Disclaimer

Does anyone have a disclaimer they would be willing to share?

[hmpphf]

Hi

I saw a thread recently where someone said they issue a disclaimer to their clients so that if their SEO tactics result in the client's website being barred from Google that they can't be held responsible.

Does anyone have a disclaimer like this that they would be willing to share here?

Regards,

hmpphf

[lazyz]

Sorry I can't answer your question but I pose another question -

Wouldn't a good SEO expert avoid using tactics that would result in Google banning them?

I wouldn't trust a SEO that issues such a disclaimer. It would be really bad advertising in my opinion... Kind of like saying, "I'll get you listed but then I might get you banned"

[EliteWeb]

Every search engine has their own ways of dealing with what they consider manipulated content. When I do contracted work the client does a little research and they tell me they want doorways pages/cloaked pages (probably because they talked to someone else before me) then I set them straight on what will and wont get them banned.

We try for a site that will gain them higher positioning above their competitors but do not say saw we get them @ the top. If the client gets banned it would be my fault asuming someone they didnt hire another SEO after me that screwed it up :)~

[WebGuerrilla]

>>It would be really bad advertising in my opinion... Kind of like saying, "I'll get you listed but then I might get you banned"

That's not really the case. Most reputable firms have that kind of language in their contracts. Search engines flip-flop on spam policies far too much to not include it. Google is a perfect example. 18 months ago, Google stated that there was no such thing as spam, and that cloaking was fine. Now the have the most extreme spam policies on the web. Ink has flip-flopped as well. They've gone from being the web's biggest anti-spam zealots, to having the most liberal spam policies, and now back to a more hard lined policy all in a matter of 18 months.

Anyone in this business that doesn't have provisions in their contracts that make it clear to a client that their are no guarantees, and that any program designed to increase their visibility in search engines always comes with the risk that someone at some engine may consider the work to be spam, is putting themselves at great risk.

[Beachboy]

Right on target, W.G.

[rogerd]

What you need, hmpphf, is a variation of "best efforts" type language, used by contractors and consultants of all types when dealing with unknown conditions. And, with the constant changing of rules and algorithms, and the general lack of published, specific spam policies, "unknown" fits the bill pretty well. The best efforts clause should simultaneously disavow guarantees of performance (except as explicitly stated in the contract) and note the possibility for negative results. (The latter could occur due to banning, algo changes, indexing of content spidered before your involvement, client-initiated changes, SE database problems, or other causes.)