Lisa I don't know if I'm reading HP guidelines correctly or not, but I do know the Google guidelines that Pcunix linked to and G doesn't like link games - so I'm out of them.
It's more that I changed perhaps than HP changed. I really just got carried away in a competitive moment and now I believe I acted incorrectly. Particularly with encouraging others with the Misha challenge. Because I did that, I believe I should share the change of thought that I've had. I can see where I could be confusing people. But that's what I do, I experiment, I learn, I pull back, I admit mistakes - move on.
I'm really feeling that I shouldn't share so much from now on because I do that and some people here are so rigid that they don't get it.
I mean this isn't stopping anyone from linking. Their world hasn't changed at all. I spent the afternoon and evening at the mall, shopping and having dinner - came back to a forum brawl. Pcunix is still here fighting the good fight.
Nelle, a lot of stuff on this thread, though, made me go and look up the HubPages terms. It was all new to me (I suppose, maybe, I should have known to keep checking for things that more clearly outline what people are supposed to do and not do, but it kind of doesn't occur to me. One day kind of rolls into the next - and before you know, a couple of years have gone by. )
Unless not sharing so much is for your own benefit, I think you ought to keep on sharing. Your real experiences (and experiments), time on here, and general knowledge of things related to Hubbing and marketing are (whether you intended this thread to be that or not) helpful to people.
I'm guessing you remember the old HubPages "help" and information that was provided to new Hubbers, and - boy - a lot has changed in terms of what is laid out for new (and old) people. Maybe it won't stop people from linking, but it better lays out what HubPages approves of and doesn't; and that, in itself, is a change. It's not just the linking thing, though. There are more and more changes in how writing sites are doing things, especially when it comes to standards. I guess I could have "felt encouraged" a lot sooner if it had occurred to me to look at HubPages "help" once in awhile, but since I haven't been looking for "help"..... Oh well. I can't be the only one who had all this called to my attention by this thread. (And HubPages/Google - it doesn't really matter in a lot of ways, although Google standards will have the highest impact on everyone.)
The only person I know that does less "backlinking" than me is Relache.
And there are plenty who do two, three or fours times what I do but I wouldn't say that they're going overboard.
I'm not sure where the centerpoint for moderation is. Too many people who think that anyone who does more than them is too much.
If you have a plan that involves hitting the same sites with each and every hub that you've just published, then you're definitely going too hard. And probably annoying the crap out of your audience (if you in fact have one).
I tweet occasionally, I add one to my facebook profile occasionally, I throw a link or two at a few different places. But I mix it up, I don't use the same summaries. Hell, sometimes I just don't bother even promoting a hub at all. They'll find their own feet in 6 to 12 months.
I also tweet and post to facebook links to other peoples hubs too. If they've grabbed my attention and are worth reading.
My approach is to be patient, and to be thoughtful (of those exposed to the channels in which I broadcast/communicate). If anyone wants instant success then online publishing isn't right for them.
I noticed all of this conversation about back links and I remembered seeing a YouTube video from Matt Cutts about linking on the official GoogleWebmasterHelp channel on YouTube. It's against the rules to put an external link to the video here, but you can search for it on You Tube.
Matt Cutts is "the man" to listen to to find out what's going on inside Google. He answers questions in his videos. This one is from June 1, 2010. The question was:
"Matt, Is there such thing as building too many links, if you're following Google's webmaster guidelines exactly? Too many where you would get banned, even if you're following the rules? Thanks, Mark" - Mark Schneider, Denver, Colorado
Basically, Matt Cutts' answer was that as long as it is organic linking you should try to get as many back links as you can. There's no limit.
I don't think you listened to that video carefully or understood it.
He actually went into a great deal of detail about what sort of linking of your own pages is appropriate and desirable and what is not.
This is the whole problem here: people don't understand. Google's linking advice page should be simple to understand:
The best way to get other sites to create relevant links to yours is to create unique, relevant content that can quickly gain popularity in the Internet community. The more useful content you have, the greater the chances someone else will find that content valuable to their readers and link to it. Before making any single decision, you should ask yourself the question: Is this going to be beneficial for my page's visitors?
Wikipedia's SEO article is plain also:
White hat advice is generally summed up as creating content for users, not for search engines, and then making that content easily accessible to the spiders, rather than attempting to game the algorithm.
None of this means you can't interlink your content
Think of Google's advice - why are you doing it? If you are doing it to improve your SERP, you probably shouldn't be. If you are doing it to help a real human find something they might want to read, you probably should be doing it.
Look, we all screw up on this. We can do too much even with the best of intentions. We can also do too little. All anyone is suggesting here is a bit of honesty - is that really so much to ask?
What Sparked the 30 Day Challenge:
http://thekeywordacademy.com/how-i-made … -hubpages/
Courts test of Hubpages format
Hubpages blog follow up a year later:
ended up making 4k from his 100 hubs
AN intelligent study of a link building campaign using legitimate sources. Partner sites and self controlled sites.
http://lissowerbutts.com/keyword-academ … -timeline/
written by a hubber and TKA member
Since so much hysteria is in play about backlinks - and only doublespeak is used to explain its meaning, industry experts are usually a good source.
What does http://www.seomoz.org/survey/responses/show/35 have to say about the backlinking you think so highly of?
Oh, nothing whatsoever? Not even in the charts?
Sheesh. That must annoy you.
Its the number one pointed out factor in rankings!
Get your reading glasses out or adjust your contrast
No, it isn't. Adjusting title tags does not imply nepotistic linking at all.
As usual, you are trying to confuse people to your own ends.
Is that a real response?
perhaps you should be looking at offpage factors
You tried to imply that backlinking was seen as a important activity in that survey. Plainly it is not. As always, more attempts at deception.
Simply, reality vs the ideal.
Its rather easy to change with the times and adapt to what is currently effective.
Especially, in relation to individual articles.
Its deception, or at least naive to think that one business is interested in the motivations of the other without understanding that you (we) are involved in a competitive field.
Mine is ad and aff revenue achieved through targetted visitors.
It would actually benefit me if the next wave of internet writers and marketers were hobbled by your copy paste philosophy
How about you hobbling them with your linking advice: http://hubpages.com/hub/How-To-SEO-Blog … Disable-Me
Look, if HP thinks your advice is fine, so be it. I think it's awful, but as I've said before, you aren't doing anything illegal.
I'd just like to see HP have a clear and CONSISTENT policy here. I'd like to see the newbies get unequivocal advice with real examples of what is acceptable and not.
Maybe they agree with you that nepotistic linking is fine. Google doesn't like it, but maybe HP doesn't care about that.
THEY NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR.
I think you should examine your sources more in depth.
