Philosophy 101 - Opening Up the Ethics Debate - If You're Game!

[Sissy76]

Hi guys,

After hearing my husband express his hatred for affiliate sites, yet again, whilst searching the net for info, I thought I'd open up the ethics in IM debate.

Like everyone else here, I want and need traffic, but I'm just wondering if all of our traffic generation efforts - article marketing, web 2.0 linkbuilding, review sites, blog farms etc. - are just adding to the amount of crap out there on the internet?

We all know that providing good quality content is the key to success online, but how could you possibly provide good quality content with those automatic content generators?
How could you keep a check on the quality of a blog farm of hundreds or even thousands of blogs?
Even if you outsourced it, how could you keep an eye on it and maintain a decent level of quality when things start to grow in your quest for more traffic?

Not trying to criticise anyone's practices here, but if my husband's annoyed by things like affiliate sites, review sites etc, I wonder how many other people out there are as well?
Granted, he's more aware of IM because of my work, so he knows more about our practices than most other internet users, and he's not searching for answers to a desperate personal problem which may prompt him to buy a product.
But isn't that the case for most internet users?
Are we really providing quality in our sales process, or are we just clogging up the internet and making it harder for the right information to get out there?

No, I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm genuinely interested in what you all think about this.
And no, I don't have a death wish - so be nice and let's talk about this honestly .

Cheers,
Sissy

[discrat]

I know what you mean. I think the thing that really bugs me is the Affiliate Sites that are just geared towards the IM market and in particularly getting Newbies to open up their Wallets to MMO Affiliate Products.
This just bugs the crap out of me !!

There is absolutely places you can go on the Web and totally learn how to do this stuff for free. Any Newbie that needs this info. feel free to PM me.

Repeat after me: You do not need to buy anything to be Successful in learning how to do IM !!

[Orator]

There will always be self-interested people who have an interest in making money, and those who are willing to exploit their labor for profits. The more I realize the sheer potential for profit online, the more I can't help but think that it's inevitable.

I think that communities like this forum can promote good ethical IM marketing for products that people will find useful, and make a profit for themselves to. In the end though you can't simply put the genie back in the bottle.

[Sissy76]

I agree, the MMO market is probably one of the worst offenders.
When I first started in IM, I was VERY skeptical of those long sales letters - they just seemed too salesy, unbelievable and even scammy. I now appreciate the skill involved in writing a good sales letter, but seriously wonder if this is just an effect of desensitisation to them, wouldn't most people have the same response to them?

Cheers,
Sissy

Originally Posted by discrat

I know what you mean. I think the thing that really bugs me is the Affiliate Sites that are just geared towards the IM market and in particularly getting Newbies to open up their Wallets to MMO Affiliate Products.
This just bugs the crap out of me !!

There is absolutely places you can go on the Web and totally learn how to do this stuff for free. Any Newbie that needs this info. feel free to PM me.

Repeat after me: You do not need to buy anything to be Successful in learning how to do IM !!

[JordanFrancis]

Sissy ~

Here's how I look at it:

Crap content will always be crap. Whether crafted and served lovingly by your own hand, or delivered by a content generation program.

If what you put out is value, then I guess it does not matter whether it was created by human or robot... but if there are too many people giving the same information (value) then all of them devalue somewhat, don't they?

So yes - if what we put out there on the net is nothing more than what's already out there, or at most we only reach the same audience, then we're clogging up the information highway. Adding to the crap as you say. However, it's better to add quality crap if you insist on adding crap at all.

[Sissy76]

Ha ha! Thanks for that. You have made me realise though, that most of the time it's a matter of perspective.
Also, we need to always look for new ways to reach people.
Anyone feeling generous enough to divulge their newest method?

Cheers,
Sissy

Originally Posted by JordanFrancis

Sissy ~

Here's how I look at it:

Crap content will always be crap. Whether crafted and served lovingly by your own hand, or delivered by a content generation program.

