthless." Outdated as of Google's 2019 hint-based update, and even before that, ignored the real value of referral traffic and brand exposure
- "I should avoid all no-follow link opportunities." This misses both the traffic/branding value and the natural-profile-diversity benefit of having some no-follow links
- "Marking a link no-follow is enough for paid link compliance." Not technically correct —
sponsoredis the attribute Google's guidelines specifically call for on paid placements
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a no-follow link ever directly help rankings? Since 2019, Google treats nofollow as a hint rather than an absolute block, meaning it's possible for a no-follow link to factor into ranking signals in some cases — though it's not something to rely on or expect consistently, and do-follow links remain the more dependable signal.
Should I ask sites to remove the nofollow attribute from my links? Generally not a productive ask — reputable sites have their own policies for when to apply nofollow (often tied to trust, payment disclosure, or user-generated content rules), and requesting removal can come across as trying to manipulate rather than earn a genuine citation.
Is a UGC link the same as a nofollow link?
They're related but distinct — ugc specifically flags user-generated content (comments, forum posts), while nofollow is the more general-purpose attribute; a site could use either depending on its own tagging conventions, and both are treated as hints by Google.
Does the do-follow/no-follow ratio affect anchor text strategy? Not directly, but both fall under the broader umbrella of "does this backlink profile look natural" — a profile that's unnaturally uniform in both anchor text and link attributes compounds the risk signal rather than being two unrelated concerns.
A Practical Checklist Before Your Next Campaign
- Check whether your current backlink profile is skewed heavily toward one attribute type
- Verify paid placements use
sponsored, not a plainnofollowor no attribute at all - Weight relevance and site quality above the do-follow/no-follow label when evaluating any single opportunity
- Don't chase an artificial "ideal ratio" between the two — let it emerge naturally from diverse, genuine link sources
The Bottom Line
The do-follow versus no-follow distinction is real and worth understanding, but it stopped being a simple binary "counts vs doesn't count" the moment Google shifted to treating no-follow as a hint in 2019. A healthy, natural-looking backlink profile includes both types, and evaluating any individual backlink opportunity on relevance and site quality will serve a campaign better than filtering purely by link attribute.