The same author has written dozens of hubs on how to seo , backlink and promote. Most of it non-attributed. So I can only assume the expertise she would follow would be her own. Do you judge the conclusions made to be valid and realistic?
The number one thing that was promoted in the 60 day challenge information was a commitment to quality, I and others had no interest in helping any low quality content be promoted in our own efforts.
The main example for what constituted a quality article was the Flagship Hub program, quality was always pointed out as the number one most important factor, it was a failure of quality that caused your link to have to enter her mobile number into google to confirm her account (OH no,the horror) No one can suggest to others how to pursue quality.
She was following YOUR advice, according to that article.
I've read your advice. It is against Googles guidelines, plainly. I think HP should take the same stance, but it's their business: if they don't care, then that's that.
But from MY point of view, you do everything that should NOT be done and like Misha, are giving out very bad advice.
Help, I can't stop the fingers, waded through 8 pages of these comments so far, (didn't want to be accused of "jumping in" without following the thread)
Tried to refrain from commenting ... but alas I am weak.
So ... To each their own about how/where to backlink,
why haven't I seen more about backlink benefits from serp listings from sites, like snipsly or ezines? I love it when I see something about one of my hubs on page 1 serps from these other sites.
ps. PCunix, how is the air up there?
pss. @ Sunforged, I am leery of complimenting you, as I don't want to seem as if I had something on my nose or perhaps it would look as if I were developing a greenish-tinge...
but... well done as usual. very relevant and informative responses.
Now I will endeavor to muddle through the next 4 or so pages of this thread. I will try to be more restrained.
I just came across something interesting.
One of the oft repeated arguments of SunForged, Misha and others is that "everybody" does it and all the "experts" agree.
Bull. I came across this interesting code of ethics published by iProspect.com, a company that represents just a few household names: http://iprospect.com/corporate/clients.htm
You can find their code of ethics at http://www.iprospect.com/premiumPDFs/et … _paper.pdf
It's contradicts everything the so- called "experts" here have to say about what is acceptable practice. They specifically mention
"bogus, manufactured or otherwise questionable inbound links from a variety of types of sites in pursuit of higher rankings"
Other codes of ethics: http://www.bruceclay.com/web_ethics.htm
"No SEO practitioner will intentionally violate any specifically published and enforced rules of search engines or directories. "
Now go ahead, let's disparage these guys and say THEY are fools, dreamers, wrong, dangerous and so on.
THE JUNK THAT PEOPLE HERE TELL YOU ABOUT GAMING SEARCH ENGINES IS JUNK AND I'M SICK OF LISTENING TO IT.
The company you referenced represents a number of pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
So - we should adopt the sort of ethics displayed by them? When a search engine marketing company is prepared to accept a pharmaceutical company as a client - they cannot lay claim to having a code of ethics.
I can see you are very angry, but you seem to be misdirecting your anger at people who try and earn a few crumbs falling from the overflowing Google banquet, rather than the real culprits, which are the unethical search engines who actively encourage the type of behavior that has gotten you so angry.
Ethics? Don't make me laugh. When you are comparing companies with budgets in the millions to small time Internet marketers?
The company in question is quite happy to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars phoning other webmasters in order to artificially create incoming links and according to their PDF:
"link solicitation from real sites takes time, e-mails, phone calls, negotiation."
Just exactly why is that acceptable and you are now pushing solicitation of links in this fashion? Because I do not see the difference.
Of course you can't see any difference. I would never expect you to.
That's the problem with all the self proclaimed experts here: they are so deep into lying to Google to make money that they cannot even begin to understand the difference between ethical conduct and non-ethical.
So - what is the difference between phoning a website and asking them to create an artificial link to your site and making one yourself?
Please do not speak to me about ethics when you are promoting a company that works for big pharmaceuticals and insurance companies.
@PCUnix: Mark asks a valid question. Can you provide an answer?
They aren't asking for artificial links. They are pointing out areas where VALID links might be useful to that sites readers.
"link solicitation from real sites takes time, e-mails, phone calls, negotiation."
I think the above sentence makes it blatantly clear that it is solicitation/negotiation, not pointing out opportunities.
With the express intention of manipulating the search engine rankings and being paid to do so. I thought you were against that?
Like google is against showing the female form?
That is a typical google ad I see.
For a 60+ person, you are being incredibly naive.
LOL Considering the amount of lies this person put up already, I seriously doubt both his proclaimed age and Internet experience - his posts deny that loud and clear.
You could be right. I have not seen him respond to anything any one has said, and am sort of surprised at the attacks leveled against you. He already called me a liar and a cheat and I would say I do minimum promotion for all my stuff because if you don't - you may as well not have written it in anything like a competitive area.
But selling drugs that people do not need or selling insurance that the company will never pay out on is "ethical," as long as you solicit incoming links to manipulate the search engines by spending a vast amount of money on paid press releases, directory submissions, phone calls and PPC campaigns?
Very well put Mark. You make very good points here.
"No SEO practitioner will intentionally violate any specifically published and enforced rules of search engines or directories. "
You are insisting that creating your own backlinks = spam or is immoral in some way. Sorry, that's just not the case.
Until you realize that building your own backlinks is a perfectly acceptable practice, you are fighting a losing battle. There is a reason the word "enforced" is in that sentence.
And for the record, cream does not necessarily rise to the top in this business. You can have the best content in the world but if you are in a competitive niche, nobody will ever read it if they can't find it.
Google wants you to believe that "people will want to link to your content". Right - good luck with that.
Why, in this age of Internet commercialization, would a webmaster want to introduce traffic leaks into his website by linking out to YOUR content? Furthermore, in the case where the webmaster DOES occasionally link out to your content, he (if he knows what he is doing) is going to no-follow your link anyway so as to not dilute his own PR. When that happens, you get no PR link juice anyway.
Yes, there are webmasters that WILL link out to your content but there is nothing wrong with self-promotion via dropping my own links with good anchor text.
And yes, most "expert" SEO folks will tell you the same thing. You may not like it but it is what it is. Nobody is making you do it and you aren't going to change anyone's mind who is already successful with the practice.
When Google starts A) banning sites for promotion via backlinks or B) stops using backlinks as a ranking criteria, the practice of self-promotion (or SERP manipulation as you call it) will end.
That being said, there is ZERO indication that this has happened, is happening, or will happen in the future.
again perhaps you should look at relevant factors
I included the entire survey in order to show a comprehensive view. It would be unwise to focus only on nay single aspect
NOTHING in that survey promotes the type of self serving backlinking that you promote.
I expected you to have a better comprehension level.
Its a survey of industry professionals whose motivation is money and their clients needs are their own needs.
How do you think they gain the backlinks that are needed to beat their customers competition within a realistic timeline?
It is you that has the poor comprehension.