If what you put out is value, then I guess it does not matter whether it was created by human or robot... but if there are too many people giving the same information (value) then all of them devalue somewhat, don't they?

So yes - if what we put out there on the net is nothing more than what's already out there, or at most we only reach the same audience, then we're clogging up the information highway. Adding to the crap as you say. However, it's better to add quality crap if you insist on adding crap at all.

[ExRat]

Hi Sissy76,

but if my husband's annoyed by things like affiliate sites, review sites etc, I wonder how many other people out there are as well?

The answer to that is directly related to how quickly Google will -

a) widen the bracket that encompasses what they consider 'thin affiliate sites' which get penalised in their serps

b) create new brackets of sites that they don't approve of, specifically misleading affiliate sites as well as artificially manipulated sites (re - backlinking)

Due to spammy backlinking techniques going mainstream and becoming easily automated for the mainstream, I don't think it will be too long now, not least because these techniques are causing problems not only to serps browsers, but the people who's sites are getting targetted.

In my opinion, it's a good time to try and move from self-created backlinks towards encouraging user generated backlinks and other user actions which might have positive results in the serps. I think those things are the only viable options to receive more attention (in the algo) in order to try and alleviate the problem.

[Sissy76]

This forum is fantastic and I'm glad that the majority of us here take this issue seriously.
Yes, there will always be dodgy merchants out there, we just have to try and keep ahead of them before they pollute our techniques yet again with their rubbish.

Cheers,
Sissy

Originally Posted by Orator

There will always be self-interested people who have an interest in making money, and those who are willing to exploit their labor for profits. The more I realize the sheer potential for profit online, the more I can't help but think that it's inevitable.

I think that communities like this forum can promote good ethical IM marketing for products that people will find useful, and make a profit for themselves to. In the end though you can't simply put the genie back in the bottle.

[Sissy76]

Hi ExRat,

I've heard quite a few people recently claiming that they've had complaints about their backlinking efforts.
Again, it's all about creating lasting relationships with your customers and readers, something which doesn't happen overnight.

Cheers,
Sissy

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Sissy76,



The answer to that is directly related to how quickly Google will -

a) widen the bracket that encompasses what they consider 'thin affiliate sites' which get penalised in their serps

b) create new brackets of sites that they don't approve of, specifically misleading affiliate sites as well as artificially manipulated sites (re - backlinking)

Due to spammy backlinking techniques going mainstream and becoming easily automated for the mainstream, I don't think it will be too long now, not least because these techniques are causing problems not only to serps browsers, but the people who's sites are getting targetted.

In my opinion, it's a good time to try and move from self-created backlinks towards encouraging user generated backlinks and other user actions which might have positive results in the serps. I think those things are the only viable options to receive more attention (in the algo) in order to try and alleviate the problem.

[MSGeek]

Well, market is an evolutionary environment. There is only one kind of ethics in evolutionary environment - survival. That's the one primarily dictated by the people who open their wallets and buy. If they buy from sales letters, that's it. If they'd be annoyed with that, they would not buy.

Ethical problem is that while catering to those buyers we may piss off general public by making it hard for them to use Internet the way they want. Essentially, we use public infrastructure for private purpose. It's ok within the reason, like highways are used to transport the goods, in a lot of cases for free. But when the problem gets out of hand, we get legislative actions like CAN-SPAM Act. But I am afraid, that's all the general public can hope for: push for the legislation that outlaws most outrageous and parasitic forms of IM. Google also works to the same goal, even before laws get in place -- that's why they outlawed "bridge pages" lately.

Now ethics gets into the picture of an Internet marketer, because he does not want to be over the boundary of law or Google's grace when the line of allowed is moved the next time.

[theimdude]

My brother gets irritated when he searches for info and always end on some article that you always have to buy something. He was doing a search on tennis elbow and got mad as he wondered why he must now buy a ebook for $47 after reading so many articles which was of no use to him.

