Google introduced nofollow because of their own flaws in detecting spam and it has since evolved into something much bigger that a lot of people do not understand.

I would like to call it the

GOOGLE nofollow PARADOX:

1) We start from the wide recognized assumption that links on website W1 that show other websites W2, W3, …, WN decrease W1 PageRank.

2) Therefor the webmaster (or seo) of W1 will add nofollow to all links that point out to his website.

3) But also the webmasters of W2, W3, …, WN will consider covinient to do the same thing of step 2 to their websites.

4) In conclusion each website on the internet will become completly isolated with all link pointing toward it being nofollowed and all link pointing out of it being nofollowed.
In this situation a search engine based on link popularity (as Google PageRank) looses all its efficacy because each website is a website that does not increase/decrease anyone’s else websites.

Someone could argue that webmasters that don’t want to loose the PageRank could simply totally remove links from their websites, and the parodox would be created in the same way.

But ask yourself: “could really webmasters remove all links pointing out to their websites?”
Guess how useless would become a tech forum if in the post called “how do i do something?” no one of the people answering to the post could add a link to an external site explaining hot to solve the issue.
No mentioning that directory of websites could not even exist anymore.
But even the commercial website might become less functional without links pointing out: guess for example an hotel website that shows links to the activities (like theme parks, museums, etc) close to it.
Do you think the owner of the hotel would accept a webmaster/seo saying it’s better to remove all links to the activities because we want to increase the PageRank? Obviously not, therefore the webmaster/seo would be forced to leave the links where they are.

So the parodox could not be applied by substituting the word “nofollow” with the phrase “remove totally the link” because removing totally outbound links means reducing website functionality and this is something no webmaster/seo could afford.

I think blog/forum etc should filter for spam comments this is part of the job of the editorial staff of the blog/forum that should read comments and decide whether to approve them or not. By doing this their bolg/fourm becomes more clean and they will have more visitors.
And for those blog/forum where the editorial stuff does not do properly its job and leave spam links everywhere: too bad! They will already get punished by reduced visits, because visitors are still smarter than search engine and they can immediately see if a blof/forum is not frequently updated and full of spam.

in either way, i think they should find a way to remove the nofollow :)

Google should remove the list if they are afraid of being accused of bias.

I have a reading list which includes content I do not 100% trust or agree with its morality, so I would never include it on one of my sites.

If you want to remain neutral, don’t put the links there.

Google have editorial control – If they like the site enough to put it on their blog, why shouldn’t they get link value aswell?.

You might get SEO’s trying to get on the list, but you would have to have the great content to make the list so why does that matter? The Google analytics blog doesn’t have a problem -

http://analytics.blogspot.com/