Dofollow vs Nofollow Links: The Complete Difference

Every backlink carries a quiet instruction to search engines: either "count this as an endorsement" or "don't". That instruction is the difference between dofollow and nofollow links, and misunderstanding it is one of the most common ways beginners waste months building links that were never going to move rankings.

This guide explains both types, how to tell them apart in two clicks, what changed when Google rewrote the rules in 2019, and — the question everyone actually cares about — whether nofollow links help SEO at all.

What is a dofollow link?

A dofollow link is simply a normal link — plain HTML with no special instruction attached:

<a href="https://example.com/">example anchor</a>

Strictly speaking, there is no "dofollow" attribute — you will never see rel="dofollow" in valid code. The term is just industry shorthand for a link that hasn't been marked nofollow. By default, every link is followable: crawlers pass through it and it passes ranking credit — the link juice — from the linking page to yours.

When SEOs talk about building links, dofollow links are almost always what they mean, because these are the links that transfer authority and move rankings — it is also the first thing to confirm about any placement you consider, including the sites in our publisher network, where dofollow status is listed upfront.

What is a nofollow link?

A nofollow link carries a rel attribute asking search engines not to treat it as an endorsement:

<a href="https://example.com/" rel="nofollow">example anchor</a>

Google introduced rel="nofollow" in 2005 to fight comment spam — if links in comments passed no credit, spamming comments became pointless. Site owners then adopted it for any link they didn't want to vouch for: user-submitted content, untrusted sources, and paid placements.

The 2019 update: sponsored, UGC, and hints

In September 2019 Google split the instruction into three flavours and changed how it reads them:

• rel="nofollow" — the general "no endorsement" marker.
• rel="sponsored" — for paid links and adverts. Required for anything money touched — the compliant half of Google’s paid links policy.
• rel="ugc" — for user-generated content, like comments and forum posts.

Crucially, all three became hints rather than directives. Google now reserves the right to count a nofollow link for ranking if it judges the link genuine. In practice, plan as if nofollow passes nothing — but the wall between the two is no longer absolute.

How to check if a link is dofollow or nofollow

1. Right-click the link in your browser and choose Inspect.
2. Look at the highlighted <a> tag. If the rel attribute contains nofollow, sponsored or ugc, it's nofollow. No rel attribute (or values like noopener) means dofollow.

Checking one link at a time gets old fast — browser extensions can highlight every nofollow link on a page, and backlink tools such as Ahrefs or Semrush label the attribute for every backlink in your profile.

Dofollow vs nofollow: the complete difference

• Ranking credit: dofollow passes authority; nofollow generally doesn't (with Google's "hint" caveat).
• Anchor text signal: dofollow anchors tell Google what your page is about; nofollow anchors carry far less weight.
• Traffic: identical — a human clicking a link neither knows nor cares about its rel attribute.
• Where you find them: dofollow dominates editorial content; nofollow dominates comments, forums, social media, press releases and most big platforms (Wikipedia, YouTube descriptions, Reddit).

Do nofollow links help SEO?

More than their reputation suggests. Four honest reasons not to dismiss them:

1. They may pass something. Since 2019, nofollow is a hint. Nobody outside Google knows how often the hint is overridden, but "sometimes" is the official answer.
2. They bring readers. A nofollow mention on a busy site puts your work in front of people who can later cite you with dofollow links. Many an editorial link started life as a nofollow Reddit thread.
3. They build a natural profile. Real sites earn a healthy mix of both. A backlink profile that is 100% dofollow looks engineered, because natural linking never works out that way.
4. They protect you. Properly marking your own paid links keeps you compliant with Google's spam policies. Selling dofollow links is what earns penalties.

When should you use nofollow on your own site?

• Paid placements and affiliate links — use rel="sponsored" (nofollow also works).
• User-generated content — comments and forum posts get rel="ugc".
• Links you can't vouch for — citing a dubious source you're criticising, for example.

Everything else — including your normal outbound links to good resources — should stay followable. Hoarding link juice by nofollowing every external link is superstition, not strategy; linking out to quality sources is a normal feature of trustworthy content.

What a healthy profile looks like

Audit any established brand and you will find a blend — often somewhere around 60–80% dofollow with the rest nofollow, though the "right" ratio is simply whatever earning links naturally produces. If your profile is drifting far from that because every link came from the same tactic, vary the tactics, not the attribute. And before you chase more of either kind, learn which types of backlinks are worth having in the first place — type and placement matter more than the rel attribute ever will.

Frequently asked questions

Can nofollow links hurt my site?

Practically never. Even spammy nofollow links are ignored rather than punished — that was the attribute's entire purpose.

Should I ask a site to change my nofollow link to dofollow?

If the mention is editorial and the relationship is friendly, it costs one polite email. Many sites nofollow everything by blanket policy though, so accept a no gracefully — the mention still has value. If auditing your own dofollow/nofollow mix sounds tedious, we are happy to help.

Are Wikipedia links worthless then?

For direct ranking credit, mostly yes — every outbound Wikipedia link is nofollow. For visibility, credibility and the researchers and journalists who mine Wikipedia for sources, they are anything but worthless.