A Hubbers SEO/SEM Code of Ethics

1. 69

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   This whole thing is a plea for attention.
   
   He's already pulled the "Look at me or Im going home card"

   report
   1. 0

      DoorMattnomoreposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      oh well. It just bugs me to be called not worthy of respect because I dont feel the need to publicly declare my honesty and integrity. Im not here for money and I haev no clue what seo or any of that is, but being told I dont deserve respect because I dont have some badge is very insulting. I also find it absurd that one person's idea of right must be everbody's idea of right.

      report
   2. 89

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I may still leave. It depends on what HP does with regard to ethical SEO.

      report
2. 59

   SiddSinghposted 13 years ago

   I find it very hard to learn "ethics" from a person who is fighting against backlinks, yet has no qualms about adsense ads selling backlinks being displayed on his hub.
   
   If a person clicks on those ads, you are earning money. You are earning money from something that you so vehemently oppose. How is that consistent with "ethical" behavior?

   report
3. 69

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   Also, to remind you  that I am not asking for more than I would give.
   
   
   
   
   I have never seen a coherent response from you other than "look what Google said"
   http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/50906#post1164762

   report
4. 69

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   Quite a profound response. So again, you will avoid any actual explanation of your thought process? I do encourage you to outline what "ethics" are .. in practice and theory.
   
   I gave you some starting points in case the idea was new to you.

   report
   1. 89

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Your thought prices:
      
      "Can't compete unless you cheat"
      
      You should sell T Shirts.

      report
   2. 89

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I gave specific  links to SEO and SEM codes of ethics in the post that began this thread. I also suggested that people search for others.
      
      
      That's not enough of an outline for you?

      report
5. 69

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   I find that to be a rather incoherent unbalanced response, care to try again? Also, not a very good summary of my detailed response.
   
   With some detail and logic, perhaps with your own words?
   
   
   I do sell T-shirts!
   
   
   want one?
   
   

   report
6. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 13 years ago

   I think the argument of "ethical" or "un-ethical" is too absolute here.  I've taken the time to construct a more realistic, if not, obviously, all-inclusive list of how I think it actually works:
   
   1. Ideal ethical backlinking:
   You write it.  You toss out a link on your FB and your other favorite Internet stomping grounds to let your friends and peers know you’ve got something up that you think is relevant.
   
   Article grows in popularity naturally as people find it, Google finds it, and it just gets better and better.
   
   2. Pragmatic ethical backlinking:
   You write it.  You know that your article is one among a zillion on the subject, but you feel you have an important and time-sensitive thing to add to the conversation regarding the topic.  You also know that, given the massive volume of article spinning and all that rot out there, you have zero chance of getting read any time soon unless you take steps to compete.  You fight fire with fire, just as noble firemen do when combating the devastating advance of a life-destroying wildfire, and buy some links to get your article into view.
   
   Your article gets read and begins to do well without further effort on your part.
   
   3. Middle ground backlinking:
   You write it.  You don’t know much about it, but you did some research.  It’s not really saying anything new, or, frankly, interesting, but it s not wrong and it does have the right keywords.  Your kids need shoes.  You’re going to backlink the crap out of it and start earning on it right away.  Your kids also need money for lunch.  Someone tells you buying links for your article is wrong.  You point out that the Google juggernaut, like the Great Wall of China, did not get that big without crushing some little people under.  You talk about semi-monopolies and stuff like that.  Then you point to your kid with the duct tape on his shoe that keeps it from yapping like an alligator when Junior runs.
   
   4. Unethical backlinking:
   You don’t write hardly anything.  What you do write is incomprehensible and you don’t care.  You mostly just spin stuff you grab from other sites.  You buy backlinks and push garbage content into the hands of people looking to learn something new, often giving bad advice.  The only thing good about your articles is that they are often so poorly written people blow them off before “learning” something wrong.   People tell you that you are not ethical.  You laugh and sacrifice a puppy.

   report
   1. 89

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Interlinking related articles should be included in the first paragraph.

      report
7. 69

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   Respond.

   report
   1. 89

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I did.
      
      I gave three links in the original post and suggested searching for more.I think those should be the basis for discussion if HP wants community input.  But they have not indicated that they do.
      
      What other response do you need?

      report
      1. 79

         skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You didn't.
         
         You ignored by not responding to every questions being asked.
         
         And now that you're trolling CLEARLY. Let me take you back to question:
         
         http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1257891
         
         

         report
         1. 89

            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There is nothing worth responding to. As you and the rest always do,you are trying to confuse  the inexperienced by distorting and twisting everything. 
            
            I have no reason to respond to you in ANY subject.

            report
            1. 79

               skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Really ?
               
               You misguided people which i pointed YOU in this post with BLUE quotes. There is no twist or diddling there that any person can see.
               
               http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1257891
               
               if NOT, prove it. 
               
               
               
               Oh is that the reason YOU are avoiding our questions and attacking others with these statement-Cannot compete unless you cheat.Simple, really.thinking this will tame writers ego ? Work on it harder or get help from your converts to attack better next time.

               report
               1. 89

                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I have responded to every thing here unless I accidentally missed something.  Sunforged keeps lying and saying I need to respond, but I have.  I am ignoring you because your question has no validity - it is just another of your constant efforts to confuse people.
                  
                  We have already established that the motto matches your philosophy.  You have made that much clear.  Whatever it takes, right?  Nothing wrong with fake links to get SERP - it's the money that matters.
                  
                  Isn't that right?

                  report
                  1. 69

                     sunforgedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I am requesting that you portray what you consider "validity"
                     
                     I also request that you show that you have a comprehension of ethics.
                     
                     You have not to this point shown that.
                     