But even if they did embrace your love of self promotion, should we trust foxes to tell us how to care for our chickens?
No. We should listen to Google. Period.
But again: if HP thinks nepotistic linking is fine, they need to make it perfectly clear how much they will tolerate. They may fully approve of your advice - I think it is very bad, but I am not HP. THEY NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR.
its also important to get an understanding of what factors actually influence rankings, what can you do to get a worthwhile return for your effort
"The following ranking factors were rated by our panel of 72 SEO experts. Their feedback is aggregated and averaged into the percentage scores below. For each, we’ve calculated the degree to which the experts felt this factor was important for achieving high rankings as well as the degree of variance in opinion, estimated using the standard deviation of the contributors’ answers. Thus, factors that are high in importance and low in contention are those where experts agree the most that the factor is critical to rankings."
Looking into negative ranking factors is wise.
What actually is a "bad activity"
http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ra … rnal-links
of the list these were deemed of moderate to high importance:
Cloaking with Malicious/Manipulative Intent
68% very high importance
10.7% light consensus
Link Acquisition from Known Link Brokers/Sellers
56% high importance
13.1% moderate contention
Links from the Page to Web Spam Sites/Pages
51% moderate importance
12.1% moderate contention
Cloaking by User Agent
51% moderate importance
15.2% moderate contention
Frequent Server Downtime & Site Inaccessibility
51% moderate importance
12.3% moderate contention
Hiding Text with same/similar colored text/background
49% moderate importance
15.3% moderate contention
Links from the Domain to Web Spam Sites/Pages
48% moderate importance
13.1% moderate contention
Excessive Repetition of the Same Anchor Text in a High Percentage/Quantity of External Links to the Site/Page
46% moderate importance
11% light consensus
Cloaking by IP Address
not true - only the naive dont understand how seo is done at the professional level.
backlinks are created by webmasters , webmasters are for the most part business minded people.
The simple fact is that search engines don't want to be manipulated.
You always try to brush that away with "it's just business".
The days of gaming Google are coming to an end.
It's really funny how far back this stuff goes. This paper http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~brian/pubs/2 … 2000ws.pdf is from 200, which is now tn years ago. It talks about how search engines try to identify valid content. One short quote:
Often, one would like to treat links as votes, and we wish to prevent voting for one’s self.
Are you EVER going to understand that?
yes, they have been trying for ten years. Writing "rules" with one hand, collecting ad revenue with the other
Good resource, thanks.
You realize these are businesses also? You realize to up an coming internet writers, the majority of what your posting is completely irrelevant.
When did it become hard to simply republish an article?
no confusion, I have no ends. I dont sell seo services or have any ebooks etc.. actually, I believe you do though.
As always, Google may be your religion but to me they are a search engine and a private enterprise.
What is SPAM?
Now, I think you have been pretty clear, Hubpages has been pretty clear also, not sure how there message is gray or hard to understand.
But, Im a webmaster with a great deal of sites, I see true SPAM daily. As someone who looks at backlink profiles and footprints of competitors, Ive seen what true valueless sites are.
Your stated maxims, just dont show a reliable distinction between humans proud of their efforts and push button automation
This hysteria is quite ridiculous.
It seems clear to me that the owners of this domain do not want to receive complaints from other respected domains (businesses) to them or against them to to their advertisers and the SE's.
Its not their concern or their business how your personal promotion is done and they dont want to be told about what it is through irate mail from concerned webmasters or to have HP's authority damaged by foolish, unrelated parasitic link building and promotion at the expense of other site and blog owners.
You can get a backlink by being a part of the millions of conversations on the web that are inviting and waiting for you.
Just add something of value.
It IS their concern and their business and they have made that very clear by taking down pages that were spammily promoted.
We dont know why the single hub mentioned in the forums was taken down.
My guess would be repeated attempts to insert the link into wikipedia or some other site that had the authority and time to contact HP and request for something to be done.
That would be parasitic and unwelcome linking practices
So what is your advice, oh yee of the silly hat.
Just take what your dear lord and master Google chooses to give you. then bow and nod?
You have no competitive spirit and all in all have achieved a very low level of ad income (by your reports)
A site with 6k pages achieves what some of the more vocal forum members have with 20 hubs or more recently 400 hubs.
Is that the real issue? Jealously and anger that since "cream rises to the top" and your not on top...so your not cream?
or at least your not making the cream?
You d understand many of us are in the business of writing online and web publishing - it would seem you are not.
I do fine in the cream department - without the spamming you are so proud of.
Yes, even HP found it necessary to warn against Misha in that iterview - though I dint think they went far enough.
I have all those pages because I have been doing it so long. Many of those pages have top SERP for their subject matter.
But this is so typical of you - disparage me because you don't like it that I point out that Google doesn't like your games. Too bad - that is reality.
Im not sure you get my point.
Actually, I think you do - your 17 years of Top SERP's make less than Mishas ten top performing hubs.
You hate this, you hate it so much you had to comment twice begging for something to be done, you actually were requesting that another human beings and helpful hubbers income should be hurt.
That is a disgusting and shameful activity.
You do understand that right, Mao? It was absolutely disgusting of you to attack Misha on that interview. It was the type of thing I child does when they see another with more candy then them on Halloween.
Its not fair, Mommy,Im telling daddy.
You do see that right?
Of all the injustices and atrocities going on in this world, your ongoing crusade to even an uneven playing field of 1's and 0's is silly. Perhaps, you should get away from the computer and interact more with your fellow humans. If you have plenty of cream, perhaps you shoukd donate time to an agency of some sort.
Your skewed, I also think your knowledge and experience has been tested http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/51127 and I do not think you came out as being much more than some sort of new zealot who cares about Googles corporate interest more than his fellow writers and business people
Adsense is a sideline for me, it was not why I created my website.
But so what? Misha makes money by lying to Google. As HP themselves pointed out in that interview, that is not proper. But you want to make him a hero?
As to you, who knows? HP might say they think your spamming is tolerable. That doesn't change what it is. Voting for yourself is deceit.
There isn't a serious SEO expert who does not backlink (vote for) his own content. Does it make it right? Who knows. But what I can say is that it is 100% necessary if you want to compete. It just is what it is.
You do see the two competing issues though..I would give you that.
If there were no search engines, how do you get found?
By sharing your work everywhere relevant and posting its address.
A corporate interest develops and takes the wild, wild web and uses that previous action as an important ranking factor.
So because this entity took an already existing premise and incorporated into its private moneymaking enterprise as a "vote", we are supposed to no longer share and promote our work?
Telephone Books exist, I still give out business cards and put up flyers (when relevant) to my clients needs.
As an independent business owner, artist and occasionally event organizer, I laugh at what you call "deceit" and hope all my competition adopts the same philosophy offline and on.
