>>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