On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:22:30 GMT, SEO Dave
<seo-dav
...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:54:20 GMT, from_
...@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:04:48 GMT, SEO Dave
>><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:27:27 +0000 (UTC), <spam...@postmaster.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>>BMM put links into themselves on every page they build. On their smaller
>>>>pages, this is a visible "Search Engine Optimisation by Big Mouth Media"
>>>>tag, with a clickable link. They also list themselves, with a URL in the
>>>>pages META DATA. This is free advertising for bigmouth, and greatly improves
>>>>their ranking for "Search Engine Optimisation" it appears to do nothing for
>>>>the client at all.
>>>I think any SEO who does the above cares more about their own sites
>>>than their clients.
>>How is someone, doing work on a site and placing a link to themselves
>>in the footer, any less ethical [SEO wise] than someone buying links
>>that will appear on multiple pages/site-wide within someone else's
>>site?
>Hi,
>I'm not thinking ethics here, I'm thinking in terms of what is best
>for the SEO's client site. If you want to bring ethics into this, it
>would be more suited to business ethics, is it ethical to do something
>you know will hurt a clients site.
>If an SEO firm is hired to do the best they can for a clients site
>adding a link on every page to the SEO companies site is not in the
>clients best interest. It takes PR from the clients site and adds
>words to a page that will dilute any benefit to their SERPs.
>Basically they will not perform as well as they should, the SEO
>company site though will benefit considerably.
>This IMO is an unethical way to run a business.
>>>Also recently Google appears to be penalising sites for site wide
>>>links, not all sites, just some. So far it seems only the site
>>>receiving the site wide links gets a penalty (more precisely no boost
>>>from the links).
>>Different angle: Many site designers putting links at the bottom of
>>pages they designed or work on get no perk if what you shared is above
>>it true.
>It seems to be hitting new sites/links much harder than old. Not
>completely sure of this though. Has anyone with a site with most links
>from client sites seen a drop in SERPs recently?
>>Ok, but what if that generally isn't the reason the links are
>>there anyway? So they don't get a boost, SE wise, they may still get
>>some click-thrus and that is also what they wanted.
>If you mean say a web site designer who puts this site designed by X
>with link to their site. The reason for doing this in most cases is
>for referrals, not SEO (though it should help with SEO). The site
>designers job is to design a functional site and if the client is
>happy for them to have an advert on every page that's up to them. It's
>unlikely either party know how the link will affect SEO.
>SEO's know (or should know) adding a link to their site from their
>clients site is going to hurt their clients site and so shouldn't do
>it. It's unethical to knowingly do something that will hurt a clients
>site.
So it ok for the site designer to put a link for referrals [from an
example of their work] but not if they optimized the site for the
person. I dont' know Dave - seems to me very splitting of hairs and
based on "whose" link it is versus it being a link shared in the
footer. Ishare a courtesy/referral link to a graphics group that
helped me out - that link is in the footer of all pages of the site -
I assume that is ok even though my site isn't about graphics. But if
someone helped optimize the contents of the site - a courtesy/referral
link to them would suddenly be a no-no?
I mean - some folks link exchange with any ol' site so not interested
in theme of the contents matching but more interested in the PR of the
site. Now some of those same folks want site wide links or across
multiple pages. I am sure you will agree with me that people will
request such as someone posted just a request here recently on this NG
- and they weren't caring about the other site's contents but a
different criteria with PR being one and the links being site-wide as
another.
Now using your argumentations against the SEO company sharing a link
to themselves in the footer of a client's site [diluring the content,
not helpign that person's site by having that link there, et al] then
why were these thoughts NOT shared in the thread where someone posted
about wanting site wide links just from any ol' site using PHP that
was PR4 or higher?
Not meaning ot have you feel put on the spot but you have to admit
that it is odd that some people are saying it is ok to have non-themed
links and/or pay for links [or accept payment for those links to be
shared] ... then, when it is an SEO company link, suddenly that is
"different" and "not in the site owner's best interest" to have such
links shared. And this is with the speculation of footer links not be
as weighted in value as links in the main body of text and such
thoughts bantied around in other forums.
>>[snip]
>> Considering how
>>>negative Google is regarding SEO you really don't want to tell Google
>>>you have had your site optimised!
>>Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO
>>thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical
>>and what is not. :)
>I try to steer clear of ethical SEO debates. Some things I do will be
>considered fine by some and unethical by others, some consider SEO in
>itself as unethical!
Which is why it is such a can of worms - and prompts some debates
about even little things. ;)
|
