Message from discussion
'Ethical' SEO?
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr17.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!e625307f!not-for-mail
From: from_...@nomail.com (C.W.)
Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
Subject: Re: 'Ethical' SEO?
Message-ID: <418ee4fa.65872768@news.prodigy.net>
References: <cmdsa2$s2e$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <okclo05iha4ev0r722mor4480vvh1dsogt@4ax.com> <QiOid.131499$Pl.125213@pd7tw1no> <418bb5ae.156556270@news.prodigy.net> <5KRid.132517$Pl.123075@pd7tw1no> <dqbro0hr0hp9h6h2h8oeri5mnif0an8p8o@4ax.com> <418dba40.55177897@news.prodigy.net> <o0oto0paf65j1qcv8cemv20s8nvdlb6nk0@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 50
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.239.216.208
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com 1099889539 ST000 4.239.216.208 (Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:52:19 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:52:19 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: FKPO@MC@@S@USTDY\JJL^RLBPJTFQLTLFXVH_IQDJ@_@FN@ANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB@X^B_OCJLPZ@ET_O[G\XSG@E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM@I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_]@A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:52:19 GMT
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:55:52 GMT, SEO Dave
<seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>*yes, still devil's advocating here. But likely my last devilish post*
>>
>
>LOL Well I've enjoyed the discussion, hadn't thought it through in so
>much detail before now. I've always known adding a link to my sites
>from my clients sites would hurt their sites, so haven't considered
>doing it, so not needed to think it out in great detail before.
>
Well - I know you lean more toward Google whereas I lean to more
toward optimizing for Google _and_ Yahoo both. Hence you would think
more about PR than I would. Iview PR as just one bit out of the Google
algorithem - and one that has been known to have a PR5 site beaten out
by a PR3 or PR4 due to other bits of the algorihem.
And so this a thought about the unrelated footer link, along with one
or two others discussed between us in the past, is probably going to
be filed into the category of "you and I will have agree to disagree
on some bits". I understand your views - but I also see a bit of the
thinking from the other side of the coin and one that I cannot fully
find fault in as I would do the same thing in their shoes. Being
honest there, though, as I don't view it unethical or unwise at all.
If the link was hidden or very lightly colored in hue, shared in a
mouse-over redirect page, or such thoughts - then yes, I would agree
that the link was unethical and harmful to the client's site.
I dont' agree that one link, even with anchor text that doesn't match
the rest of the page, will drastically harm it - the SEO hopefully
would've optimized the rest of the text/contents for the clients'
preferred keywords so density thoughts for that one link's phrasing
would be a very low percentage. I do agree that someone sharing 10 or
20 unrelated links, though, may not be helping that page's contents.
And, as you pointed out, a linking structure that is sound will help
to compensate for PR shared externally. You already know my views of
PR hording from discussions past but I don't view a good internal
linking as hording - whereas sharing external links through javascript
you know I don't wholly agree with either.
Ain't splittin' of hairs in this area of thought fun? And with all the
gray areas open to personal interpretation thrown into the kettle too!
:))
Carol
|