So sure, go ahead, just write it once, stick your card in the shuffle and sit back and wait for attention to come to you.
Its not deceit, its proud promotion of ones work and output.
As usual, you are trying to confuse people by implying that the opposite of your spamming is to do nothing.
HP's http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/cate … g-traffic/ covers that rather well I think.
Although it appears to be the minority position, I have to agree with sunforged on this. Sunforged is on the money with virtually every fact.
Backlinking is the (or should be) a staple in any SEO activities.
If you are not backlinking your own properties from as many relevant sites as you can, you are not doing it right.
I have yet to see a site banned from Google for backlinking activities for the reasons I said earlier in the thread. The worst I've seen occur from overdoing backlinks (and I mean THOUSANDS of backlinks in a short period) is that a site goes into the sandbox for a period and that the spammed backlinks get devalued.
Can someone, ANYONE, please show me a statement FROM GOOGLE (not other hubbers) that indicates a site will be banned for excessive backlinking? I have yet to see that documentation. If someone produces it, I'll gladly stand corrected.
What part of http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … swer=66356 do you not understand?
I believe MyPostingID just pointed out that in a risk/benefit analysis... the benefit is much greater.
The benefit to whom? Does it benefit Googles efforts to deliver the best results? Does it benefit the people searching for those results?
You never understand that side of it.
Can you honestly say that its hard to find what you are looking for on Google?
I have no problems, if one term doesnt work, I try another or I delve deeper into the results.
Actually, the common low level info that tends to sit on top is usually far beneath my needs.
Google will never deliver the best results for me, but i will be able to find what im lookimg for within its returns. What I deem quality and best is usually far more specialized than the general interest hogwash that normally sits on top
Google now has to resort to hand reviewing for some top searches because of the gaming that you think so highly of.
You can dodge and weave forever, but it doesn't change that a lie is a lie.
That's not really the point though. The important thing us that HP needs to make their position crystal clear. Did Nellie need to take down her links? I don't know and you dint either.
Is the advice you give tolerable in view of their Learning Center advice? I don't think it is, so they need to make it clear whether they endorse nepotistic linking and if so, to what degree?
They probably think you are fine or at might wish that you add more warnings against getting too enthusiastic about it. Whatever they think won't change my white hat approach, but they need to do that to help those who prefer a slightly darker shade of head wear.
But they need to be clear.
what do you mean "resorted?" I would hope they use their billions to pay people to manually work on results, especially in the important and highly spammed fields of medicine and health.
Do I care who comes out on top for red toaster oven, or ipad knick knack #3 or best home gym - no, not at all. In the end they will all just end up on some online retailer buying the same product.
That whole section is entitled "Link Schemes" and it discusses link exchanges (which are bad):
However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites.
Cross-linking, reciprocal links, link farms, and link exchanges are all bad and the only reason those types of things can cause bannings is because of the reciprocity of the links.
Links intended to manipulate PageRank
Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging ("Link to me and I'll link to you.")
Buying or selling links that pass PageRank
None of the above even apply to this debate. Nowhere in this section does it state building relevant backlinks to your content is wrong.
Yes, LINKING TO bad neighborhoods is bad. Yes, reciprocal links are bad, and yes, buying and selling links is bad. However, we already know this, right?
Links intended to manipulate PageRank
Exactly what your challenges are about.
Well, except that they need to update that, because it is SERP manipulation now, not PR.
You are confusing PageRank with SERP rank. The 2 are not the same.
If I run a site about widgets in general and I also run 3 other separate sites about blue, red, and white widgets, I am 100% certain Google has no problems with me linking out to my blue, red, and white widget sites from my general widgets site.
The key is relevancy. It is good for the reader.
Furthermore, it still does not say a site will be banned as you have asserted previously. That section indicates a site's ranking's can be affected. How so? The rankings can be affected when the purchased (or spam) links are devalued.
Let's assume I spam a link or purchase a link to my widgets page from a PR8 site. That link will greatly help my rankings; that is, until the PR8 site is found by Google to have been selling links. When that happens, the links are devalued and my site loses ranking. That is how it works.
I dont know how many times I have said that, but you jump in implying that i have not.
Yes, you are supposed to link you interrelated content.
Sigh. Thisis where go back to square one again. Nobody reads, nobody comprehends.
That is why HP needs a clear and comprehensive statement.
LOL Thank you Joshua
Yet really, the best thing to do is just to ignore the troll. He's been caught on lies publicly not once, and still does the same. And as I learned with water4gas scam - people will still follow foolish and deceptive advice as long as it matches their preconceptions, no matter how good you explain why it does not work. More, they will bash you in return for your advice if it does not fit their delusions. Now I am letting them make their own mistakes - just make sure I provide the correct information, for those who are ready to comprehend it.
Let me get this right - generating backlinks, via software, paid for services, sneaking around in forums just to leave sigs etc is wrong.
Ok. All good.
Google dislikes the above and associated methods, prenyfers that links are gained through natural methods. Fine.
Why then does Google advertise backlinking software and services? Why does Google have a pricing structure for campaigns that allow those that offer the services/provide the software?
You only have to look at any backlinking related article to see exactly what I'm referring to. 'ads by google' in clear view beneath them.
And I'm not saying Google promotes it. I'm asking why do they advertise something that is against their TOS.
Now the above is far more confusing than the HP viewpoint - theirs I understand. HP is not playing the 'do as I say, not do as I do' game.
Gawd knows. I'd love to find the answer to that one myself.
Yes for all the hot air from HubPages and Google about excessive backlinking, the fact is, IT WORKS.
Look on flippa - folk are paying 1000's of dollars for 3 page sites that have a large number of backlinks so are making big money in tough niches.
Well... it is a department issue.
We have google the search engine
We have google blogger
We have google buzz
We have google adwords
to name a few under the umbrella. They all run independently as a business concern but under the corporate sign 'Google'.
Now you have one business - Google search engines - that advocates content as king... they dont want to be manipulated.
Now you have another business - Adwords - they prioritise profits, ultimately, and get their revenue on advertising.
The dichotomy here is that, although they are essentially Google, they all have different priorities. This leads to conflict and contradiction. It is here that HP are caught between a rock and a hard place.
This distinction is not correct - they are not different businesses, they are are different parts of the same business.
The Google Adsense program is run out of the same Mountain View, CA office as the Google Adwords program, as is the Search engine.
Maybe, the dichotomy is better explained by the fact that Adwords is the main revenue earner.
As someone said earlier, it is not the case of "Do As I Do", it is a case of "Do As I Say".
If the climate here is so bothersome and you feel you can make demands, why did you leave your site of 17 years to sharecrop here for the last 4 months?
