Forum Moderators: martinibuster
We were discussing MLEP (Massive Link Exchange Programs such as Link Vault, DP). His point was that it would be hard to account for all the variables they could throw into the pot such as number of links, location on site etc. My main counter is they could just join the programs under each niche. With that as a seed, they could follow the trail of links and suss out 95% of users.
His counter point was really good: but that'd be immoral if not evil. And as we know, Google makes a point of avoiding the horns 'n pitchfork path.
So, would it be evil for them to sign up under false pretences?
And no, we don't think that Yahoo / MSN will beat Google to acting on these programs.
But honestly, is it the webmaster's responsibility to tell the search engine what is advertising?
I believe the approach Google is using right now is to make it so that paid links or link exchange network links don't do the site any good. In my opinion, that would fit into the "do no evil" approach.
While sites like Link Vault or the DP Coop may be rather basic right now, I believe they will develop over time, and the value of the services will extend far beyond SERPS. It would not be "good" to take down sites for trying to advertise on networks that are "non-Google". To crush all sites that don't use Google Adwords would be pretty darn evil.
I don't think so because Google would only be protecting the integrity of their index. They aren't doing anything to the website itself, only how that website influences Google's index.
But I don't believe they would have to join up to spot the linkers. Just by linking to each other they'll create a cluster of thousands of sites that are more or less one to three clicks away from each other.
It's funny how sites can slip under the radar with certain tactics while others are caught. But then eventually, seemingly out of the blue, those strays are caught in the filter.
His counter point was really good: but that'd be immoral if not evil.
Why?
It's the same as any company sending a plant to join an NGO to take it down from the inside. If RJReynolds Tobacco send a person to join an anti-smoking group to disrupt it RJR would be rightfully vilified. Why not Google?
---
or think about it another way
sign up with false pretences = lying
lying = evil
therefore
google = lying
lying = evil
therefore
google = evil
And DvDuval's argument was that
since google is not evil, google can't sign up on false pretences.
DvDuval's argument was that
since google is not evil, google can't sign up on false pretences.
I'm inclined to support Martinibuster's view, which is that Google would simply be preserving the integrity of its index. Infiltrating an MLEP might not be popular with the folks who are having their dirty underwear examined at close range, but that wouldn't make it "evil."
