|
|
alt.internet.search-engines |
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:38:49 +0000 (UTC), <spam...@postmaster.co.uk> >This the main thrust of my question I suppose; what is 'ethical'?. I have >But when paying for a service from a professional (say an electrician), you >Is this sort of behaviour likely to cause our site problems? Where is this mysterious site? I offer a freebie quick appraisal from BB
wrote:
>> Google is only negative, in my opinion, about people abusing SEO I generally put a link in from the site map. Nothing too fancy, but
>> thoughts - which opens the cans of worms about what is deemed ethical
>> and what is not. :)
>looked into doing optimisation on the site myself and looked into some
>forums and newsgroups, but they are so full of contradiction and confused
>people, it is difficult to draw out any concrete knowledge from them. It was
>also consuming way too much of my time and detracting from my main duties;
>hence we are considering hiring a professional to do it.
>don't expect to have to hang a sign on your door saying that the electrics
>on the premises were done by Bob's Electricals. You pay for the service, if
>they want to use you to advertise, they can pay you for the advertising
>space. Unless of course they offer a sizable discount for including these
>footer links.
it's there. I don't get complaints. I don't get any work either, mind,
but I don't get complaints.
>But this is it; what exactly is 'ethical SEO'? Go to the Ihelpyou forums. Be prepared to be overwhelmed by a chorus
of "Don't get rich how we did! Oh no! It's unethical, we now realise,
when we take time out from counting our dough. So, do as we say, not
as we did."
and like that and on.
>I don't want to pay for a Sounds like.
>service that is going to end up delivering traffic and then getting us
>banned six months down the line for spammy tactics.
>Every SEO company we have looked at claims to do things ethically, but BMM
>is quite obviously doing things a little suspiciously. I have received a
>mail in reply to this posting regarding the Alitalia site I mentioned, by
>disabling JavaScript in your browser and viewing the site, the neat little
>nav menu on the left is replaced with a long (much longer than the menu it
>replaces) & unstyled list of internal links that do not point to the same
>pages that the menu they are replacing point to. I can see that there are
>good reasons to have support for non-JS capable browsers (and other forms of
>accessibility), but this seems a little excessive.
>Or is this the Nope. Well, shouldn't be but there isn't any regulatory body and nor
>'norm' in SEO circles?
is there likely to be.
> And what is classed as 'ethical'? I know there is No such animal. But then, there'd be those who'd disagree.
>likely to be a fair dollop of grey in the middle, but what is
>no-argument-white?
an experts (quiet at the back!) page so I don't see why I shouldn't
extend that offer to you.
www.kruse.co.uk S...@kruse.demon.co.uk