Am I Just a PRUDE? Is THIS even FAIR? Shouldn't I BE MAD?

14 years ago

Prude.

Would it upset you to find out you had been taught something that could now jeopardize your business because there was no updated disclosure?

Yes, I would be upset, but I, in the end, only would have myself to blame for not researching it more.

But yeah, full disclosure is the best way for me, and I do get quite annoyed when things are left out intentionally to make the product appear something it is not, or to hide something nefarious.

Keith

Thanks

Signature

www.veroconcepts.com
www.facebook.com/VeroConcepts
www.twitter.com/VeroConcepts

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1518937].message }}

Andyhenry

14 years ago

This happens a lot. Some people will sell anything they think they can as a WSO with no thought to the risks they put people at or the tos they break or tell others to break.

It's one of the problems with all the 'you should sell that as a wso' mentality people have - they're just thinking of the money they can make rather than the people they're selling to.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1518956].message }}

JohnMcCabe 14 years ago

Maybe. No. Yes.

Now that we have that out of the way...

How often do people laugh at lines like this in mainstream entertainment:

"It isn't cheating if you don't get caught..."

"The eleventh commandment - Thou Shalt Not Get Caught"

"Rules are made to be broken"

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission"

And on and on...

Maybe you remember the guy who was in here awhile back claiming that "he" wasn't breaking that particular TOS because he was buying legitimate traffic, but if his contractor decided to cheat there was nothing he could do about it, wink wink...

This sounds like the same stuff to me.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1518988].message }}

Diana Lane

14 years ago

You're not a prude, Jill. You're just outraged on behalf of the people who are being led into doing something they shouldn't (and charged to find out how) by people who should know better. I feel the same whenever I see 'newbie' product creators told that they can swipe graphics from Google Images with reckless abandon.

All we can do is keep pointing out that these things are wrong. Way back in the days of cavemen it was acceptable to beat up the women, and in Victorian times it was acceptable to send kids up chimneys. People didn't know any better until enough people were saying it was wrong and so society decided the same thing. It's not a lot different online even though the issues barely compare - we just have to keep enlightening people.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Fiction Ideas Writing Software: Ignite Your Inspiration: Create Illustrated Plots You Can Even Sell!

Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1518964].message }}

Frank Donovan 14 years ago

Jill, I'm pretty sure I know which WSO you're referring to - I only picked up on it when I saw it in the War Room.

Of course it should have carried a disclaimer and/or spelled out clearly that you were risking account termination.

But c'mon...

Here was a "system" advocating using outsourced workers to click on your article for a few cents a time simply to inflate the view count. The author then went on to explain how you could circumvent EZA's tracking mechanisms in order to remain undetected.

How could anyone expect EZA or any article directory to be okay with that? Surely you don't need to refer to the TOS to realize that if you were rumbled, there'd be consequences?

Sometimes, marketers just have to take responsibility for their own actions.

Frank
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519014].message }}
- Steven Wagenheim 14 years ago
  
  Jill, I know people personally (no names mentioned) who teach these
  blackhat methods. I don't approve of them and quite honestly, make a
  mental note of this should I ever think about doing business with these
  people.
  
  Ultimately though, it is up to the person buying the product (especially if it
  is vague) to ask questions. If they just blindly buy, then they have nobody
  to blame but themselves.
  
  It would be like me going to a drug store to buy a medication for my
  headache without asking what the side effects could be. Yes, I know
  medications have to have these things printed on the label but IM products
  do not. At least I know of no law that says they do.
  
  So it is up to us to do our due diligence and make sure that the product
  we are getting is ethical or at the very least, ethical in our eyes.
  
  Some people, on the other hand want these products. They don't care
  about the TOS of other sites, so they will buy them because they have
  these tactics.
  
  If you want to put a stop to this, you need to take the product in
  question and send it to the site whose TOS it is specifically violating.
  
  End of story.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  My Soundcloud Music Channel
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519096].message }}

halfpoint

14 years ago

Originally Posted by avenuegirl

Am I just being a prude about all of this?

Not at all.

Sometimes it's a result of people completely disregarding the rules, however, sometimes it can be innocent, also.

For example, Marketer A disregards the rules and teaches noobs how to make money using BlueFart methods, but doesn't disclose that they are unethical methods.

The noob marketer has some success with the method and then goes on to tell others about it, without realising they are advising people to do something they shouldn't be. And so the cycle continues which is why there is so much mis-information spread around the internet and this forum.

It does get said a lot around here, but I guess the lesson is that you must always do your due diligence in regards to any piece of information you get from someone on here.

Never blindly trust something someone tells you without doing some research and/or testing first.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519005].message }}

samstephens

14 years ago

Just a quick note about selling:

It's easy to make money. It's much harder to keep it.

I'm not talking about these WSO's as I haven't seen any of them, I'm just talking about selling in general.

Jill bought something she through would be a type of information, but instead got something a lot different to what she was expecting.

Selling is one thing, but I believe we also need to be clear about WHAT we're selling.

It's easy to make that initial sale, but if you don't deliver what people are expecting, you'll just get increased refunds.

There's no point in having an initial sale if it's only going to be refunded later.

Target your customers well, rather than a blanket or shutgun approach. You may get less sales, but you'll also get a lot less refunds, and will increase people's trust and even build yourself a following.

I didn't mean that to come out like a sermon - I blame my lack of coffee

And please keep in mind: I'm not talking about these WSO's Jill mentioned as I've never seen them. I'm just talking about selling in general, and as sellers trying to avoid making our customers feel like Jill did - bought a product expecting one thing, and got something entirely different. Yes, as sellers we do have to take a lot of responsibility as to what our customers thing they're getting - we're the one pitching, right?

cheers
Sam

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

DLGuard v5 - The Warrior Edition
Full integration with JVZoo, DigiResults, and WSO Pro for secure WSO's and WSO memberships.

www.dlguard.com
Serving the Warrior Forum since 2004

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519152].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Sam, when it comes to the term "ethical marketer" you are right up there
at the very top of my list. Your product speaks for itself and you have
always been a class act as a customer service provider and a person.

If every marketer was like you, we'd have literally ZERO problems in this
industry IMO.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519217].message }}

Tory 14 years ago

Steven, I always follow and respect your posts.... but I have to tell you that with a lead in your footer of "Beat the FTC regs".... YOU CRACK ME UP! :-)
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519547].message }}
- Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago
  
  I think that violating any TOS should result in the immediate termination of your IM career....
  
  Anyone ever digg their sites?
  
  Users of Digg agree Not to:
  
  to submit stories or comments linking to affiliate programs, multi-level marketing schemes, sites/blogs repurposing existing stories.
  
  How about use software to bookmark?
  
  with the exception of accessing RSS feeds, you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission. Additionally, you agree that you will not: (i) take any action that imposes, or may impose in our sole discretion an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure; (ii) interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Site or any activities conducted on the Site; or (iii) bypass any measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Site;
  
  I thought maybe it was just Digg...But low and behold Mixx has this in their TOS
  
  You will not post links to any site whose sole mission is to sell a good or service, unless, of course, it's done for humorous reasons and contains no affiliate benefits.
  
  Digg is just one example that I decided to use randomly - There are many others that I can point out that a large percentage of people use almost daily....and when they do, they are violating the TOS of the particular site or service.
  
  I could really go on and on....
  
