Published: Jan 25, 2008 - 10:21 am
Story Found By: SiteMost 1947 Days ago
Category: SEO
6 Comments
6 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:


Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Theres quite a bit of an exaggeration here. Should only the "pearly white hats" be left standing, that would somehow assume that all valuable content originates from them. Which is very likely not true, not even close.Would Google or any search engine doing "historical webspam forensics" throw out or relegate a large portion of its indexed content because of past infractions? Not a chance.Aaron Wall wrote an article (I dont remember its title) that dispels this fear very effectively, saying you will cause net harm to yourself if you willingly limit your options fearing a future backlash.
Exaggerated yes - but still an interesting article, playing on the fear of how powerful Google almighty has become.Maybe Santa Claus will start turning to them when hes deciding whos been naughty or nice."Scratch the presents for little Jimmy, Santa. Our records indicate he searched for the phrase stink bomb in July - a clear signal of naughty intent."
I think theres no exaggeration as it is a two-part statement.The second part doesnt read something like "because they are oh so clean".Why will they be left standing "because they protected their pristine reputations by keeping a zero historical spam footprint over the years."That reminds me of Jeffs post regarding <a href="http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/beware-your-digital-footprint-is-your-resume.html">digital footprints</a>:"So in conclusion, just be very careful to leave a clean footprint. Dust away to toe-prints where possible. And make sure the footprint matches your size."IMO the article suggests these SEOs might be left standing because their digital footprints <i>look</i> clean... says nothing about whether or not they <i>are</i> clean :)
No, Ruud, I have to disagree.The article says exactly the opposite of what you infer. Digital footprints only looking clean is really just another way to phrase "flying under the radar". Stephan Spencer talks about the dangers of this thinking. He believes that this will come back to haunt webmasters.He says, even if your digital footprint looks clean for now, in the future, Google might still find out that its tainted somehow.So, as long as you believe that Google will sooner or later be able to detect just about anything (and impose a penalty based on this), your only option is to actually stay squeaky clean. Not just looking clean.
Back in 2003 or 2004 Google did start to include some aspects of historical data into their algorithm - and some sites were immediately hit with penalties for stuff they had done in the past. History has a habit of repeating. Be elsewhere when it happens.
I always find it interesting to watch as SEO people "mature". As their client list shifts from Topeka Realtors to Nike and Coca-Cola, their public statements about SEO change from "Optimizing the keyword density of the title tag" to "Google Knows or Might Somday Be Able to Fnd Out about Your Paid Links". What should you believe? Is it what they honestly know to be true about SEO, or what they want their clients to understand about how they promise to handle SEO projects for major corporate clients? Risk management is the rule for *everyone* interested in profitable SEO.