Check this page with an assistantOpens a chat asking it to summarise this article and name the evidence behind each claim.
Claude opens with the prompt on your clipboard: Anthropic does not support prefilled prompts on the web, and we would rather copy it than ship a button that drops it.
The Attributes Describe Why the Link Exists
All three answer one question: what is the relationship between you and this link? Money changed hands, so it is sponsored. A stranger added it, so it is ugc. Neither applies but you do not want to vouch for it, so it is nofollow. Choosing between them is a question about the link's origin, not about SEO tactics.
Framing it that way resolves nearly every case people find confusing. An affiliate link is sponsored because you are compensated. A link in a blog comment is ugc because you did not put it there. A link to a competitor you are criticising is nofollow because you are citing rather than endorsing. You can apply more than one where more than one is true, such as a paid link inside a user post.
Since March 2020, Google has treated all three as hints rather than directives, meaning it may still consider a nofollowed link for crawling and ranking. That change is often reported as though it made the attributes pointless. It did the opposite: it made them descriptive rather than mechanical, so the correct approach is to describe the link honestly and let the system decide what to do with that description.
Which One, When
Most sites need three rules and no further thought: paid gets sponsored, user-submitted gets ugc, and everything you chose to link editorially gets nothing at all.
| Link | Attribute | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Affiliate link | sponsored | You are compensated when it is used |
| Paid placement or advertorial | sponsored | The link exists because of payment |
| Sponsor listed on your site | sponsored | Compensation arrangement, in the other direction |
| Blog comment or forum post link | ugc | Added by a user, not editorially chosen |
| User profile or review link | ugc | Same reason; no editorial control |
| Source you are citing critically | nofollow | Reference without endorsement |
| Ordinary editorial link to a good source | Nothing | You chose it and stand behind it |
| Your own internal links | Nothing | Nofollowing your own navigation solves nothing |
The bottom two rows are where most sites lose value. Plugins and themes sometimes nofollow all outbound links by default, on a misremembered theory about preserving authority. Linking generously to good sources has never been a cost, and hoarding by nofollowing everything mostly signals that you have not thought about it.
The Paid Case Is the One With Consequences
Google's guidance is that links created because of payment, goods, or services should be qualified. Unqualified paid links that pass ranking signals are a documented policy violation, and this is the only error in this article with a real downside.
It is worth noticing what this implies about buying links, which is the point most sellers hope you miss. If the link is qualified, it is not intended to pass the ranking benefit you were paying for. If it is unqualified, it is a violation. There is no configuration in which a bought link is both compliant and delivering what the invoice described, which is the argument made at greater length in how to get backlinks.
The obligation runs in both directions, too. If you accept a sponsored post on your own site, that link should carry the attribute, and the arrangement should be visibly disclosed to readers. Publishers who take payment and present the result as editorial are the ones most exposed here, and the exposure is regulatory as well as algorithmic.
Disclosure Is a Separate Obligation
The attribute tells a search engine. It tells your reader nothing, because nobody reads your HTML. Advertising standards in most markets require a clear, visible statement that a link is paid or affiliate, positioned where it will actually be seen.
- Put the disclosure before the links.
Above the content that contains them, not in a footer or behind a link. Guidance in most jurisdictions turns on whether a reasonable reader would notice it before acting.
- Say it plainly.
"We earn a commission if you buy through these links" is clear. Ambiguous phrases and abbreviations that only industry people understand are not, and the standard is the ordinary reader.
- Apply the attribute as well.
Disclosure and markup satisfy two different parties. Doing one does not excuse the other, and it takes no extra effort to do both once your template supports it.
- Handle user-submitted links automatically.
Comment and forum systems should apply ugc without anyone remembering to. Most modern content platforms do this by default; confirm yours does rather than assuming.
What This Does Not Solve
These attributes describe outbound links. They do nothing about links pointing at you, which is where most link anxiety actually lives, and they are not a tool for shaping how authority moves around your own site.
If you are worried about low-quality links pointing at your site, the attributes are irrelevant because you do not control that markup. Google generally ignores links it does not trust rather than punishing you for them, and disavowal is a narrow tool that most sites should never touch. The circumstances where it genuinely applies are in the link spam and disavow guide.
And if you are trying to control which of your own pages get crawled or indexed, these are the wrong instruments entirely. Noindex removes a page from results, robots.txt controls crawling, and canonical consolidates duplicates. The distinctions matter and are worked through in robots.txt vs noindex vs canonical.
Questions People Ask About Link Attributes
- What is the difference between nofollow, sponsored, and ugc?
Google uses these rel attributes to understand why a link exists. Sponsored links use rel=sponsored for payment, advertising, or another compensation arrangement. User-added links such as comments use rel=ugc. The general rel=nofollow value covers links you do not want to endorse and which fit neither category.
- Is nofollow a directive or a hint?
A hint, since March 2020. Google announced it would treat these attributes as signals to consider rather than absolute instructions, meaning a nofollowed link may still be used for crawling and ranking purposes at Google's discretion. Practically, this means nofollow is a statement about the link's nature rather than a guarantee about how it will be handled.
- Do I need to mark up affiliate links?
Yes, on two independent grounds. Google's guidance is to qualify links created because of compensation, which includes affiliate links, using rel=sponsored. Separately, advertising regulators in many jurisdictions require clear disclosure to readers that you may earn from the link. The markup satisfies the search engine; a visible disclosure satisfies the regulator, and you need both.
- Should internal links ever be nofollowed?
Almost never. The old practice of nofollowing internal links to shape how authority flowed stopped working long ago and mostly creates confusion. If you do not want a page in the index, use noindex; if you do not want it crawled at scale, handle it as a crawl question. Nofollow on your own navigation solves neither problem.
- What happens if I get these wrong?
Unqualified paid links are the case with real consequences, because exchanging money for links that pass ranking signals is a documented policy violation. The opposite error, over-applying nofollow to ordinary editorial links, has no penalty but wastes the value of links you legitimately gave and received. Most sites make the second mistake while worrying about the first.
