Comments on: Legal issues of calling people SEO spammers

By: web design development-AmongChina

web design development-AmongChina — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:34:43 +0000

Don’t spam for ever! I also do some seo works for my clients,but first I think should make the site friendly to SE,and then often update the content,and preparing some usfull content in the site,make exchange link and so on.in one word,just do it,but don’t spam!

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:40:47 +0000

Patrick, it’s an interesting question. My two-pennorth…

If the SEO (company or individual) being accused was actually using Black Hat tactics they probably wouldn’t sue, as it would just draw more attention to them (and public scrutiny of their methods). So I think the question would only arise if the accusation was blatantly false. But no SEO with any knowledge/credibility is going to publicly accuse another SEO, unless they know they can prove it. And those without credibility wouldn’t be worth suing.

I’m not explaining myself very well (need more coffee!), but I think I’m saying that IMHO it is unlikely to happen

Cheers, Jon

By: Yahoo! testing Sponsered Sites in Organic SERPs? | Web Analytics Blog

Yahoo! testing Sponsered Sites in Organic SERPs? | Web Analytics Blog — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:05 +0000

[...] pundits not classifying Paid Links/Posts as â€˜Sponsored â€™ & â€˜No-Followâ€™ on their site/blog. Our big brother here slips through some of their sponsor results/sites into organic [...]

By: Ammon

Ammon — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:38:02 +0000

Well, obviously Google will care. The only reason that Google built an algorithm that so heavily depended on links was because they saw them as a measure of genuine citations. Right from the beginning they built in the ability for the spider to recognize the most common ad network links, such as DoubleClick and TradeDoubler and ignore them.

However, once everyone knew that Google was so heavily link-based, of course, the market for crawlable links came into being, and started to affect the rankings a lot. So, Google invented the NOFOLLOW relationship attribute to be used in links. And to make people use it, let it be known that they’d entirely take away the ability of sites that they found to have sponsored, paid links from being able to pass any link-juice at all – even via their internal navigation perhaps.

I’ve seen countless sites suddenly lose all link power, and plenty of sites riding high on the power of paid backlinks suddenly vanish as the entire network came down. Both show that Google are serious. I just don’t think it scales so well, as current SERPs show. By the time Google’s new spider algorithms pattern-recognize one paid link network and totally discount its links forever, four more networks have sprung up to attempt to get into the lucrative link-selling market.

By: E

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:24:43 +0000

What’s the big deal with paid links anyways? As long as the site is relevant to the user, who cares if they used paid links or social networking link bait BS to get to the top. A company spends $20K monthly on paid links or hires a SEO company for $20K month; is this just more of an issue of where their ad dollars are going? We should only be calling out websites that provide bad user experiences based on the keyword search.

By: s

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:05:35 +0000

I think calling them out was ok, however you can’t be mad about someones title tag. Its their choice to put what they want in it and if it is working, congrats to them.

By: Vinay

Vinay — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:41:51 +0000

“Sponsored blog posts are also examples of paid links? http://www.thewwwblog.com/web-development-with-datadial-a-must-choose.html – Those links donâ€™t look to be nofollwed to me.”

Hmmm – http://www.thewwwblog.com/wp-content/plugins/oiopub-direct/purchase.php?do=post !!

Wooo!

By: Vinay

Vinay — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:21:54 +0000

Discussions seems to be interesting ~ finding fault with people engaged on paid links & sponsered posts.

Would someone explain me this – http://forums.digitalpoint.com/search.php?searchid=14346838 ? I suppose this is Matt Sawyer who just commented two posts above..? Matt?

Not to point who’s wrong and who’s right.. just surprised to see this!!

By: MÃ¡rio Andrade

MÃ¡rio Andrade — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:11:02 +0000

It’s agree with Peter and it’s interesting to see that one person was upset with “hot tubs”? The post shows a litle fustration but on the other hand I can understand how Musa is upset.

But still I don’t see any problem with using a title tag with “Hot Tub | Hot Tubs | Spa Hot Tubs UK ” although it’s obviously a SEO title for ranking.

By: Patrick Altoft

Patrick Altoft — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:09:33 +0000

Ammon, I agree about Google. I’m tired of seeing rankings built on blatantly paid links too.

My point in this case was – where should SEO blogs/companies draw the line when talking about the tactics used by other companies? At what point could a company sue somebody for an allegation regarding the colour of their SEO tactics?