If you have so much cream and so much knowledge, why didnt you just make your own site?
Oh yey, this is so much FUN!
Silly hat and scary robot thing rock! Is it a robot SF?
The only problem is I am having difficulty concentrating on working with all this interesting chit-chat.
My favorite part in this whole debate is that lucky folks getting their cream to rise (so to speak) actually get a little push from the fact that all those Mishas, Forum Profiles and other "Baddies" send lots of backlinks to hubpages as a whole, making the whole site rank a little better for everything!
It kind of makes me smile.
Oh and no I am not a man - funny how silly hat et al assume - I'm a fun loving internet marketing girlie!
Enjoy the rest of your "conversation"...
You dont need help being confused,But, I think the rest of the adults are capable of finding out truths through their own research.
I use my own produced content at many locations over the net that I own or partner with. When topics are related I create directories to other locations. Often I am thanked, emailed or rewarded by my viewers or advertising partners.
I also take the opportunities afforded to me by sites that request relationships and content if it can be of possible benefit to me.
Also, I dont think most should use social media for marketing as suggested in your link - that is much closer to true spamming then anything you have suggested. My friends in social networks know I am an online writer, marketer and artist, this is clear and so anything I share is relevant to my identity.
Most who are hobby writers will be simply annoying there friends by posting hubs (only referring to sales/niche hubs) to their friends and family.
If that were all you recommended in your 'challenges" I wouldn't have a thing against them. Linking inter-related content is expected and valuable to Google.
But it's not. You recommend creating links to fool search engines. That is the difference and you know it.
not at all, I suggest expanding ones network to incorporate many locations across the web rather than being pigeonholed into one location.
I often point out the usefulness of this practice through many perspectives including the simple truth of "not putting all your eggs in one basket" certainly not exclusive to SEO benefits but also not disregarding it
Im a realist, this is the real state of affairs. Search engines will change and adapt those who are trying to earn simply from how and when their content is seen will continue to react. The quality standard will continue to rise. But google will never return the "best" results.
I think its fun
It is a shame that you have decided to do almost no promotion of your hubs anywhere online. I still believe people may find their best form with promotion, obviously, when it is done responsibly.
For me the 'can I' question does suggest the best course of action. For example;
Can I be part of a dozen separate forums and provide useful feedback and conversation and answer questions and have my link/s inside my author sig? Yes
Can I be part of a dozen separate forums and provide very little feedback and conversation and answer questions and have my link/s inside my two hundred accounts with author sig? No, almost all these accounts not offering anything will surely be banned.
It seems that backlinking is becoming like the consumption of alcohol, don't get stupid and do it responsibly, otherwise it WILL come back to haunt.
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents worth before it gets lost in this last page of conversation, that unfortunately will confuse the hell out of people learning this trade.
I wish you fortune with your future vision for your Hubs Nelle. Oh BTW, don't be re-miss about the Misha challenge, getting to a $100 on a single day Hub is still a good goal to have. I still have it as a goal to acheive and their is more than one way to get there.
You bring up a very interesting issue about answering questions in forums.
I used to be an active participant, way back before Google even existed. When we left links, it was to help people, not to promote ourselves.
Because of the excessive spamming of recent years, I have almost completely stopped doing that.
That's just another way that SEO spammers have ruined the web for everyone - you can't evn drop useful advice any more because of their pollution.
Thats simply not true, you just have to be a part of well moderated communities.
People quickly learn who has worthwhile info to share.
No because common sense isnt common and the most enthusiastic linkers usually have nothing to say for themselves which quickly comes across in the what they write (or link to)and how they communicate in said forums.
Well moderated forums, even user moderated forums are quick to ban those who cant stay on topic or create bullshit links that have no use to the conversation.
Im of the mindset of allowing people to manage themselves, you have some sort of unnatural overlord complex.
at least thats how i see it.
Ahhhhhh advice, I love giving others advice and helping out. Yet I will get 'a thank you' from some, and a 'you have no idea what your talking about' from others.
So after a time I no longer advise, I merely make suggestions, from suggestions people can make of it what they will.
Pcunix & Sunforged, I am off to bed gentlemen, your conversation here between the two of you alone has given me food for thought. I shall chat with you both later. Please, no guns @ 10 paces whilst I sleep
I read through the 1st 3rd of this and I have seen no proof that less backlinks is better or will help you in the SERPS nor is getting too many for ALL sites. I have seen countless test of people getting 30K in a month to rank for hard 1 word terms to people getting a few links at authority sites & ranking high. Anyway, this has probably been said by someone here already. not much time to read them as I am backlinking/promoting responsibly (not spamming) like a Vegas whale.
I thought HP had made it clear. Oh well.
And it still doesn't explain why, if SE's are opposed to blackhat linking - they allow advertising for it. Take money for it. Make money from it.
Do I take it that that means it's good for the goose, but not the gander?
to be critical PageRank is not "rank your page appears in the search results"
but they do mean that also
Of course there is nothing wrong with reciprocal linking, there are tons of legitimate reasons people would link among themselves.
I am a part of many artist portfolio sites, they enjoy linking and sharing exposure between their friends and fellow artists. They do this as human beings who support each others work, out of a sense of community,they have no idea of the benefits/deficits on how this relates to google nor do they care.
Human owners of websites have their own reasons to link among content and content producers that they deem to be related, that is their prerogative as owners of the sites, googles opinion on the matter is not relevant, they work for us indexing the content producers of the world, not the other way around.
Thats probably our big schism in ideals, this is my net and the net of others who choose to produce, google is just another business making billions off a reciprocal relationship. They only make the rules as far as they benefit us and can and will be motivated always by advertising dollars.
Ill pick up the standard for the first search engine that arises, that does not directly earn from search placement services. That indexes and ranks, just to serve up quality content without monetary benefit.
ill use it for my search purposes and continue to be involved with the business of online producing as it relates to other markets. For the record, i get plenty of google love from promoted and non-promoted work depending on level of competition, all my accounts are in order.
I only joined the game when I decided that my content was being outranked by inferior products. Its the reality of the world I live in. A world with due dates on bills and dependents who like food.
I should have clarified that excessive reciprocal linking is bad. As with most points in this debate, moderation (and relevancy) is key.
Again, you are undoubtedly confusing people. Not your fault, you can't be expected to write a book every time you make a point.
HP needs an unequivocally clear statement and that learning center page is not.
And I do think you need to be more clear about the dangers of enthusiasm in your challenges.
Then perhaps the muddy waters lay at the feet of those that say one thing - yet do another. Leading by example always has been the best way of changing behaviour.
I'd pick a better horse to back.
matt Cutts consitantly talks about over promotion, however he agrees that helpful backlinks are good. Excessive promotion is the real thing that Google cracks down on.