How many other surfers is also getting irritating and it makes me wonder if article marketing is the right way to go. When I want information I don't use EZA but wikipedia.org

Sometimes I watch my wife when she is on the net and giggles when she clicks on links on parked domains and she has no idea it is a parked domain and neither does she understand why I giggle.

Using these ways are we doing the information highway justice or are we damaging it for future users.

Google banned link farms soon they might ban "article farms"

[Zeus66]

Google banned link farms soon they might ban "article farms"

Article directories face that dilemma all the time. If they don't let in most articles, their own revenue suffers. Fewer pages = fewer Adsense clicks, in the case of EzineArticles, for example. On the other hand, if they don't hold content to at least some level of quality standard, they risk inviting the ire of Google and losing most or all of their revenue entirely. It's a balancing act I don't envy, even as I do envy all that money they're raking in.

John

[Steven Wagenheim]

The only difference between carefully crafted and "legit" backlinks and the
"bulk method" as I call it, is time.

I agree with what Roger said. What Google will need to do, if they're not
already doing it, is look to see how quickly a site gets backlinks and how
many over that time and rank the site accordingly...giving more weight to
a site that maybe gets a couple of backlinks a day.

Will they do this? Are they doing it? I don't know. I don't think anybody
really knows what Google does other than the people who work there.

And even then, let's say that you're building your network very slowly
over time and after, say 3 years, you have a ton of backlinks.

What REALLY is the difference, at least to the prospect when going to
the search engines, between what they will find in 3 years and what they
would have found in 3 days if THIS IS THE FIRST DAY THEY'RE ONLINE?

To them, all that work that will have been generated over a 3 year time
span will be no different than the crap that was generated overnight.

The only thing that WILL matter to them is HOW GOOD WHAT THEY FIND
IS.

That is ultimately all that matters.

And as long as a machine is doing the deciding as to what gets ranked
first and what gets sandboxed, there will always be mistakes.

How do I know?

I can show you tons of page 1, position 1 rankings for keywords where
the page at the top of the SERPs is utter crap while pages buried on page
3 are excellent.

You are NEVER going to have a perfect system no matter how hard you
try. The only thing you can do is put out the best quality content that
you can and hope that the SERPs are kind to you, unless of course you
want to game the system. And let's be honest, all the folks who are out
there building backlinks at a rapid pace, either by outsourcing or using
automation, are gaming the system...no matter how good the actual
content is.

That is why, the one or two articles I write each day and the one or two
blogs I post legit comments on each day, all linking back to my site, are
never going to put a real dent in the SERPs because of all the folks who
are automating this process to the point of absurdity.

Sure, you can dominate the SERPs for a keyword that hardly anybody
looks up and where there are very few pages, but then you better be
selling one hell of an expensive product or a ton of inexpensive ones to
make any kind of real income.

I know many will not agree with what I have just said or will defend what
they do. That's fine. The above is JUST my opinion and is not meant to
be tossed out there as fact. It is simply the way I feel and the way I run
my own business. Sure, I could play the same "outsource the crap out of
backlinks and/or automate the process to death" just like everybody else
who is making a killing in this industry. I just choose not to. And I am not
condemning them for doing it either. It isn't my decision as to whether
they should be penalized for what they do. That's the decision of the
search engines.

Ultimately, YOU have to do what you're comfortable with doing. Nobody
can make that decision for you but you.

All I've done is given you my feelings on this subject.

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

The only thing that WILL matter to them is HOW GOOD WHAT THEY FIND IS.

Yup. That's it. End of story.

[MSGeek]

By the way, yes, they do look at how fast the backlinks were acquired. But it's just one part in the equation. Also, article marketing links grow slower and based on slower real people (webmasters) actions, making it very hard to distinct from naturally spread links. In a sense, article marketing links are natural links.

