Does anyone remember that thing a year or two ago where bloggers invented a sort of “negative link”, so that you could link to a site you depised, like martinlutherking.org, but put a little notice in the link telling Google that the link was NOT a vote of confidence but merely a convenient way to let readers get there so they too could despise it?

I can’t remember what words they used for the conversation so I can’t find it anywhere – I only remember it didn’t actually work. Anyone remember more?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “links that don’t condone the recipient

  1. i1277

    That woould be rel=”nofollow”: “Typical use cases include links created by 3rd party commenters on blogs, or links the author wishes to point to, but avoid endorsing.”

    It has been criticised, but according to Google it works the way you want it to.

  2. Alfred Thompson

    There is some detail and discussion of the nofollow tag at Wikipedia – Nofollow
    As far as I know all of the major search engines recognize it.

  3. Jeremy

    rel=”nofollow” is also a microformat specification.

  4. Norman Hanscombe

    An excellent idea. The only problem remaining is how to have more bloggers aware of what deserves to be linked and what doesn’t; but in a world where so many believe “The X Files” is a documentary, that could be far more difficult.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.