So for instance, reciprocal links, yes they have less value than a one way link, but they are not 'bad'.
Matt Cutts has said that Excessive reciprocal linking is a bad thing, and it is, however a few reciprocal links here and there can effectively drive traffic, and help with rankings.
likewise backlinking campaigns.
Matt Cutts has stated that Google has NO problem with you linking between your own related content 'if' it is useful. However since it is pretty hard for Google to tell what is relevant interms of linking or not, as long as the content is related you should be fine.
In PCUnix's defence he does not say 'no backlinking' he is just a big supporter of natural, related content backlinking (From what I have read, feel free to disagree if I am wrong) This is not a bad thing, however since my competition is consistantly running backlinking campaigns, I feel that I do need to create at least 2-3 artificial backlinks per hub. These are not necessarily useless. For instance my notebook cooler hubs are generally linked to from my notebook cooler websites, and linked back to in return. They are still however artificial, and intended to help improve my rankings.
Specifically, I have recommended what is said in theLearning Center and at Google, nothing different.
That makes me a fool and a liar in the eyes of some.
Many people don't actually comment and I think the vast majority of people agree with your fundamentals - particularly the Hubpages team - I do and so do many others. Most people would like a eutopia world where the spammy dark side didnt exist so as everyone has an even playing field to produce good content.
However, this will happen and Google are onto it, but during this transitional period of search engine change - transitions always have to evolve, in exactly the same way they have evolved to get to this point - google accepts grey hat. But a time will come - everything in life goes full circle and the Internet is no different.
One thing, I believe, everyone admires your conviction.
I think we can reasonable understand that they mean you should follow the rules *of the site the link comes from*, not just whatever service might try to plant it there.
This thread has drove me nuts,lol. Here is my final argument for why I feel Hub Pages and Google and anyone else who wants to trash the way people get links are nothing but Hypocrates.
If Hub Pages is so concerned with this WHY do I constantly see the Google Ad advertising 1000 Back Links for $9.99 on everyone's Hubs. Seems to me if Hubpages is so righteous and the many of you that trash people's linking methods are so righteous that you would be inflamed with this advertisement being associated with this site in any way.
Hub Pages has the ability to choose what type of advertising appears on here. What would they gladly make money off of someone clicking an add to do what they supposedly disapprove of.
If that does not take the air out of your high and mighty balloons then you are more lost in your narrow opinions than I first feared!!!!!!!!
I asked that question myself in a separate thread and got zero response from the Hub Pages staff.
I checked it out Empress and was surprised to see so few posts as I am on this thread as well. Want to know why? Because the self righteous ethical high horse riders have no come back for it ,thus silence. You and I both indicated the ultimate debate winning statement hands down!
Oh, yes, it is such a horrible thing to ask for ethics!
I object to that ad also. But seeing something that is wrong doesn't cause me to cheat.
My point there is if you object so strongly to these methods and were a true person of integrity that stood behind your beliefs tooth and nail you would not be on Hub Pages unless they refused to display such ads.
Nothing wrong with having a viewpoint,just seems like if you feel that strongly about that opinion you are a hypocrate if you don't immediately close your account and refuse to associate with sites that allow that type of advertisement.
Or to put it more simply you would be in my opinion what the world calls a SELLOUT by supporting a site that in principal goes against your beliefs.
I think it is important to note here that
a) Google uses backlinks and their anchor text to determine SERPs.
b) People relise this, and use basic techniques to game the system.
c) Google try and crack down on people creating backlinks to promote themselves.
d) Google should maybe try different ranking factors, rather than choosing an exlploitable ranking medium.
This does however mean that,
a)You do need to realize that Backlinks do affect rankings.
b) If you want each article to reach it's full potential, some kind of artificial backlinking is required. The cream may rise to the top, but a helium balloon rises further. A little extra boost can help a lot. It is possible to rank highly with completely ethical backlinking, but it is hard.
c) Your competition is more than likely running succesful backlinking campaigns.
Nelle, I know you are a statistics fan, so I really do hope you keep a track on whether your removal of backlinks has an effect, and if so how much, and what kind of links you removed!
There's so much great information on this thread. I'm learning from the reading.
Here's a real life example of writing a Hub on Hubpages and making one link to a site on adoption I created. The site's been live for a week. A woman sent me an email about a problem. I asked how she found my adoption site. She wrote and told me the keyword phrase she used. It was really obscure and turned up two results on Google. One of them was my Hub! she read that and then had to link from there to reach my site. She lives about 3 miles away from me, too. And I'm giving her the name of a counseling center for her son.
So, here, one link from a respected site like Hubpages led to an action. I'm not really concerned too much about backlinking. It should be done. But writing useful content - really useful to readers - will bring results. There were quotes earlier about Matt Cutts - I recommend people watching his comments.
Google shares data between ALL it's network. Analytics, webmaster, adsense all share data by explicitly asking user permission. How much they are honest with it is entirely different topic.
Google still indexes content that violates it's webmaster guidelines. For example, check guidelines.
http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … er=35769#3
Affiliate marketers use cloaking and domain redirects and their content,domains are still indexed by google. They can't penalize it because their competitors can see through this flaw.
Check Yousaytoo.com- how they violated guideline alebit different way.
URL shortner guidelines few years ago contradicts google's current -goo.gl URL shortner launch.
I can come up with plenty of such cases. But point is those are guidelines and not RULES.
Porn, warez and hacking stuff sites are still indexed by google where they hate such stuff in Adsense but not in Adwords . Google adwords still accepts money from those sex tape sites, busty videos etc for advertisements. They may or may not ban those ads in future but today we still see those ads.
Before you try to assume anything about google penalizing or making utopia in future updates you need to understand one fact that - the way humans think and the way algorithms for search engines are written always creates a loophole. It will remain like this for next few years no matter how intelligent phd holders write this algorithm.
When it comes to business-manipulation is likely to be there. It's business for both google and publishers.
I need to reiterate. I had a choice to over exert link submissions. I got punished for it. People need to know that being overly promotional could lead to problems and my example is a good one to learn from. Cant you see that this is positive? No pain - no gain!
I need to make this clear. Sunforged has taught me a great deal. I am always grateful to him. He has allowed me to grow into a better writer and I have a greater understanding of SEO (I didnt know what seo was a year ago - so boy, I have learned soooo much!). I now have the foundations to build on. I am able to test theories on my own and come up with my own conclusions. This would not have been possible without sunforged and the 60dc.
Pcunix has a wealth of experience and expertise in white hat methods. All his points are valid and admirable. He has conviction and is a force in himself.
Between the two of you, what a force to be recond with?! I think you are both amazing people.