  So, do we get to pick and choose which TOS that we follow?
  
  OR
  
  Is it just OK to violate some sites TOS?
  
  If it is the latter of the 2, I'd appreciate it if one of the wholesome and "white hat" folks here could give me a list.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519604].message }}

samstephens

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Sam, when it comes to the term "ethical marketer" you are right up there
at the very top of my list. Your product speaks for itself and you have
always been a class act as a customer service provider and a person.

If every marketer was like you, we'd have literally ZERO problems in this
industry IMO.

Wow, thanks Steven, I'm really quite honoured!

You made my afternoon!

cheers
Sam

Thanks

Signature

DLGuard v5 - The Warrior Edition
Full integration with JVZoo, DigiResults, and WSO Pro for secure WSO's and WSO memberships.

www.dlguard.com
Serving the Warrior Forum since 2004

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1523098].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 14 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519241].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago

I think that it doesn't affect you one way or the other.

Look at your list of articles - What is your highest amount of views?

If you get your article ranked in the search engines for a highly searched for term...you might have gotten your article listed somewhere.

Other wise, it would have never seen the light of day.

I personally sell a product that shows people how to do it and am in the process of exposing other ways it can be done as well.

I know one other product that shows the same thing...

The thing is, everyone focuses on the one method that is "black-hat" instead of the purely white hat method that is shown as an alternative.

If it isn't your cup of tea...It isn't your cup of tea.

Do it the white hat ways which are also shown.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519292].message }}

jasondinner

14 years ago

OH

I thought when you said "prude" you were talking about something more exciting than Ezine Articles

Thanks

Signature

"Human thoughts have the tendency to transform themselves into their physical equivalent." Earl Nightingale

Super Affiliates Hang Out Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519406].message }}

Zeus66

14 years ago

You ate Oreos™ and made loud smacking noises, which caused me great psychological pain. So I'm GLAD you were upset by this, Jill. You deserve it. :p

Of course this is wrong. I think the writer of such a report has an obligation to point out before someone plunks down their money that the tactics are at best very dark-gray hat, and are likely to get them banned at EZA if implemented. That's not something you take payment for prior to disclosing. Not even debatable. Wrong, unethical, worthy of being denied Oreos™.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519420].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

So long as you are fully open and free about every method you use, no method is inappropriate.

You attract people who are attracted by your appearance. So use whatever method you wish, just remember what kind of audience you are attracting and what kind of audience you want. Are they similar? If not perhaps different methods would be preferable.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519539].message }}

Zeus66

14 years ago

I think the point is what you divulge in your sales material, Jeremy, not the TOS violations per se.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519615].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

John,

Anyone that bought any of the products that show how to do that - as long as they read the sales letter and feedback pretty much knew what the product was about.

And....

This was included in the OP:

I just think there is some bad information swimming around this forum, and it is information that will get peoples accounts banned without them having a heads up on the consequences.

I was SHOCKED EVEN MORE to find that information had been offered in the WAR ROOM as one of these WSO's is offered FREE in there (the other one I purchased and will deal with seperately). Again, if it was offered with an up front - "this was my wso and some techniques are now considered grey or BlueFart" kind of warning I don't think I would have been annoyed. But this is not what is in there.

Am I just being a prude about all of this?

So, even when the info is free with no sales letter involved, the tactics themselves are being discussed.

I'm just sayin...Wrong is wrong, right?

Or is it only wrong if your not doing it?

Thanks

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519639].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 14 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519655].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Isn't there a significant difference between individually breaching someone's Terms Of Service and selling an information-product advising people about techniques that breach others' Terms Of Service? I had kind of assumed that there is. But I admit that that is only my own assumption/estimation, and maybe others don't agree with it? :confused:

Is there an issue when gura A tells the masses to bookmark their affiliate site?

Is there an issue with people who backlink their websites that are there strictly for the purposes of Adsense Revenue?

Is there an issue with people signing up to various websites just to create profiles?

While everything might black or white...It's highly unlikely that at one time or another everyone isn't in the black.

EDIT: It should also be noted that every product that I've ever seen mention the tactics that the OP was addressing also included totally white hat alternatives to see the same results. So, while a short-cut might have been given, the long road is still there for those that want to stay on the straight and narrow.

Thanks

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519668].message }}

jasondinner

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Isn't there a significant difference between individually breaching someone's Terms Of Service and selling an information-product advising people about techniques that breach others' Terms Of Service? I had kind of assumed that there is. But I admit that that is only my own assumption/estimation, and maybe others don't agree with it? :confused:

Spoken like a true prude

Thanks

Signature

"Human thoughts have the tendency to transform themselves into their physical equivalent." Earl Nightingale

Super Affiliates Hang Out Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519670].message }}

Zeus66

14 years ago

Jeremy, Jill wrote this, which seems pretty clear to me:

I have nothing against if others like to toy with grey/black hat techniques - as long as when they present these tactics they are telling you up front that these are what they are.

It's not about the tactics themselves. Yes, anyone complaining about the breaking of TOS in one instance is a complete hypocrite if they do it somewhere else. Your point is easy enough to discern in that regard, and you're 100% correct. I think it's another point entirely when it comes to selling information that instructs others to break TOS somewhere. I just think you owe your potential customers the respect of informing them explicitly ahead of the purchase that what they're buying could get them into trouble. If you're giving it away, obviously there's no sales page and no money changing hands, so a notice that the instructions involve dicey actions just needs to be presented somewhere early on. Not really the same thing when you're giving it away.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519685].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Zeus66

Jeremy, Jill wrote this, which seems pretty clear to me:

It's not about the tactics themselves. Yes, anyone complaining about the breaking of TOS in one instance is a complete hypocrite if they do it somewhere else. Your point is easy enough to discern in that regard, and you're 100% correct. I think it's another point entirely when it comes to selling information that instructs others to break TOS somewhere. I just think you owe your potential customers the respect of informing them explicitly ahead of the purchase that what they're buying could get them into trouble. If you're giving it away, obviously there's no sales page and no money changing hands, so a notice that the instructions involve dicey actions just needs to be presented somewhere early on. Not really the same thing when you're giving it away.

Fair enough....

But, to go along with my examples...

I've not seen many article marketing or affiliate marketing guides that didn't tell people to bookmark their affiliate site.

Is anyone not worried about their digg and other bookmarking site accounts?

Where's the outrage? lol

One is acceptable because people have been violating the hell out of some sites TOS for years

One isn't because it is new.

Thanks

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519693].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Zeus66

Jeremy, Jill wrote this, which seems pretty clear to me:

It's not about the tactics themselves. Yes, anyone complaining about the breaking of TOS in one instance is a complete hypocrite if they do it somewhere else. Your point is easy enough to discern in that regard, and you're 100% correct. I think it's another point entirely when it comes to selling information that instructs others to break TOS somewhere. I just think you owe your potential customers the respect of informing them explicitly ahead of the purchase that what they're buying could get them into trouble. If you're giving it away, obviously there's no sales page and no money changing hands, so a notice that the instructions involve dicey actions just needs to be presented somewhere early on. Not really the same thing when you're giving it away.

For that matter, when you're selling black hat tactics, many prospects,
when they hear that they are black hat tactics...their eyes light up.

Why?

They think that it's going to give them the edge over everybody else
and can't wait to get their hands on it.

