If I could Sphinn this article twice I would.

Lets at least spin the post to something positive - you can donate to the victims of Pakistan here http://www.dec.org.uk/donate_now/ - this story did at least reminded me I had not.

great article

yeah it is nice to get reminded that not everything is allowed when link building. one should have some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Ironic that the link to HuffPo who took the time to compile the list of charities - their own equivalent linkbait was nofollowed.

In many ways I don't see the difference between compiling the infographic, and compiling the list.

However the people creating the inforgraphic are stupid - I have written about viral marketing risks in the past. The primary link to their domain may be looked on as risky, so at the very least they should have added a parameter to the link so that it can be 301 redirected elsewhere if needed.

The only clickable link to get the inforgraphic is stupid, because the alt is nothing to do with either the graphic or the resource it is pointing to, but it does point to the correct page, and the site distribution the infographic is the one gaining the links (unlike some of the stuff that was banned which Matt Inman did in the past.

They really should have done a decent text link pointing to the infograhic with a call to action.

On a spammy 0-10 it would be a 5 if it wasn't for the cause.

Does the cause make it more or less spammy? Which website could host it that doesn't care about the links? The only one I can think of is Google.

@AndyBeard, I nofollowed the link to HuffPost because I've seen HP copy paste articles from bloggers without permission here and there just to pump up traffic numbers and adsales. This is one site, next to WikiP, I generally no-follow.

I rather give some extra juice to the charity sites highlighted below there.

Well according to Matt Cutts nofollowed links still use up your PageRank allocation, at least on a page by page basis, he still hasn't explained what happens with the reset vector (and it is a pig to test)

IANAL but for me taking someone's content in it's entirety no matter what the cause is plagiarism unless there is a license that allows you to do so, and especially in a situation where you replace the need to visit the original.

There are situations where it doesn't make sense to do so, or where the integrity of the material is vital to remain subjective.

Just because you believe they do it isn't a defense.

One point I didn't raise... would you prefer the site to rank for Pakistan Flood Relief?

In part I am playing devil's advocate but whilst everyone is full of outrage, no real alternatives are being offered. I noticed in the comments that it was suggested to house this on a different domain, so of course you should in fairness be saying the same for every news site that is providing information, and all history books that might be written about the situation in the future, and the HuffPo list as well.

Old story - I have an online friend who back in 2005 set up lots of exact match blogs for the names of Hurricanes - predictive SEO - he planned to provide news coverage whilst also having some monetization. Was he evil for having that kind of forsight?

I doubt any of the editors are going to change their mind over this in regards the rules for "Attack / Shame Posts" which is what this is - it wasn't perfectly executed on their behalf, and maybe was a little insensitive but it was for a good cause.

p.s. before anyone asks the question I have nothing to do with an coupon sites whatsoever.

@badgat1 & @absolutelyTrue

I wrote the article, and I'm bashing the fact the site is trying to build links through an infographic which is getting more awareness for a good cause. I would totally support the Infographic if the link building was directed to the charity sites instead of their own discount voucher site using anchor text like:" DiscountVouchers - 2 for 1 Discount Vouchers "

@EMFK

"If you're going to call someone else out, you better have your act together."

Please explain what you mean..