Powerful corporate companies have the power to implement change. There is no voting process or democrasy - they become so far removed that they might end up operating like a dictatorship. The decisions they make are final - there is no redemption, individuals dont have a voice. This is nature - this is how everything evolves - the strong survive, the weak die.
So, why pick on a sprat (in the grand scheme of the internet) like me? I guess, because I was easy pickings - an example for the rest. And look, it is working!
Now lets all accept one another's views, learn from each other and keep focused in our cause respectfully. We are a community and, between us, we can help make Hubpages a force to be reconed with, through unity.
I have nothing to learn from people who have the goal of manipulating SERP. I don't like people who do that and have no respect for them.
Could you explain what happened? Or is it posted somewhere else? It's good to learn from other people's mistakes... Not to offend, just really want to know if there is something I shouldn't do.
Now youve done it!
Ive seen the light, these third party private enterprises and their marketing materials have converted me to a the path of inaction and patience.
You are very much misrepresenting me, but since I am a changed man I dont even care.
Long Live Google may their coffers overflow and their buyout of every tech startup result in a chicken on every plate
btw , I have now successfully removed 100% of my backlinks too, just to be safe I contacted all webmasters that have referenced me and ask that they make the links nofollow.
Have you considered getting a computer that doesnt talk? Or talking to a specialist.
Have you considered having following these ethics?
So where is your "everybody does it" argument now?
It's clear you guys are not going to see eye to eye on this. I know I'm considered a forum newbie, but c'mon... Regardless of what route you take to gain backlinks and move up in the SERP, it shouldn't matter because you do it your own way!
Sunforged, you do your thing and it works. You are extremely helpful with me and other people in answering DUMB questions we have. It's more than appreciated. That's most important in a community like HP.
PC, you have also been extremely outgoing and helpful. It's very much appreciated. I see where you are coming from as well, but regardless if you think Sunforged's way is peoper or not, it's how HE does things. It shouldn't matter to you....
That's just my two sense, because this $hit HAS TO STOP. It's just back and forth and clearly you two won't ever agree. True of false claims are just CLAIMS. It's your actions that draw people your way. If someone wants to learn to do it a certain way, they will ask. If it works, they will seek more guidance and trust your word. So far I trust both of you.
We all have our own technique. I personally know a couple people who are straight black hat, and that's fine, it works for them. For me, if Google allows it, promotes it, and even makes money from it, they don't care regardless of what their TOS states. I do not partcipate in black hat techs, but do a bit of my own backlinking one at a time with PostRunner.
All you risk is your own account so WHO CARES who does what in what way...let's just end this damn thread because it's completely ridiculous...
You seem to imply that both SF and PC contribute to ridiculousness of this thread equally. I do disagree.
In the majority of cases and for the majority of people, I suspect that the Big G is happy to turn a blind eye. But it's still kinda handy for them to have one or two clauses like that in their TOS, so they can use them against people who - for whatever reason - p*ss them off. I suspect it's a similar thing with HubPages as well. Not to mention every government on earth.
This. Still waiting.
Genuine EXPERTS with years of experience come up with evidence. Oh but that's entirely different sick game ya know.
So the people who this work for Xerox, Panasonic and Kohler http://iprospect.com/corporate/clients.htm
are fools for not engaging in the shenanigans you worship?
I guess they must be, because they certainly don't do the things your heroes do.
Do your own searches for "SEO ethics" and "SEM ethics"
Here's another: http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articl … f-seo.html
"we definitely do not try to trick the search engines"
But according to you, that's the mark of a fool, right?
I know! Can't you just picture HP staff trying to figure out the proper explanation for all of this?
Since I have been converted to your side, I wont worry about the details.
But, your general reasoning is quite odd.
Can you think of any examples of Industries or perhaps Governments or maybe even Religious Documents that put something on a piece of paper for the suckers to read, while actively engaging in something much different?
BTW - where do I send my alms to Google, do I need to face any certain direction while praying...I have so many questions
So, who else is a fool?
We know I am.
I guess HP must be, because their linking page agrees with my feelings.
I guess those high powered SEO and SEM fools are also.
We're all fools for thinking that you shouldn't be trying to game search engines.
Oh, and I just LOVE the posts above this: those firms are lying, they don't really mean it, they solicit artificial links.. yes, EVERYBODY is sleazy and unethical!
You say that except twitter and FB, you don't need to "backink" ANYwhere else.
HP does not appear to say that.
Does HP punish bad backlinking behavior? Apparently it does.
Has HP unpublished hubs by certain Hubbers that you accuse of unethical backlinking? NO.
So, HP does not think the same way you do.
Well PC... looks like you have achieved your goal - Sunforged is converted! He has turned his back to the darkside - now, we can have peace.
Did i said that ? Or you want to make out stuff again ? Besides didn't you noticed one important point- these companies( Xerox, Panasonic and Kohler) do manipulate SERP with affiliate programs and PPC ads ?
My heroes ? You watch animes? Oh my, why you are not redirecting me to official matt cutts and google page for the proof of your own statement ?
Unlike you, i never made any attack on any side of the fence. I said it's business. It's not hard to digest my statements.
You on the other hand is contradicting your own views.
In some threads you give references of relache and advocate no backlinks to newbies as IF it works for all niche and all people on web (this even you can't prove) and here you tell me not to point you for that "NO-Backlinking" hatred of yours ?.
-You write at place which is SEO optimized using PPC & Backlinks and you hate SERP manipulators.
-You make attack on people for their promotion tactics by calling it black hat, spam etc. And you think they're calling others fools ?
- You call names and sarcastically make comments without Proving your claims. And you think they're calling others fools,liers ?
I'm still waiting for this-
Give me official source from matt cuts and google that proves your this statement -"People have been banned, albeit temporarily, without using automation tools."
PCUnix, you really need to slow down.
You do realize that iProspect ACTIVELY. engages in artificial backlinking strategies, no? I mean, you so blithely quote them and hold them up as a higher power, you must know that, right? They just mask it as RCE, or Relevant Content Endorsement. They also submit their clients' sites to directories and search engines, and ALL of the other stuff that people engaging in SEO do. You do know that--right?
You obviously know nothing at all about marketing--nothing--if you would go out to ANY commercial website and take the garbage they spout at face value.
This thread is getting so heated, it might need to be transferred to the religious forum!
Sharon, this is your favorite troll who does heat those otherwise pretty boring technical issues, nobody else.
Isnt it controversy that generates good traffic?
From the iProspect website:
iProspect performs the initial research to locate websites that contain subject matter that relates to your website's content...Once we have identified the appropriate contact persons at the target website, we work closely with you to review and recommend the page(s) on your website that would be most informative and beneficial to their visitors and recommend link text that would persuade users to take action. Then iProspect facilitates the necessary discussions with the external website owner(s) to establish the appropriate business relationship.
