| 10:03 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, I reported a competitor a year ago and it looks like he got a lifetime ban.
Best "SEO" I ever did.
| 10:07 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
However SteveB's site looks, doesn't change the fact that:
It is Ok to Report People Who Do Bad Things.
It is NOT Ok to Do Bad Things
(hence the badness)
[edited by: shasan at 10:09 pm (utc) on July 16, 2003]
| 10:09 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I wonder when Google will bring in the waffly crap filter. Some of us might fall off our high horses on that day.
| 10:11 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Fleapit, my site is built for the end user. That is the point. You guys who don't rely on content just will never get it I guess. What you call "crap" is the stuff users want. What is so hard to get about that? Users want content, they don't want seo gibberish. Even if seo gibberish gets people to sites, content still has to do whatever you want it to do.
I give my users pages and pages of some of the best content available on a topic. Everything else springs from that. It is not hard at all to follow google's rules when you have good content.
| 10:12 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Stick to poker Steve... and that especially applies your very sad chorus. Reading the depth and detail of people's posts on here clearly isn't your strong card.
I suspect you will cringe when you read this thread in another 12 months or so and you are wiser WRT search engines.. AND you have been shafted for blindly following one-sided rules without question.
By the way... I'm not complaining. I'm simply trying to enlighten. I'm clearly wasting my time with some folk though.
I'm also not the first who has given up on you: not my loss, yours... but you certainly won't accept that... YET.
The field is yours, respond with whatever garbage you wish... I'm off to SEO... read that however you want.
[edited by: Napoleon at 10:14 pm (utc) on July 16, 2003]
| 10:13 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
you say poker so many times I'm gonna see it in my sleep.
Pronouns are stylish however they are less helpful in manipulating search results. You obviously have figured that out though.
Keyword spamming is still spamming by my book.
| 10:14 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sounds kind of pitiful that now Google defines "ethics", "decent person", "morals"... Who are they after all?
shasan says: Breaking these rules hurt fellow webmasters.
Google's inability to implement its own rules hurts fellow webmasters!
When I create my sites I'm thinking about my visitors first. If I want to take a chance and use a questionable technique that benefits my users - it is my business only. If I get excluded from their index - my problem. Do I have to be aware of the Google rules? ONLY if I care about ranking... I'll have a choice to fix the problem or get my traffic from the other engines, right? So WHEN should I think ETHICS here?
Spamming is wrong. Since there is no other big players on the SE market - I follow the Google rules. I have to.
[edited by: wertwert at 10:30 pm (utc) on July 16, 2003]
| 10:20 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
wertwer, it sounds like you are already thinking about ethics.
you state that if you want to use a 'questionable' technique that it is up to you.
the point is that google has defined very clearly what techniques not to use.
if you choose to use one of those, then be prepared to be kicked out of their index of the web.
if you are comfortable losing google traffic, then use hidden text, hidden links, and cloaking.
otherwise, turn away from the dark side, and join the webmasters that build high quality sites without cheating.
| 10:21 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Google's inability to implement its own rules hurts fellow webmasters!
That could be true. Doesn't change anything. If it is true, then people should lobby and protestand make Google change their ways. Short of that, there's nothing really one can do is there?
The question at some point BECAME :) whether it was OK to report people or not. I think it is.
| 10:29 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"The field is yours, respond with whatever garbage you wish."
Yet again, someone tossses off a gratitous insult without addressing the issues. Is it a coincidence that those who need to cheat to compete can't defend their indefensible position? Of course not. The insulting posts here where people who play by the rules are attacked by those who cheat tell what there is to tell.
Play by the rules, or don't. That is your decision. The link is above. Google provides guidance, and asks for help. If you want to play a fair game, its all right there. If you want to cheat, and cut in line, and break the rules, that is the type of life you can choose for yourself. Those of us who want to play fair are still going to do our best to see that everyone does play fair.
| 10:37 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just my 2 cents worth
I to see many spammers above me in serps , and have thought about
1 If you cant beat them join them
2 reporting them
3 get on with my business and let them and google worry about theirs
In the end I chose number 3
1 What goes round comes round
2 Google will get wise to some of these tricks of the trade
and then these guys will bleat and i will cry buckets for them!
3 I am sure there are things I do with my business that have not been 100% ethical so he has no sin throw the first stone ( me im sure i am a sinner )
If the guy who first posted this felt his hands were lilly white then to report abuse was his perrogative not my personal style but we are all different
| 10:38 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> where people who play by the rules are attacked by those who cheat <<
I cheat, and you play by 'the rules', whatever they are? And you have never even seen any of my sites? Oh dear.
Good night Steve. I've much bigger fish to fry.
| 10:43 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Where is Percentages on this thread? He would set you all straight.
Steveb - if you are a poker player you will know a lot about odds. You will also know about diversification.
Clearly you are pursuing a low risk strategy which entails the high cost of working hard on your site. There are other strategies which involve more risk with less work and then high risk with minimal work. Every punter takes his choice based on his risk-reward profile. Some of us play more than one hand at a time. This diversifies our risk and minimizes our losses.
Spam is a bluff. As in Poker, sometimes you get caught, sometimes not. There is no shame in being caught. It's just your financial loss if the stakes were high.
I see the internet the same way. I'm surprised you don't.
| 10:44 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It is just a shame that in order to create a Google kosher site for a highly competitive keyword it ends up like yours Steveb. Ok its not horrendous but it is what it is, a site trying to get a high ranking with everything on show warts and all.
I have never used cloaking, but maybe that would be a way forward for a lot of site developers. Instead of many different rules there could be one rule. Do what you want as long as it is on topic. If we all did it then sites could focus on being more user and content friendly rather than focusing on doing something "illegal". Ok it would have to be made a lot more simple than it currently is but by making it available to everyone then it doesn't create an "unfair advantage"
I don't know about you but I much prefer a site which looks good, works well, has good content (not just content) and is on topic i.e matches my search criteria well. How that person got there doesn't bother me as long as it fits the bill. I do not feel cheated or misled, quite to the contrary I feel saitisfied and informed.
Anyway, it's all pie in the sky as there will never be a utopia. John Lennon couldn't be more wrong with Imagine. Not saying it doesn't appeal but it is not realistic now or ever. In order to know black we need white, to understand good we need bad, rich we need poor. That is the way of the world, Darwins survival of the fittest holds true now in the virtual world just as much as it did during the Roman empire.
| 10:47 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Nice post SlyOldDog :)
| 10:52 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Spam is a bluff."
Um, no, and obviously not. Kid yourself if you want but don't expect us to fall for such foolishness.
Bluffing is within the rules. Spam is CHEATING. And the parallel is right on. Cheaters have no scruples. they think winning is everything, like the crazy post above where the guy was happy because he made money. We are in the same game, and if someone is cheating in my game, they are stealing from me and the others in the game. The honest players will toss the cheater out. Only fools would not.
| 10:58 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Explain to me why you steveb, keyword stuff your pages and tell me how that is not spam.
You just really skirt the line all to closely for me to take your preaching to heart.
| 10:59 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just like bluffing, spamming is not against the law and nobody is stealing from you. If they are, better call the police. Google's rules are NOT the law.
| 11:06 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Since this thread has went in the dumpster (gee thanks guys) and everyone has had their say - lets call it quits and move on.
welcome to the dog days of summer.
how hot is it?
| This 169 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 169 ( 1 2 3 4 5  ) |