A warning, which is the responsible thing to do, isn't going to deter these
people one bit from buying your product.

And the ironic thing is, most so called "black hat" tactics aren't really all
that black hat...at least not in comparison to some of the things that
are out there that cause real damage.

But in response to Jeremy's comment about some things being okay to
break but not others, I compare it to this.

We have a 25 mph speed limit in many parts of our town. I don't know if
you drive but 25 mph is very slow on some of these streets and even I
find myself going 30 now and then.

And I'm not the only one. But 5 mph over the speed limit isn't likely to get
somebody killed as opposed to going 65 in a 25 mph zone. That is why
cops usually don't start giving tickets until you're about 15 mph over the
speed limit, or 40 mph.

To me, that's the same as somebody making one bookmark to a site they
shouldn't as opposed to somebody using software to bookmark 1,000 sites.

The latter is going to do much more harm and that's where I have a
problem with some of the hard core black hatters. They go way over that
line of "what's acceptable."

So me bookmarking my little blogger blog, if that is indeed against some
TOS, is not the same as the guy who's got his bot running and is
bookmarking 1,000 or 10,000 blogs.

Same thing with driving paid traffic to EZA, which I don't do at all because
I see no way to do that "just a little bit" unless maybe you just spend
$10 on PPC clicks, which might bring you 1,000 visitors for a low cost
keyword.

But THAT'S not going to get you to the top of the most viewed list. You'd
have to spend an exorbitant amount of money in order to drive enough
traffic to make it to the top of that list.

That is when you end up abusing the system...especially when you
multiply that by 10, 20 or 100 articles.

I realize the intent is the same, but if we arrested everybody for intent
for every little law we had in this world, there would be nobody walking
the streets anymore...because we've all bent the law somewhere even if
it's just me going 30 in a 25 mph zone. Hell, I don't know how people drive
that slow.

Point is Jeremy, IMO, your comparison just doesn't hold up in the real
world because in the real world you can't arrest all the 30 mph drivers in
25 mph zones.

You'd have nobody left to spend any money.

I hope my point is taken in the spirit in which it was intended.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519734].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Steve, I get what your saying

well, I think I do anyway...

Noone really cares about the guy that bookmarks one site because it doesn't hurt anyone...

Makes perfect sense.

Now tell me who is hurt when someone uses the tactics that jill is talking about...

EZA? not that I can see

You? Nope

Me? Nope

My whole point is there are not many products in the IM realm that don't instruct you to violate a TOS - even if it is a small violation.

But, who gets to pick and choose which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519756].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Steve, I get what your saying

well, I think I do anyway...

Noone really cares about the guy that bookmarks one site because it doesn't hurt anyone...

Makes perfect sense.

Now tell me who is hurt when someone uses the tactics that jill is talking about...

EZA? not that I can see

You? Nope

Me? Nope

My whole point is there are not many products in the IM realm that don't instruct you to violate a TOS - even if it is a small violation.

But, who gets to pick and choose which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't?

Actually, by artificially driving traffic to your articles (and another
great way is just to go to a TE, buy 50,000 views and have the URL
be one of your articles) you are hurting the authors who would have
been on the top viewed 90 days list by legitimate means.

These people get less views, less traffic and less money...all because
of a broken TOS.

So yes, people are being hurt.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519774].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Actually, by artificially driving traffic to your articles (and another
great way is just to go to a TE, buy 50,000 views and have the URL
be one of your articles) you are hurting the authors who would have
been on the top viewed 90 days list by legitimate means.

These people get less views, less traffic and less money...all because
of a broken TOS.

So yes, people are being hurt.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Valid points, Steve.

However, don't the masses of people that bookmark sites in a "black hat" (read: in violation of the TOS) take attention from the sites that should legitimately be featured there as well?

I'm not saying they are the same thing...well, Yeah I guess I am.

Just sayin...

You see what I did there? lol

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519797].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

I'm not saying they are the same thing...well, Yeah I guess I am.

That would be because they are, and Steven's points apply every bit as much.

Does it really matter if Bob goes out and Diggs his own blog post? No.

Does it matter if he hires a small army of Filipinos to Digg his blog post several thousand times from different accounts? Well, yeah, it does.

And if you start asking where the line is, chances are you've already passed it.

[ 3 ] Thanks
4 replies

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519835].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

That would be because they are, and Steven's points apply every bit as much.

Does it really matter if Bob goes out and Diggs his own blog post? No.

Does it matter if he hires a small army of Filipinos to Digg his blog post several thousand times from different accounts? Well, yeah, it does.

And if you start asking where the line is, chances are you've already passed it.

The only line to cross is with each person no? I mean there is a line as to how far YOU would trust anyone is there not?

I just find it interesting that for instance Manny may see activity like this and shy away but Jim may think "Oh wow lots of diggs!" and go for it.

The real question is just how valuable will Jim be in the end?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519841].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

That would be because they are, and Steven's points apply every bit as much.

Does it really matter if Bob goes out and Diggs his own blog post? No.

Does it matter if he hires a small army of Filipinos to Digg his blog post several thousand times from different accounts? Well, yeah, it does.

And if you start asking where the line is, chances are you've already passed it.

Ahhh...Now I get it.

It's OK to break a sites TOS....If you only do it a "little"

Perfectly clear now.

Seriously though....

If it didn't matter, they wouldn't have bothered to put it in the TOS.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519852].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago

Steven, your rationalizing.

If you break a rule, you break a rule.

My son was 30 seconds late to class the other day and got detention.

The kid that showed up 10 minutes late got the same detention.

If you violate EZA's TOS you can get your account taken.

If you violate Diggs or some other sites Your account can get taken.

Anyone that read any of the products on the topic of the OP knew as soon as they read it that it was against the TOS. Which is why a method to CYA was included if you chose to use it...

They are adults, business owners, and for the most part intelligent human beings. They make their own choices as to which path they follow.

For the record I want to mention again...

Any product I've ever read covering the EZA method also included completely WHITE HAT alternatives.

But, which method do you think people chose to follow?

and....

For the record X2 - there are a few people in this thread that emailed me for support in getting the method to work lol - Don't worry guys...I won't tell
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519860].message }}
- Steven Wagenheim 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall
  
  Steven, your rationalizing.
  
  But, which method do you think people chose to follow?
  
  No, I'm not rationalizing. Again, I direct you to my 25 mph speed limit.
  
  If Digg banned every account that bookmarked their own sites, they'd
  have nobody using the system. They know this. So they only go after
  the worst offenders. That's not my rationalizing...it's theirs.
  
  In fact, I could write to the owner of Digg, tell him that once a week I
  bookmark an article on my blog and I'll bet you dollars to donuts they
  won't take my account away from me.
  
  As to your question, I know which method people choose to follow...the
  one that will get them the most results in the least amount of time.
  
  And these people should be banned because, as I said, they are
  hurting others.
  
  My once a week Digg is not.
  
  Again...you look at the harm done.
  
  Otherwise we have the whole world in a prison cell.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  My Soundcloud Music Channel
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519876].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

That would be because they are, and Steven's points apply every bit as much.

Does it really matter if Bob goes out and Diggs his own blog post? No.

Does it matter if he hires a small army of Filipinos to Digg his blog post several thousand times from different accounts? Well, yeah, it does.

And if you start asking where the line is, chances are you've already passed it.

