le_gber - 2:39 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0) Leo
To say there is no penalty because you have observed one site that does not appear to be penalized is flawed and misleading.
I agree that my observation is only based on one site but could you prove me wrong and provide me with facts that show the contrary? Google uses its algo to filter out sites so if one survived, the others have too - therefore there is no penalty. And I don't believe that the PR7 or the backlinks would save the site if it was considered as using spammy techniques. Other high PR site have been penilised for using spammy techniques.
Besides, you lost a ton of credibility when you post this statement:
I also want to add that it's not worth stickying me to get the site URL - I won't give it to you :)
I only said that to avoid getting dozens of 'sticky me the URL' types of pm. I'm sorry you took it personally.
Why would CSS, a W3 standard, cause penalties? If you are talking about making H1 smaller or in a different color so that it more user friendly, that is one thing.
Yes I was talking about resizing H1's, and it was just as a reply to the many posts I came accross asking about the risks of using CSS to resize H1.
If you are talking about mouseprint or white on white, then you are COMPLETELY wrong.
So you're telling me that using CSS to create white on white text is being picked up by the SE? When did they start looking at the stylesheet?