Calendar
Network
Feeds
wdeloach
I disagree (and I read the article).
Not all directory submissions are created equal. Not all article writing is created equal. Not all keyword consulting is created equal. You have to be sure you're comparing apples to apples, and comparing a service to low-cost off-shore services based just on price is not really a fair comparison.
My problem with all this is that Google could do more to resolve spam content by limiting AdSense than crusading against paid links. It won't happen though. For the one PPP example Matt gave recently you could easily find 20 adsense funded sites providing misinformation (and I think I'm being conservative in that estimate).
In the article it was proposed that just by looking at the site, there was no valid reason for it to rank for the phrase. To me that is misleading. All of the terms of the phrase were visible on the page even if not together as one phrase. My company info page ranks well for city (in company address) + a brand name that is only mentioned in reference to a return policy on that page.
I question the intentions of the post. It's not hard to say that what is done on the site is not best-practice (calling it by cloaking or any other name). However, my question is was the outing really a way to just please the prospective client that is a competitor to the site? Does that not raise it's own ethical questions?
This is a time I'd like to be able to vote down a post.
Though oriented to blogging, I think it's still a great read for anyone. I really liked the format - very easy to scan, highlighted nicely and consistently so could get the key points quickly.
« previous1 next »
Story: SEO has really gotten expensive