Also, adding to previous thoughts, yes, IM puts a lot of crap on Internet, but let's get real, so do the normal users as well. Ever been on an average forum, especially poorly moderated one? Try random blog on Blogger... If poor content on Internet is a problem, it's a much bigger problem than what we talk about here. Just IMHO...

[Daniel Scott]

Regarding "crappy" articles... I know what you mean... but Google is still pretty young.

Give it another ten, twenty years - maybe less - and it will be getting close to being as good as a human at picking up on this stuff.

That's why I believe good article writers - like CDarklock - will be in higher demand in the future.

Your article should answer the reader's current questions... but raise new ones as well. It's going to soon be essential to sell in your article just like you do in a sales page... albeit in a different manner.

There are ways to "shortcut" your content well... such as RSS feeds... but even then it requires careful moderation and vigilance... at least until technology catches up... which may change the whole game.

I believe every day we are moving towards cutting out the crap on the internet... and soon Google (and its peers) will be so advanced that the only way to get good rankings is to put out genuinely good content.

I can't wait.

-Dan

[ExRat]

Hi theIMdude,

My brother gets irritated when he searches for info and always end on some article that you always have to buy something. He was doing a search on tennis elbow and got mad as he wondered why he must now buy a ebook for $47 after reading so many articles which was of no use to him.

How many other surfers is also getting irritating and it makes me wonder if article marketing is the right way to go. When I want information I don't use EZA but wikipedia.org

You hit the nail on the head twice.

a) the thing that surfers find so frustrating, is the thing that we are taught to do to get clicks and sales -

provide information that is useful, but incomplete

If you couple that with all of the totally misleading and contradictory information that gets through, you have a recipe for frustrated surfers.

b) if anyone wants to see a system that is working a lot better, they should look at Wikipedia

Due to the kind of democratic process they use to confirm or refute the validity of the information, one can experience (generally) a satisfying confidence in the accuracy of the information there, in comparison to elsewhere.

The problem is that Google has commercial interest getting in the way, whereas Wikipedia doesn't.

They are caught in a balancing act - they're not likely to make any blanket changes to their algo which will clean up the quality of the serps, if it's also going to damage the money making system they have (PPC), but this is counter-balanced by their need to remain the dominant search engine - it would also adversely affect their profitability if they let that slip by providing a frustrating experience for surfers - if only there were a viable alternative.

Hi Steven,

What Google will need to do, if they're not already doing it, is look to see how quickly a site gets backlinks and how many over that time and rank the site accordingly...giving more weight to a site that maybe gets a couple of backlinks a day.

Will they do this? Are they doing it? I don't know. I don't think anybody
really knows what Google does other than the people who work there.

Yes, but it wouldn't be just link velocity (as MSgeek said). It's also the 'neighbourhood' where the links are being placed. Their 'no follow' thing has failed to protect bloggers and others from spam, so they need to do something that will placate and protect less aggressive webmasters from the more aggressive ones, because I reckon it's obvious that the less aggressive webmasters spend more time on providing accurate solutions, than those who are busy firing up the backlinking tools.

In many ways this problem is Google's fault, and they simply cannot use the excuse that they don't have the resources to sort out the problem - it's clear that they have focused on profitability so much that they have neglected to maintain healthy serps and if only there was another search provider that wasn't stuck in the 1980s, they would be ousted as the dominant force in search.

If they spent as much time hiding and modernising their serps algo as they do hiding and modernising their PPC algo in order to squeeze as much profit as possible from the two sides of the PPC business, the serps would be a better place, and truly useful information would be king.

Currently, if an internet noob gets a slow computer, the serps sends them to a registry cleaner solution from hell. Unfortunately, the internet has the same 'illness' as the offline world, where those with truly sickening amounts of wealth are leading the minnions on a merry dance when it comes to accurate information in order that they can maintain that inbalance of wealth.

And so we continue our journey along the 'mis-information superhighway.' Make sure that you've got breakdown cover