|
|
alt.internet.search-engines |
>If they had permission to put the link there and replaced whatever PR they What if the site, seeking an SEO, may not have that great of PR to PR is just a Google thing. And something that is becoming viewed as Sorry, I just view it [with it being placed in the footer] as a I think the only reason any thoughts of ethics is appearing is because [Yes, I am playing devil's advocate] Carol On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:24 GMT, "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com> wrote: Why does the PR have to reciprocated or replaced with equal or better?
>If it was not reciprocated (equal or
>better), then that is theft of PR and that too, is wrong.
>took with reciprocal links, then it is just a subtle unobtrusive ad.
If they had permission - why add in "and replaced whatever PR they
took"?
begin with. Woudl it then be ok that the link was placed there and not
viewed stealing of PR from a PR2 or PR3 site?
"not as highly" on ranking thoughts in Google as PR used to be viewed
to being a year or two back.
"subtle unobtrusive ad" thought. No different than when James [miss
him] would sometimes help out folks trying to get indexed on Google by
adding their links in the footer of his SEO site [even though they
didn't hire him or pay him to do so]. No different to me than if it
said "site designed by xxxx" or "graphics courtesy of xxxx".
of it pointing back to a SEO company's site. If it had been a link
there to Joe Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site - I bet 98% of hte
argumentations, against it being an SEO site link, wouldn't been
shared.