soapystar - 7:33 am on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Helenp made the point not everybody is a SEO. Much of the advice offered however is from the perspective of SEO's. She is highlighting something far more fundamental. The aribitary and selective nature of the penalties and making them lifetime and not algo/filter sensitive. If its not arbitary and slective there is no way to explain the spam that has been left to flourish, or at the very least sites of the same nature. This is against a backdrop of presenting a free inclusion index of everything that is out there. While the advice given is helpful for anyone trying to make a site for a search engine isnt this the opposite of what Tim said the new Yahoo was all about. I also feel sorry for all those mom and pops out there who not only are unaware of lifetime bans but also about how to apeal them. I can understand how many forum members arent too happy with constant moaning from some of us here, but i dont understand why that excludes them from looking past their own table. A fundamental change is taking place on what will be avialable for most users to search. This is a turn around in the idea of a free and open internet. Large scale human penalties leaves a door wide open for manipulation. The only reason Yahoo can be singled for crtitism is because of the size they have developed to. When a company is dominating a market to that degree they take on added responsibilities, not just morally but legally too. This is why i believe its justified to critise the way they carry out their own buisness.

Helens other point was also glossed over. Can anyone imagine what it must be like to rely on one site (however right or wrong the stratedgy is) and to be told your in, youre out, you may be in, hang out your out. At the very least i would hope someone from Yahoo gives her an honest explantion of why that happened.