Hmmm, am I wrong, or are they BUYING backlinks?
I wonder if Nelle even halfway realized where this would end up? Not her fault, I'm just saying. This is a monster.
And I still haven't had my Q answered. Some folk's SEO methods are unethical, immoral, dishonorable, corrupt, disreputable etc. Okaaaaayyyy. Got that. And the fact that the SE's make money from the same practices is ... what? Ehtical, moral, honorable, honest and reputable?
You will never get a direct question answered , Im afraid.
I also like the new HallowFroggy avatar
I don't know about that, FD! Even Nellie might have a sense of humor!
I believe she does. And just like Dr Frankenstein, she's wisely moved along, leaving the monster to seethe quietly away, whilst she busies herself with work.
Can't fault her
And Allah Yamaha is the ONLY true Creator. -*courtesy - Paarsurey
Trying to understand all this BS huh? The answer is,,,,
all of the above work. Thousands of sites buy thousands of links and get on the first page.
Thousands more write quality articles, link little and get on the front page.
Everyone says one thing yet has their own "well,, this is ok" moments.
My take? Read it all and do what seems logical. I will write quality articles, do some backlinking, maybe even buy some but not overdo it.
This is the last time I'm looking at this thread, got post to make,,,
I'm not trying to understand it, I do understand it, The 'it' being the abiding issue - what is ethical, not who is ethical.
That's where the problem lies, with this thread. It started with regard to what is acceptable backlinking in the eyes of HP. It has descended into calling hubbers out, derision and more.
Pointing fingers and accusations won't change a damn thing. What will is if hubbers that have a fierce belief in ethics take their issue straight to the source of the problem - the SE's themselves.
Even then, the chances of success are very unlikely. Business is not ethical, it never will be ethical. Business is all about profit. Profit is money. Money is power.
Those that are have the monopoly power, or even oligopoly power won't be standing on honor any time in the next few millenniums.
Death and taxes aren't the only two guarantees in life. Unethical business practice is the unspoken third guarantee.
@ Misha - I can't cook very well but I sure can bake
I have a funeral service to attend today, so I won't see the rest of the childish attacks until later.
This is simply a matter of ethics. Those without ethics would like you to believe that the whole world thinks as they do, that it's all "wink, wink, we say we have ethics but we don't"
Obviously you can choose to believe me or the people who think manipulating search results is perfectly acceptable.
Do take note of their tactics though: they disparage me, call me a troll, make up insulting names to refer to me by, lie about what I say with regard to linking.
What does that tell you about them?
You will also note the anger in their posts. This anger comes because they know I am right - they know what is ethical and what is not, but they want to confuse everyone who does not understand.
It's just ethics. You either are ethical or you are not. Yes, it's possible to do something ethical and hope that it gives you good SERP. But you know in your heart what you are doing and why.
I've have admitted before that I cannot claim purity. I very briefly dabbled on the unethical side. I immediately felt dirty and I quit almost as soon as I started.
All the complaints from the folks who dislike me for asking for ethical behavior will follow. As I said, I'll be at a funeral service, so I will not be able to respond. But I ask you to consider their motives, the name calling and belittlement and the facts as I have presented them so far.
Make the right choice. Stop idolizing unethical SEO.
Texas Launches Antitrust Investigation of Google
http://mashable.com/2010/09/03/texas-go … stigation/
"According to Search Engine Land, the state of Texas’ investigation is focused on whether Google (Google) manipulates its search results to the detriment of its competition"
Google Hit With Antitrust Investigation in Europe
http://mashable.com/2010/02/23/google-a … ommission/
This isn’t the first time Google will face scrutiny from regulators. In the U.S., its acquisition of DoubleClick was closely examined by the FTC before eventually winning approval. Meanwhile, antitrust concerns killed a deal that Google had made with Yahoo for ad serving back in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/techn … 3goog.html
At the same time, Google’s own missteps have prompted a new round of scrutiny. This month, it admitted that its camera-equipped cars, which drive around photographing the world’s neighborhoods for Street View images within Google Maps, had inadvertently collected fragments of communications from people using unsecured WiFi networks. Privacy advocates howled, while the F.T.C. and regulators in Europe said they were looking into the matter. ....
How China exposed Google's hypocrisy
The ultimate result is that security and privacy subject to the inconstant whims of corporate policy cannot be trusted to be consistent or trustworthy. This is one more reason why there is no such thing as a trusted brand.
'Do No Evil' lays bare Web giant's hypocrisy
http://www.peopleforum.cn/viewthread.ph … a=page%3D1
"Where's the "Do No Evil" when it comes to collecting data and profiteering off the private lives of others?
Google's hunger for information is largely a one-way street. How much do we know about Google and its inner workings and its secret deals? How good is it to its word when it comes to not reading other people's mails?
Even Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, an aggressive capitalist in his own right with a sharp eye on profit and market share, has gone on record to criticize Google for scanning the content of user e-mails for the sake of advertising research.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has acknowledged that private information is stored and might be shared with US authorities, blithely absolving the company of responsibility by saying "We are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act".
you may notice I choose my sources differently than you,
The State of Texas, The Federal Trade Commission, The New York Times, Techrepublic ...
see the difference, now go find a link to the McDonalds website or some other unrelated drivel.
as for ethics, in order to discuss ethics, you must be capable of coherent debate .. this is not your strong suit.
so Ill say, you are wrong
now, you say, no, you are wrong
and ill go swim in my shekels and consider your response
by IzzyM7 years ago
First of, I don't really know what I'm talking about, or to be more specific, I don't know the name of what I am talking about.But thanks to a few hubbers on here, I have taken to backlinking the easy way. You backlink...
by Cardia6 years ago
I read in someone's hub last night that they used Social Monkee to get backlinks for their Hubs. Social Monkee says that it gives you 25 backlinks every day for your page. Has anyone else used this? Is it reliable, and...
by mike-tells-all6 years ago
Last week I found out about this site called SocialMonkee. If you are looking for more backlinks for your HubPages this is a good place to get them. You can get 25 of them a day so you can use a different hub each...
by Jason Menayan5 years ago
There is a lot of bad SEO (search engine optimization) advice out there, and the use of automated services that procure backlinks to your Hubs is one particularly egregious example. Using services to get backlinks can...
by wytegarillaz7 years ago
Has anyone paid for these backlinks at all and had benefits from them ?I keep seeing the advert so thought I would ask.Thanks
by Mike's Corner7 years ago
I started about 7 weeks ago and have been publicizing/backlinking most of my hubs through the bookmarking sites SheToldMe, Snipsley, Xomba and Redgage.Does anyone think (or know) whether Google, as part of its new...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.