Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
alt.internet.search-engines
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion 'Ethical' SEO?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
MM  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 5 Nov 2004, 20:52
Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
From: "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 20:52:17 GMT
Local: Fri 5 Nov 2004 20:52
Subject: Re: 'Ethical' SEO?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"C.W." <from_...@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:418bb5ae.156556270@news.prodigy.net...

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:24 GMT, "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>If it was not reciprocated (equal or
>>better), then that is theft of PR and that too, is wrong.

>>If they had permission to put the link there and replaced whatever PR they
>>took with reciprocal links, then it is just a subtle unobtrusive ad.

> Why does the PR have to reciprocated or replaced with equal or better?
> If they had permission - why add in "and replaced whatever PR they
> took"?

> What if the site, seeking an SEO, may not have that great of PR to
> 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?

> PR is just a Google thing. And something that is becoming viewed as
> "not as highly" on ranking thoughts in Google as PR used to be viewed
> to being a year or two back.

> Sorry, I just view it [with it being placed in the footer] as a
> "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".

> I think the only reason any thoughts of ethics is appearing is because
> 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.

> [Yes, I am playing devil's advocate]

> Carol

All I was trying to say that there are multiple issues.  It was SEO Dave's
contention that it is wrong to steal PR whether it is just a Google thing or
not.  If theft of PR is unethical or a "crime" then replacement of that
would solve that issue leaving the link pointing to the SEO site in place.
There wouldn't be an issue if the non-SEO site is better off.

The other issue is permission.  Whether it is SEO or website design or Joe
Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site, if there is no permission, then I think
that's just wrong.

I don't understand why there would be a problem at all, if those two issues
are resolved and that's the same for SEO as it is for anything else.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google