You said that so much better in so fewer words than I said in a freakin
novel.

Wanna write my sales letter for me?

Thanks

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519856].message }}

Dennis Gaskill 14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

And if you start asking where the line is, chances are you've already passed it.

That's a great line.

Let's throw a twist into the debate...

I bought a WSO the other day that promised 3 easy money making methods. I have no doubt they all would work, but two of the three are illegal. I don't mean they violate some website's terms of use, I mean they are against the law because to put them into use as instructed would violate US Copyrights.

So was that WSO all right because one of the money making methods was legit, or was it wrong because 2 of the 3 were illegal? Should that be allowed here?
- Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520250].message }}
- Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago
  
  Dennis,
  
  If there is a chance you go to jail, the line is pretty clear lol
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520267].message }}
- CDarklock 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill
  
  That's a great line.
  
  But don't ask where it is!
  
  That one actually arrives in a slightly different format by way of Raymond Chen at Microsoft.
  
  I bought a WSO the other day that promised 3 easy money making methods. I have no doubt they all would work, but two of the three are illegal.
  
  Then don't use them. And if the one you have left isn't worth the price, ask for a refund.
  
  Personally, however, I'm a big proponent of what I call "eating your money." When you buy something, it's your job to get your money's worth, and if you can't do it... well, I don't like to blame the author, so I'm pretty much guaranteed not to ask for a refund.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520376].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Valid points, Steve.

However, don't the masses of people that bookmark sites in a "black hat" (read: in violation of the TOS) take attention from the sites that should legitimately be featured there as well?

I'm not saying they are the same thing...well, Yeah I guess I am.

Just sayin...

You see what I did there? lol

Bookmarking doesn't have anywhere near the long term effect as the
EZA situation. I have yet to see bookmarks last more than a few days
at the top of Digg. But the top viewed list...wow...that's 90 days of
exposure.

It's almost indecent.

And, IMO, bookmarking is not nearly as effective as article writing in
general.

Using only white hat methods for both (okay, not true, I bookmark my
blog for each entry...but no mass bookmarking) I get minimal results
from bookmarking whereas just from submitting well written articles with
compelling resource boxes, I average 10 to 20 opt ins everyday.

I don't get that kind of action from Digg, that's for sure.

So, as a result, the people who really want to exploit Digg really have
to go all out because the medium itself is just not as effective.

With EZA, the same abuse will lead to 5, maybe 10 times the income.

It's like comparing tossing a hand grenade onto the infield of Yankee
stadium as opposed to dropping a 10 megaton bomb on it.

We are in two different leagues.

And I understand what you're saying that a broken TOS is a broken TOS,
but the damage that can be done...that is what sites are concerned
about.

So if Digg finds out that I'm bookmarking my crappy little Blogger blog
every week when I do an update, it is highly doubtful that they're going
to ban my account, whereas if EZA found out I was driving 50,000
visitors to 100 of my articles via paid sources, they'd ban me for life.

In the real world, it's the size of the violation.

Now, if Digg bans me for my little blog, so what?

Do you think I REALLY lose anything? Honestly, don't know why I even
bother.

But...if somebody buys a book that teaches them to drive traffic to EZA
and they get away with it for a while, and build up a big business in the
process, what do you think is going to happen when EZA finds out and
destroys THEIR account?

They end up losing all their articles AND their income.

Now imagine they didn't realize that this could happen because the
product creator didn't mention this up front.

So in this case, the buyer of the product gets severely hurt.

As for people who knowingly break the rules to the point of that 10
megaton bomb, I have no sympathy for those people. They knew what
they were doing going in and therefore, if they get caught, oh well.

But that poor newb who didn't know any better and wasn't warned...he
has my sympathy. Yeah, he should have asked questions and done his
due diligence, as I said in my first post, but some people are so new,
they don't even know what TOS means.

Don't you think as product creators we are at least responsible for
telling our customers, "Hey, if you do this on this scale, you could get
into some trouble and lose your account. So proceed accordingly."

In any case, sadly, people DO get hurt when some TOS are broken.

And in the case of EZA...it is one major hurt for many writers.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519848].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

Its not Prude. You have valid points and, curiosities.

Like I said earlier I guess, Shady Methods lead to Shady results.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519782].message }}

allenteam

14 years ago

Nope, you're thoughts are right on...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519784].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

This is along the lines of saying its ok to commit murder as long as you ONLY kill one person. But more than thirty is crossing the line!!!!

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519864].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by The GoTo Team

This is along the lines of saying its ok to commit murder as long as you ONLY kill one person. But more than thirty is crossing the line!!!!

Oh please, you're being totally ridiculous with this comment.

When you commit murder, you are taking a human life.

When I bookmark my Blogger blog once a week, what am I doing to anyone?

Name me ONE piece of harm that act is causing, especially since 90% of
the people using Digg are bookmarking their own sites.

If Digg got rid of all people who bookmarked their own sites, they'd be out
of business.

Your analogy is so far out in left field it's an insult to intelligent people.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519884].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Oh please, you're being totally ridiculous with this comment.

When you commit murder, you are taking a human life.

When I bookmark my Blogger blog once a week, what am I doing to anyone?

Name me ONE piece of harm that act is causing, especially since 90% of
the people using Digg are bookmarking their own sites.

If Digg got rid of all people who bookmarked their own sites, they'd be out
of business.

Your analogy is so far out in left field it's an insult to intelligent people.

That remark was absolutely unnecessary sir.

I simple find it incredulous that breaking the rules or the law is ok if you do it ONLY a little bit. Thats just silly.

And the magnitude of the crime was more but my point is the comparision is equally ridiculous.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519893].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by The GoTo Team

That remark was absolutely unnecessary sir.

I simple find it incredulous that breaking the rules or the law is ok if you do it ONLY a little bit. Thats just silly.

And the magnitude of the crime was more but my point is the comparision is equally ridiculous.

First of all, I do not condone breaking any law. But as I said, if I do 30 mph
in a 25 mph zone, the chances of me getting a speeding ticket or slim to
none...but...if I do get a ticket, then legally, I don't have a leg to stand on.

I am not talking about the letter of the law here because as I said, if you
want to nit pick, there wouldn't be a person on this planet, outside of
maybe Mother Theresa who wouldn't either be in jail or fined for some
kind of indiscretion. I must have broken 25 mph 10,000 times in my life.

There is something called "what's practical" and it's not practical to ban
every Digg account that bookmarks one blog one day a week. It's too
much administrative effort.

But taking action against the serious offenders, especially the ones who
are so abusing the system that they are practically taking it away from
others, that is the site's priorities.

As I said, I have no problem calling the CEO of Digg and telling him I
bookmark my blog once a week because I know that he won't do a darn
thing.

But if I tell him that I've got 1,000 bots running day and night bookmarking
10,000 blogs, what do you think he's going to do?

You want to say it's the same thing, fine.

But there is a practical world out there and that practical world has to
look at the harm being done and not the letter of the law.

Otherwise, none of us have a leg to stand on somewhere in our everyday
lives.

Unless of course you walk on water.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519917].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

First of all, I do not condone breaking any law. But as I said, if I do 30 mph
in a 25 mph zone, the chances of me getting a speeding ticket or slim to
none...but...if I do get a ticket, then legally, I don't have a leg to stand on.

I am not talking about the letter of the law here because as I said, if you
want to nit pick, there wouldn't be a person on this planet, outside of
maybe Mother Theresa who wouldn't either be in jail or fined for some
kind of indiscretion. I must have broken 25 mph 10,000 times in my life.

There is something called "what's practical" and it's not practical to ban
every Digg account that bookmarks one blog one day a week. It's too
much administrative effort.

But taking action against the serious offenders, especially the ones who
are so abusing the system that they are practically taking it away from
others, that is the site's priorities.

As I said, I have no problem calling the CEO of Digg and telling him I
bookmark my blog once a week because I know that he won't do a darn
thing.

But if I tell him that I've got 1,000 bots running day and night bookmarking
10,000 blogs, what do you think he's going to do?

You want to say it's the same thing, fine.

But there is a practical world out there and that practical world has to
look at the harm being done and not the letter of the law.

Otherwise, none of us have a leg to stand on somewhere in our everyday
lives.

Unless of course you walk on water.

Youre absolutely right, there is whats practical and what isnt.

My point isnt that they are or arent going to actually be persecuted or what have you for these slight infractions, but that doesn't make them RIGHT, only ACCEPTABLE.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519926].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago

Steven,

Do you think EZA is banning every account doing what is talked about?

Hell no.

But, my posts were not specifically about that method in particular...

Just that for everyone for the most part does something to violate a sites TOS.
- Thanks
Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519898].message }}

JMPruitt

14 years ago

Jill you are totally right here. As many people say, it is not about the tactics, it is disclosing before the buying that some of the techniques may be black hat.

Personally I disagree with using black hat methods and try to avoid them when I can. I would want to know if a product is teaching those before I wasted my money and time with it.

Too many marketers selling WSOs want to put all the responsibility on the buyer. Now, I agree that there needs to be some responsibility on the part of the buyer, but if you are new and buying a WSO to learn how to do this or that, how do you know what is right or wrong? A lot of that comes from experience. If you already had that experience, you would not need the WSO.

@Jeremy The use of social bookmarking is a difficult question. What makes a site blatantly for affiliate promotion? If they did not allow any affiliate promotion that would discount most sites on the web. Most sites have some form of monetization in place.

What sets apart blatant promotions is the value of the content on the site. If your content is nothing but a blatant sales pitch for a product, then it should not be allowed.

When I write my content, I look at it from the visitor's point of view. If they never buy a product, would they still get value out of what I have posted? Did I help them in some way? IF you create content to help people, it will be more valuable to the visitors, and will not violate the spirit of the terms on the bookmarking sites.

Thanks

Signature

follow my relationship marketing blog for tips on building more traffic without relying on Google's whims.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519865].message }}

seriousmny

14 years ago

I have purchased WSOs and found after purchasing that the methods were gray hat. I had to then sit and think about whether I wanted to use the method or not. I tried a method once and about a week after trying it, the TOS at Ezine articles was changed. I did not get a chance to really trial the method out.

My rationale is this....if everyone at the top is using gray hat methods, how the heck do we straight shooters get a break? This is why I went ahead and tried the "gray hat" method because after posting my articles, the traffic was short-lived and it was hard to keep traffic going to my articles. I knew there was something the "most viewed" authors were not revealing as to their reasons for being in the most viewed section for so long.

Someone is always thinking outside of the box or outside of the TOS. These individuals are not going to give out their secrets unless they are about done with their "secret method". They then get another payday by cashing out by selling a WSO on the flavor of the week method. Why else would they share a method that could possibly jeapordize profits and have everyone and their "mama" copying them?

If it was still working for them, the idea would be secret and for personal use only. They have just moved on to the next method and probably have already written up the sales copy for the WSO to go along with it to get those sales after their done with it.

That's business. Everyone is responsible for doing their own due diligence and reading up on methods before trying them out. I'm always late trying stuff out because I'm kinda chicken...but those with brave hearts and boldness get the cash and sometimes experience a ban or two. I haven't found a middle ground yet. I want to do business the correct way and profit. Is there a way to do article marketing and get high article views without grey hat methods?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519869].message }}

seasoned

14 years ago

Avenue Girl,

You seem to feel that the terms:

You agree to not purchase or utilize PPC (PayPerClick), PPV (PayPerView) traffic, safelists, or traffic exchanges to artificially inflate your EzineArticles traffic stats. Doing so may result in your account being terminated.

aren't right or legal. Using PPC/PPV traffic distorts their stats, and can connect to other problems. "safelists" border on what is just not right and CAN be problematic. Traffic exchanges are the same way. Shouldn't the ezines be used for storage and a SUPPLEMENTAL traffic method? If they allowed all this stuff, they could rank things wrong, and possibly end up with some complaints.

Their requests seem reasonable.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519892].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Avenue Girl,

You seem to feel that the terms:

aren't right or legal. Using PPC/PPV traffic distorts their stats, and can connect to other problems. "safelists" border on what is just not right and CAN be problematic. Traffic exchanges are the same way. Shouldn't the ezines be used for storage and a SUPPLEMENTAL traffic method? If they allowed all this stuff, they could rank things wrong, and possibly end up with some complaints.

Their requests seem reasonable.

Steve

Steve, I think you misunderstood her. What she meant (I know it didn't
come out that way) is that the people who DO these things are breaking
their TOS and they shouldn't drive paid traffic to their site.

The products she's talking about are saying to do these very things and
that's what she has a problem with.

Jill, correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519900].message }}

seasoned

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Steve, I think you misunderstood her. What she meant (I know it didn't
come out that way) is that the people who DO these things are breaking
their TOS and they shouldn't drive paid traffic to their site.

The products she's talking about are saying to do these very things and
that's what she has a problem with.

Jill, correct me if I'm wrong.

OH, OK. YEAH! If it were MY site, I would probably ban people automatically if too many hits cam from traffic exchanges and safelists. There is often almost NO benefit, and there can be a LOT of problems. Yeah, this week has NOT been a good week for me. I feel like I have been up about 5 hours longer than I have been. It is 8:30PM, and I feel like it is past 1AM!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519924].message }}

Tina Golden

14 years ago

Isn't it the responsibility of the individual to read the TOS of each program/site that they choose to use? Why should the creator have to be the one to tell them?

I'm not advocating breaking the TOS of anyone, by the way, but I think the responsibility still lies within each one of us to know what it says and choose to follow or not.

Honestly, I would be willing to bet that half the marketers teaching the methods don't know the TOS themselves and don't even realize it. They are passing on what was taught to the them.

I have to agree with Jeremy, at least in part - if it's wrong on one site, then it's wrong on all. Also, if you break TOS yourself, you are just as wrong as the person who does it en masse.

Is it less wrong to steal a dollar than it is to steal a hundred?

Tina

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519941].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

Isn't it the responsibility of the individual to read the TOS of each program/site that they choose to use? Why should the creator have to be the one to tell them?

I'm not advocating breaking the TOS of anyone, by the way, but I think the responsibility still lies within each one of us to know what it says and choose to follow or not.

Honestly, I would be willing to bet that half the marketers teaching the methods don't know the TOS themselves and don't even realize it. They are passing on what was taught to the them.

I have to agree with Jeremy, at least in part - if it's wrong on one site, then it's wrong on all. Also, if you break TOS yourself, you are just as wrong as the person who does it en masse.

Is it less wrong to steal a dollar than it is to steal a hundred?

Tina

thank you thank you thank you thank you

Now I know I'm not going crazy.

Thanks

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519950].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

Is it less wrong to steal a dollar than it is to steal a hundred?

Yes.

Case in point: most adults have, at some point, worked in an office.

Pretty much all of those people have taken a few pens or a pad of Post-It notes home from that office, for their own personal use.

But pretty much none of them took, say, a removable hard drive.

If their co-workers or their boss saw them walk out of the office with pens or Post-Its, nothing would be said. But if they were seen walking out with the hard drive, it would probably mean they don't get to keep their job.

It's just as illegal and just as against company policy, but nobody cares. Not even the owner.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519955].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

It's just as illegal and just as against company policy, but nobody cares. Not even the owner.

I'm sure there are countless people that have been fired for jacking a role of toilet paper.

Just like spending time on facebook will get you fired the same way surfing porn will.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519959].message }}

Tina Golden

14 years ago

CDarklock - Stealing is stealing is stealing. The boss may not fire you for stealing a handful of pens but I bet he's not waiting at the door to give you an extra case of them, either.

Tina

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519990].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

CDarklock - Stealing is stealing is stealing.

Then you support identical jail sentences for stealing a paperclip, stealing a sandwich, and stealing a car?

I mean, stealing is stealing is stealing, right?

They're different. You know they're different. And you're smarter than this stark black-and-white thinking. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it equally as wrong as every other thing you think is wrong.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520110].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Then you support identical jail sentences for stealing a paperclip, stealing a sandwich, and stealing a car?

I mean, stealing is stealing is stealing, right?

They're different. You know they're different. And you're smarter than this stark black-and-white thinking. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it equally as wrong as every other thing you think is wrong.

So, it is OK to steal...as long as it is something small?

It's ok to break the rules as long as it is a small one?

That clearly only requires a yes or no answer to both questions...

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520124].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

So, it is OK to steal...as long as it is something small?

It rather depends on what you mean by "OK."

If I see you steal something I consider inconsequential, I'm not going to try and stop you, or report you to security, or call the cops.

But that doesn't mean I'd do it, and it doesn't mean I won't think less of you for it.

Whether that makes it "OK" to do it isn't a question I can answer for you.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520151].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

It rather depends on what you mean by "OK."

If I see you steal something I consider inconsequential, I'm not going to try and stop you, or report you to security, or call the cops.

But that doesn't mean I'd do it, and it doesn't mean I won't think less of you for it.

Whether that makes it "OK" to do it isn't a question I can answer for you.

So, basically you don't have a position?

Your playing devils advocate or.....?

I don't get it.

Let me be more specific and try to put this in a way that you can't turn the same question to mean 500 different things.

Do you think a websites TOS should be respected without exception?

Please don't reply with "well, it depends on what you think should means" or "what context are you referring to with the word exception".

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520169].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Do you think a websites TOS should be respected without exception?

Yes.

That doesn't mean I'm going to demand that YOU hold the exact same opinion.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520202].message }}
- Steven Wagenheim 14 years ago
  
  Well, I'm going to bed now. I'm sure when I wake up in the morning this
  thing will probably still be going on.
  
  Like they say...That's Entertainment.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  My Soundcloud Music Channel
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520214].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

So, it is OK to steal...as long as it is something small?

It's ok to break the rules as long as it is a small one?

That clearly only requires a yes or no answer to both questions...

No, it's not okay to steal something small, big or otherwise.

But the penalty for stealing a candy bar from a candy store is not the
same as the penalty for stealing $10 million from a national bank.

Let the punishment fit the crime.

To punish somebody who bookmarks one blog the same as somebody who
has a bot bookmark 10,000 blogs is ludicrous.

And so is this whole thread because as CD said, people are trying to
make all crimes equal.

They are not.

Sheesssh...I wish I had just turned off my PC. :rolleyes:

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520163].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

No, it's not okay to steal something small, big or otherwise.

But the penalty for stealing a candy bar from a candy store is not the
same as the penalty for stealing $10 million from a national bank.

Let the punishment fit the crime.

To punish somebody who bookmarks one blog the same as somebody who
has a bot bookmark 10,000 blogs is ludicrous.

And so is this whole thread because as CD said, people are trying to
make all crimes equal.

They are not.

Sheesssh...I wish I had just turned off my PC. :rolleyes:

Steve, does the TOS of one of the sites your talking about differentiate between the 2?

So, same question to you:

Should a sites TOS be respected without Exception?

Or

Is it OK to violate it when it is convenient?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520175].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Steve, does the TOS of one of the sites your talking about differentiate between the 2?

So, same question to you:

Should a sites TOS be respected without Exception?

Or

Is it OK to violate it when it is convenient?

Here is my stance on that.

If you decide to violate a site's TOS, do so knowing that it is possible
to have your account banned...period.

Having said that...use a little freaking common sense.

If 90% of the people who use Digg bookmark their own blogs and Digg
knows this (and you know they do) and these people don't even raise
a hair on Digg's neck, then it is foolish to refrain from doing something
that the site itself allows its members to do because they know that
if they didn't allow it they would go out of business.

Okay, please...let's not be so high and mighty here. Each site puts a TOS
in place to discourage the blatant and dangerous offenders. If they got
rid of everybody who didn't live by the exact letter of the law (ever read
ALL of EZA's TOS?) they'd have no business.

And they know it.

You're trying to make this black and white but it's not.

It's not even black and white to the site's themselves.

If it were...the Internet would be a ghost town.

And you know it.

So please, let's stop with this black and white analogy because by the
way these sites themselves operate...it doesn't wash.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520192].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Here is my stance on that.

If you decide to violate a site's TOS, do so knowing that it is possible
to have your account banned...period.

Having said that...use a little freaking common sense.

If 90% of the people who use Digg bookmark their own blogs and Digg
knows this (and you know they do) and these people don't even raise
a hair on Digg's neck, then it is foolish to refrain from doing something
that the site itself allows its members to do because they know that
if they didn't allow it they would go out of business.

Okay, please...let's not be so high and mighty here. Each site puts a TOS
in place to discourage the blatant and dangerous offenders. If they got
rid of everybody who didn't live by the exact letter of the law (ever read
ALL of EZA's TOS?) they'd have no business.

And they know it.

You're trying to make this black and white but it's not.

It's not even black and white to the site's themselves.

If it were...the Internet would be a ghost town.

And you know it.

So please, let's stop with this black and white analogy because by the
way these sites themselves operate...it doesn't wash.

lol

I'm the one saying there is a gray.

BUT,

Public opinion says it's not OK to violate EZA's TOS but that it might be Ok to do it to Digg, Mixx, or any of the other Social Bookmarking sites "because everyone does it"

I've seen so many threads here on the forum lately about this subject and I for one think it's time for the masses to climb down from their ivory towers.

Thanks

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520221].message }}

Jill Carpenter 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

thank you thank you thank you thank you

Now I know I'm not going crazy.

No, you already are crazy.

You know, I just went last week to check out a product that was supposed to aid in doing some serious backlinking - and the SEO expert who did the video and owns the software/service that was being promoted was very upfront to say that anytime you do this type of thing it is Grey Hat. The allure that overshadowed it was obviously the thought that using this service would push you to the front page of Google or where ever.

I had to think about it a bit after - and realized that she was really right. A book about SEO that was written strictly on white hat tactics would probably look more like a flyer. LOL, if you really wanted to get technical about things it would be hard to find anyone who has never done something they weren't supposed to do. And if we all lived in fear of this no one would take any action what so ever. It's hard enough now getting people to try things as it is. If I had known the first time I jumped in a pool during cool weather that I would be freezing my butt off when I went to get out I never would have jumped in to begin with.

I agree with Steven that the effects of me getting banned from a Digg account vs the effects of me getting banned from Ezine would be VERY different. Do I not give Digg enough credit?

If everyone else is paying for traffic to up their views and get more exposure, I don't have a chance in hell of ever getting my articles seen - even if I'm Hemingway.

Jeremy's point is just as valid as well - essentially, if the guy with the WSO about driving traffic to your articles has to tell people the type of method this is - then what lets the other guy off the hook who I bought a PLR video series from that shows me how to sign up to socialmarker and bookmark all my sites? Where does the line get drawn? Oh, and that series is also someone who has helped a lot of people.

Some very thought provoking comments all around.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520022].message }}

Sancho Sanches

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

I'm sure there are countless people that have been fired for jacking a role of toilet paper.

Just like spending time on facebook will get you fired the same way surfing porn will.

Jeremy,

You are making the most sense to me.

And that's true. A guy at a Goodwill got fired for eating a Hershey Kiss from a bag of candy that was donated that the store wasn't going to sell and was going to throw away anyway. And for slightly more than that they will bring charges on employees. So, some places really don't play around and in many places the oinkers will pull you over for going 3 miles over the speed limit.

To say, "Well, only bookmark once because it's like only going 2 miles over the speed limit and that's not gonna hurt you or anyone else" is making a presumption and ignoring any possible unforeseen Butterfly Effect.

Even though I agree that most likely nothing is going to happen I believe those who are expressing this sort of attitude aren't necessarily against "black hat", or whatever, so long as you aren't advising them to do anything that will put them in jeopardy and I think you are coming from the frame "You are saying that much is wrong but not if it's only this much" that resulted in some sort of disconnect.

They aren't as goodie two shoes as they appear.

Black Hat is not about doing what's against the law but what is generally frowned upon and against a services terms of service, as you, but maybe not many others in general, well know.

Therefore, yes, putting a black hat warning on your product, no matter how ridiculous it seems to Jill or anyone else, that bookmarking your own pages that are designed to lead to a commission, in Digg for example, if it is against that particular services TOS is telling the truth.

It is black hat because that's what black hat is.

I can understand wanting to be warned of practices that could lead to negative consequences but as far as the rest of their rhetoric they are just making excuses.

Everyone is involved in breaking a TOS here and there whether they realize it or want to admit it or not.

Thanks for your comments.

Sancho

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521692].message }}

Black Hat Cat

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Yes.

Case in point: most adults have, at some point, worked in an office.

Pretty much all of those people have taken a few pens or a pad of Post-It notes home from that office, for their own personal use.

But pretty much none of them took, say, a removable hard drive.
If their co-workers or their boss saw them walk out of the office with pens or Post-Its, nothing would be said. But if they were seen walking out with the hard drive, it would probably mean they don't get to keep their job.

It's just as illegal and just as against company policy, but nobody cares. Not even the owner.

Permission to take something isn't stealing. If the owner is ok with you taking something home, it's not stealing. Just like it's not stealing if I tell the neighbor he can have my bicycle. It is stealing if I tell my neighbor he can have my bicycle, then he breaks into my house and steals my tv.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520185].message }}

Jay Jennings

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

Isn't it the responsibility of the individual to read the TOS of each program/site that they choose to use? Why should the creator have to be the one to tell them?

Because if I don't want to use methods that violate a TOS, I'd like to know not to buy the ebook. I think it's only polite to let people know ahead of time.

Jay Jennings

PS - And, I did buy a WSO that detailed "black hat" methods but it also showed how to do the same thing using "white hat" methods. I used the latter.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520272].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago

Something that I want to make clear after reading through the thread again...

I think Jill has every right to be upset if she feels she was deceived by a sales letter prior to buying a product.

I was addressing other points raised, but didn't mean to hijack her thread or to be rude.

So, Jill I apologize for taking your thread down the road that I did.

Jeremy
- Thanks
Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520340].message }}
JohnMcCabe 14 years ago

Jeremy, if you remember, you and I had a pretty spirited debate over a similar issue awhile back. This time, I'm on your side.

As long as there is an acknowledgment of the risks involved in using certain methods, it's up to the individual to decide if that risk is acceptable or not. It's up to each individual to decide if using a given method violates their own personal ethics.

I'll cop to spitting on the sidewalk, cussing in public and skipping church to go fishing.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520354].message }}
- Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe
  
  Jeremy, if you remember, you and I had a pretty spirited debate over a similar issue awhile back. This time, I'm on your side.
  
  That's a damn Lie!!
  
  I've never had a spirited debate on this forum
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520370].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi Steven/Jeremy,

I jumped on Jeremy in a previous thread regarding EZA and the product he made regarding this - that was a different (but similar) topic.

Steven - when I read your post on page 1 about speeding, I was going to comment to you that the example you had given was one where you were right and wrong at the same time.

You were right because the police (over here and over there too) have a set tolerance which they are allowed to add on to the speed limit in order to ignore certain minor offences.

I also know from experience that they use their initiative too. I once got stopped doing 106mph on the motorway, which is an instant driving ban (officially) as it's 30mph over the limit. But after checking me out, breath-test and giving me a talking to they let it go because while following me they noted that I drove in a manner similar to what they learn on advanced driving courses. In their opinion I was safer while speeding than the average driver who isn't speeding.

But where I think you were wrong was to use the driving analogy in comparison to breaking a site's TOS in order to make the point you did regarding the subject being debated.

As you pointed out, it's not logical to fine everyone who is 1mph over the limit.

But your further rationalisations on the thread subject are wrong in my opinion.

The Digg example is exactly the same as the EZA one. Just because it hasn't brought much traffic or profit to you personally is irrelevant. Many people have found prominent digg exposure to be much more beneficial than a 'most read article' at EZA. It brings peoples' servers down.

In my opinion Jeremy is spot on and so was the goto team who made the comment about 1 murder as opposed to 30 murders, in order to expose the faults with your argument.

Consequently I also disagree with CDarklock.

PS Jeremy - on the other point, you made it quite clear in your product and in the sales letter that it had white and black techniques inside.

Hi Black Hat Cat,

Please share with us where Google says ppc, ppv, and email traffic are against Adsense TOS

I think he was referring to traffic exchange traffic. But regardless, see here -

Invalid Clicks and Impressions
Publishers may not click their own ads or use any means to inflate impressions and/or clicks artificially, including manual methods.

and...

Traffic Sources
Google ads may not be placed on pages receiving traffic from certain sources. For example, publishers may not participate in paid-to-click programmes, send unwanted emails or display ads as the result of the action of any software application.

From here

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520373].message }}

Zeus66

14 years ago

Steve's point is well taken. Obviously, there are degrees of wrongdoing. His driving 30 mph in a 25 mph zone is illustrative. If doing such a thing instantly removed one's right to complain about all other violations of law, I venture to say that no one (older than 15) would ever complain about anything. Who hasn't broken the speed limit multiple times?

