What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

On the user profile page you can put basic HTML

In particular:

The following attributes are allowed on the <a> tag:

href=""  
title=""

It would be nice if I could add a rel attribute and value of "me" on the links in that basic HTML box as well to adhere to this microformat which stackoverflow already uses itself in the Website field. But I have more than one link which represents me which I'd like to describe properly in my description box.

Example:

<li><a href="http://www.brianbondy.com rel="me">My website</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/brianbondy" rel="me">@brianbondy</a></li>
<!-- Et cetera -->

Currently it will deactivate the link if I try to add rel="me".

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Since this is more involved, I'm putting it as an answer even though it's in support of the original idea.

I realize that the links in the "about me" box are nofollowed. This is often understood to mean that they are only for real people browsing, and that search engines are supposed to ignore them. What it really means (at least according to google) is that your site doesn't vouch for the content at the other end of the link. It still may get crawled, and may get used in ways that don't affect your site.

I realize that my "website" link has the property, and is not nofollowed.

The reason I would like to be able to use rel=me in my profile is a bit complicated. I link to SO from a number of different profile sites (most of which are dofollow), all using rel=me. Because anyone can link to any site with that attribute, crawlers know that both ends of a link should be validated before they can count a profile as confirmed to belong to the "me" that the web of other profiles create.

Unfortunately, not all crawlers are perfect, and sometimes miss pages or simply aren't interested in crawling an entire network of profiles. There are user agents who simply look for the 2-way "this page links to that with rel=me, that page links to this with rel=me". In those cases, being unable to link to more than one page means that my SO profile must stagnate as a leaf rather than as an interconnected web.

I'm not asking you to change the nofollow policy. Just allow us to add rel=me so we can confirm ownership of our profile in the context of multiple inbound rel=me links.

share|improve this answer

This attribute is already added to the "website" field of your profile.

This field is also un-nofollowed at 2k rep.

share|improve this answer
5  
This technically doesn't address his request. He states in his question that the website link already uses rel=me, but he wants to be able to add more than one rel=me link. –  jjnguy Jul 19 '10 at 18:01
1  
So, my suggestion is that you mark this status declined if you don't plan on changing it, or status review/planned if you do plan on changing it. –  jjnguy Jul 19 '10 at 18:02
    
@justin - status-bydesign –  Gnoupi Jul 19 '10 at 18:16
    
@Gnoupi, yea..or that. –  jjnguy Jul 19 '10 at 18:22
4  
not-nofollowed at 2k rep –  LeakyCode Jul 19 '10 at 18:25
1  
@Jeff: I don't think you understood my feature request. In my feature request I mentioned what you stated in your post about the website link already having it. My request was to allow basic HTML in the description to have the right to add a rel="me" attribute to the HTML a element. Could you re-read? It is not status-bydesign but perhaps status-declined because the feature I'm talking about is not addressed. –  Brian R. Bondy Jul 19 '10 at 18:59
    
why lock it? just curious –  jmfsg Jul 20 '10 at 0:05
1  
@Juan: Because of this and this. –  Jon Seigel Jul 20 '10 at 0:50
    
@Juan: I think I overstepped my boundaries by reverting the status which I felt was wrong based on the answer which didn't match my question. –  Brian R. Bondy Jul 20 '10 at 1:50
    
My -1 is not because of the status-declined, but because the answer doesn't address the question still. I will revert the -1 though if you write an answer to match the question. –  Brian R. Bondy Jul 20 '10 at 12:40
    
@Jeff: I posted another answer in support of the idea, I'd appreciate your input. –  Paul McMillan Oct 31 '10 at 18:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .