>>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:17:18 GMT, SEO Dave
>><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:

>>>If there is permission to add a link and in the case of an SEO firm
>>>who should understand how adding a link from a clients site to their
>>>SEO site will not benefit the client site explains the cons of this
>>>arrangement, then I don't see a problem.

>>Say I design a site for someone and I state upfront that in exhange
>>for my services I will place a link on the site's pages I worked on
>>[no discount]. I look at the footer of some sites I come across that I
>>like the layout/design of - to see who did the work. I sort of expect
>>to see it if the site owner had someone else do the site design for
>>them.

>The link per se isn't the problem, it's the fact an SEO is taking
>advantage of a clients site knowing it will hurt the clients site.

>Most web site designers know nothing about SEO, so like you say their
>link is there for advertising reasons not PR. If an SEO argues it's
>there for advertising only they are either BSing or not very good at
>SEO. Either way you should steer clear of SEOs who expect a link.

>Not really the same. The billboard is not owned by the advertiser,
>when a SEO or site designer creates a site for a client, it's the
>clients site. Also the number on the billboard is not going to reduce
>the effectiveness of the ad.

>>So if I put my link there - it is there _not_ for the oh-so-precious
>>PR but to let others, visiting that site, who did the site design and
>>maybe consider contacting me for the same services.

>Why would anyone have a problem with the above (assuming the client is
>happy with the link of course)?

>It's the intent that's the problem here. A small footer link at the
>bottom of every page to Billy Bob's Web Design like the phone number
>on a billboard will not reduce the effectiveness of the site when a
>visitor is viewing. So a site designer adding a link will believe the
>link will not do any harm. SEOs know it will, so shouldn't do it.