What do DirectGov and Wikipedia have in common? Outbound Links - each website is an authorative hub and represents different sides of the same coin in regards to the theory of how outbound links from authorative hubs should be handled.

Last week I was a speaking at  Government event where I was critical of DirectGov for using redirects on their outbound links. Funnily enough the exact same discussion from a different angle has recently kicked off about Wikipedia, because Jimmy Wales is thinking of applying an attribute called nofollow to their outbound hyperlinks as a way to stop link spammers, but the effect would be the same as using a redirect, it would stop those links having an effect within search engines.

The difference between DirectGov and Wikipedia, obviously content, theme and problem aside though, is that DirectGov links are manually verified, so there is utterly no reason to either block or redirect them, which was the point I made in my discussion. This is the best Government hub going so why would they cripple it, even if they need to track the outbound clicks that could be done with Javascript without damaging the links.

For Wikipedia however which is plagued by a swarm of spammers looking to gain links to external resources because of Wikipedias hub status, the problem is different, they want to stop links to bad resources gaining value from their site, so they have a valid case for blocking external links. However the criticism being put on them is that in blocking the bad they'll also penalise the good.

When I got back in the office on Thursday I was been notified by various bloggers and rechecked 'Aberdeen City Council' which was my example and it had changed since Tuesday afternoon.  Whether just pure coincidence or spies in our midst who knows, they were doing a CMS update anyway, so maybe it's just good fortune. Anyhow DirectGov now links properly to other government websites, so should really strengthen their community.

Here is the cached version of the Aberdeen City page from Google.
Google indexed this page on the 20th January:
http://tinyurl.com/35eddx

Here is the exact same page now:
http://www.directgov.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/DG_10011732

Spot the difference in the old external link vs the new one. I know I took my example on the 23rd. Here's another example NHS Helpline in Scotland.

Cached 18th January:
http://tinyurl.com/2jpxzg

vs current:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HealthAndWellBeing/HealthServices/PractitionersAndServices/DG_10036715

Aside from links to the LA websites DirectGov still have a bit of an issue themselves because they use 'Server Response: 301 Moved Permanently' redirects within their own website far to much, hence why a search on Google for any of the above shows a page with a link looking like:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/HealthAndWellBeing/HealthServices/PractitionersAndServices/PractitionersAndServicesArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10036715&chk=qIBtrE

But ends up at a link looking like:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HealthAndWellBeing/HealthServices/PractitionersAndServices/DG_10036715

Ideally they wouldn't have these redirects at all, which would greatly improve link consistency throughout the website.

Anyhow hopefully DirectGov wont reapply the redirects , and Wikipedia will find a suitable solution to its spam problem.