                     I could link to the wikipedia on "ethics" or a .pdf from Google Books.. that would not show anything, that is all you have done to this point.
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     You say, I "lie and fib" I provide you with a basis to examine your ethical argument , you say "i lie and fib"
                     
                     But, I am not saying anything - just giving you the means to make a valid argument and suggesting that you use your own words.

                     report
               2. 89

                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually it is Shaz that needs to respond to that. She has painted a very confusing picture, saying in one place that there was no automation but then suggesting there was.  On the one hand she blames herself, but then says that she was led by SF.
                  
                  Only she can straighten out the truth of what happened to her.  I cannot.

                  report
                  1. 79

                     skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     So you claim ANYTHING without any research from YOUR part ?
                     
                     Just because shaz says so makes it true for you. Jeez.

                     report
                     1. 89

                        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        So now Shaz is a liar?  About which part? The part where she says it was or the part where she says it wasn't?

                        report
                        1. 79

                           skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Statement was YOUR's and not sharon's. Do you read my posts ?  or getting so angry at me that you are trying to claim something o my behalf ?

                           report
8. 89

   Pcunixposted 13 years ago

   Let's sum up the "whatever" argument.
   
   I can't compete with large, established sites.  I would need to work hard and wait for my reward, but I want it NOW, so lying to Google is acceptable.
   
   Cannot compete unless you cheat.
   
   Simple, really.

   report
   1. 79

      skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And now that you're trolling CLEARLY. Let me take you back to question:
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1257891
      
      

      report
9. 91

   Susana Sposted 13 years ago

   I believe the chances of that are as slim as my cat spontaneously reciting shakespeare.

   report
   1. 89

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Go read my original post.

      report
10. 0

    Norah Caseyposted 13 years ago

    We have gotten several requests to close this thread. I've left it open up to this point because I think the topic of ethical SEO is an important issue for the community to discuss.
    
    What is not important is a thread where the same few individuals banter with one another over and over. I'm going to check up on this thread's progress throughout the day. I'll close it if it lacks the ability to expand into an interesting discussion.

    report
11. 89

    Pcunixposted 13 years ago

    A simple call for a voluntary, community developed code of ethics is met with incredible resistance and anger.  Lies, distortions and name calling.
    
    Why?  Does ethics threaten these people that much? Obviously it does.
    
    What does that say about them?  Money comes before honesty, obviously.  They lie to Google, they lie about what Goigle says, they even lie about what I have asked for here.
    
    Lies, lies, lies.
    
    And the rest of you defend them, saying we don't need it.  Obviously we do - the ugliness runs very deep and I am hardly the first to notice it.
    
    Can't compete unless you cheat. Such inspiring words.

    report
12. 86

    IzzyMposted 13 years ago

    If HP were to ban writers from backlinking their own articles, or from using software to do so, what is to stop someone else from getting a user banned by going on a backlinking spree on their behalf?

    report
    1. 89

       Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Sigh.
       
       That is not  at all what this is about.
       
       Did you read any of the links I gave in my original post? Have you read theLearning Center article?
       
       Of course you can link to related content, yours or not.
       
       Do you understand how these people try to confuse you?  They want to convince you that there is no such thing as ethics in SEO, but the links i gave and the searches I suggested show that there is.
       
       Stop listening to these liars.

       report
       1. 69

          rmrposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Wow, what a condescending tone.
          I think the point was that someone could just as easily click the ad that's still running on your backlinking hub and buy a few thousand backlinks, all aimed at your articles, relevent or not.
          
          I'd be curious to hear the answer as well. Are there any safeguards to prevent that?

          report
    2. 79

       skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Exactly.

       report
       1. 89

          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Nobody suggested any such thing and you know it.
          
          But that doesn't stop you, does it?  Lying about what I have said here is second nature to you.

          report
          1. 79

             skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             lie ? LOL. Pot calling...
             
             Trust me you have to try lot harder to put me in bait to attack you.
             
             Aren't you the one who posted about relache's no backlinking in hub ? in other threads to confuse newbies for SEO ?
             
             Do you claim from your marketing research or you claim something because relache or shaz says so ?
             
             You can continue to misguide people without doing any research on marketing and SEO. It is clear in multiple threads that how credible your sources and how clear your information is. No wonder people who have no idea about SEO are ready to be your converts.

             report
13. 79

    skyfireposted 13 years ago

    No. That's not true.
    
    
    
    You didn't responded to his post about YOUR evidence for ethics.
    
    
    
    LOL. Reminds me of pot calling ya know. I pointed YOU towards your misguiding from multiple threads. I even gave you URL for your misguiding claim. You ask me for validity ? And you think i confuse people ? LOL
    
    
    
    
    
    So you resort to trolling ? *duh*

    report
14. 67

    lrohnerposted 13 years ago

    I think Shadesbreath (genius that he is) tried to bring the focus back onto what it should be -- the quality of the content. I personally think that HP and Google have bigger problems from crummy, unoriginal and sometimes unintelligible content than they do with people who put out good content and then try to bring attention to their work.

    report
15. 69

    sunforgedposted 13 years ago

    Dear Sanctimonious
    
    
    I will give you a link so you can work on your ability to provide reasonable responses
    
    List of fallacies
    
    
    I think you have pulled off an amazing feat of using every single formal logical fallacy possible within one forum thread.
    
    and  you are a master of the informal fallacies of
    "Argument from repetition" and "red herrings"
    
    Considering your amazing and purposeful resemblance to a Russ Doll ( I know,appeal to ridicule) and your amazing use of illogic, I cant help but believe that this is some sort of awesome social experiment to see just how ridiculous you can be. You cant call everything "lies" when its only a page scroll away and you cant really think thats a valid response.
    
    
    When is Ashton Kutcher going to jump out?
    
    
    
    

    report