But I think this aspect of the debate is drifting from Jill's original point. She said she didn't have a problem with black and gray hat stuff in and of itself. Just let folks know before you take their money that all or a portion of what you're teaching is dicey. Not everyone has experience, and I think we need to write our sales material with the complete newb in mind so as to cover all the bases. Not too much to ask, right?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519921].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Zeus66

But I think this aspect of the debate is drifting from Jill's original point. She said she didn't have a problem with black and gray hat stuff in and of itself. Just let folks know before you take their money that all or a portion of what you're teaching is dicey. Not everyone has experience, and I think we need to write our sales material with the complete newb in mind so as to cover all the bases. Not too much to ask, right?

Agreed,

I was just trying to make sure that people creating products that include instructing someone to bookmark their site labeled their product accordingly.

BLACK HAT

I think we are all on the same page now.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519925].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Agreed,

I was just trying to make sure that people creating products that include instructing someone to bookmark their site labeled their product accordingly.

BLACK HAT

I think we are all on the same page now.

Sorry, don't agree. But I'm not going to continue this argument any longer
because it's obvious we all have our own sides on this issue.

Just for the record, I have a book on affiliate marketing where one step
I instruct people to bookmark their review blog ONE time after they
create it.

I am NOT going to label my product BLACK HAT.

I'll be laughed off the planet.

And I think you know that Jeremy.

You've taken this to a ludicrous extreme that I don't buy.

But that's okay. I'm done debating this and in fact, I'm even going to
let you have the last word.

Enjoy the rest of the thread folks.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519937].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Sorry, don't agree. But I'm not going to continue this argument any longer
because it's obvious we all have our own sides on this issue.

You don't agree, why?

Doesn't bookmarking your affiliate site break the TOS of several sites?

Don't you run the risk of having your account suspended?

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

ust for the record, I have a book on affiliate marketing where one step
I instruct people to bookmark their review blog ONE time after they
create it.

Welcome to the dark side dude

Maybe we can do a product together

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I am NOT going to label my product BLACK HAT.

ahhhh, but in many cases it violates a sites TOS.

We can't have unsuspecting marketers bookmarking sites if it is against a TOS dude.

I think transparency is needed

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I'll be laughed off the planet.

And I think you know that Jeremy.

You've taken this to a ludicrous extreme that I don't buy.

Actually, I think far more people are unaware that they are violating social bookmarking sites TOS by bookmarking their affiliate sites than those that are not aware that manipulating EZA's numbers is against their TOS

So, you would probably be doing them a SERVICE by letting them know that they are doing something "black-hat"

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

But that's okay. I'm done debating this and in fact, I'm even going to
let you have the last word.

Enjoy the rest of the thread folks.

Till next time
- Thanks
Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519946].message }}

Ken Strong 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

I think we are all on the same page now.

...he says at the bottom of Page 1, as we head towards Page 4. Maybe not after all.
- Thanks
Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1560014].message }}

rondo

14 years ago

Jeremy did it occur to you that EZA might be trying to protect their Adsense account, because similar types of traffic are against Adsense TOS.

Andrew

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Online courses

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519936].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall 14 years ago

Originally Posted by rondo

Jeremy did it occur to you that EZA might be trying to protect their Adsense account, because similar types of traffic are against Adsense TOS.

Andrew

Andrew, I"m not saying they are wrong for not wanting it to be done.

Chris is obviously a VERY SMART business man. Hell, he's got a ton of people paying him $97 a month to publish their content on his site lmao - Craziest thing I've ever seen!
- Thanks
Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519976].message }}

markgilbert

14 years ago

Steven, I just got a call from Mother Theresa. She wanted me to ask you if by "practical", you were rationalizing the "white lie" thing, or "fudging", or.... or, if you were just telling us to use a radar detector if we planned on going any faster than 30 mph in a 25 mph zone

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1519974].message }}

pavionjsl

14 years ago

How does advertising in your signature , Beat The FTC Regs , not go along the same lines of the thinking everyone is railing against. Win at all cost. Skirt something, get and edge. WE ALL VIOLATE GOOGLE TOS BY artificially creating links of any kind if you go by the book.

Your site's ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to you. The quantity, quality, and relevance of links count towards your rating. The sites that link to you can provide context about the subject matter of your site, and can indicate its quality and popularity. 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. This is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site's ranking in search results. Examples of link schemes can include:

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

It is a race to the first page. To point a finger is not our place its googles. In the other thread I saw the websites busted selling knock off UGGS with 500 chinese links to their site getting them to a number 1 position. If you article market it is an artificial link, forum comments, signature links, etc. Being aware of the possible problems with your linking method is part of doing business if not you deserve what you get. But no one is whiter then the other guy in their methods. Please.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520121].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by pavionjsl

How does advertising in your signature , Beat The FTC Regs , not go along the same lines of the thinking everyone is railing against. Win at all cost. Skirt something, get and edge. WE ALL VIOLATE GOOGLE TOS BY artificially creating links of any kind if you go by the book.

Okay, I wasn't going to return to this thread but now I'm being attacked.

You know NOTHING about the product.

The full name is "Beat The FTC Regulations Honestly"

The product goes into detail on how to appease the FTC by essentially
following their rules AND doing some smart marketing, that I won't
reveal here because it makes the product worthless, that is TOTALLY
above board with all FTC regulations.

If you read the product, you'd know that. But you haven't so you're
making assumptions based on a short description.

That is a VERY dangerous thing to do.

Thanks

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520134].message }}

Black Hat Cat

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by rondo View Post
Jeremy did it occur to you that EZA might be trying to protect their Adsense account, because similar types of traffic are against Adsense TOS.

Andrew

Please share with us where Google says ppc, ppv, and email traffic are against Adsense TOS.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520223].message }}

Tina Golden

14 years ago

They're different. You know they're different. And you're smarter than this stark black-and-white thinking. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it equally as wrong as every other thing you think is wrong.

When it comes to stealing, I don't care what the amount is - it's wrong either way. That is not the same as saying that the consequences shouldn't be different. When you speed, you get one level of fine for 10 mph over and a lot higher level of fine for 30 mph. But both will still get you a ticket.

For this discussion, degrees of consequences are not the point. My point is more like the guy with the 10 over ticket has no right sneering at the guy going 30 over. It's the whole stones/glass houses thing.

Tina

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520265].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

When it comes to stealing, I don't care what the amount is - it's wrong either way.

And by that logic, if you are in a desperate enough position to steal, you should steal the most you can. After all, stealing only what you need is every bit as wrong as stealing everything, so you may as well take it all.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520401].message }}

Tina Golden

14 years ago

And by that logic, if you are in a desperate enough position to steal, you should steal the most you can. After all, stealing only what you need is every bit as wrong as stealing everything, so you may as well take it all.

Exactly!

I see your point there but that's not exactly what I meant. I'm just not expressing it very well tonight, apparently...lol.

Tina

Thanks

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520419].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi CDarklock,

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

When it comes to stealing, I don't care what the amount is - it's wrong either way.

And by that logic, if you are in a desperate enough position to steal, you should steal the most you can. After all, stealing only what you need is every bit as wrong as stealing everything, so you may as well take it all.

It's easy to go off on tangents about what's right and wrong with all of these analogies.

When it comes to laws, it's quite clear that -

a) there are differing degrees of crimes, which equate to different punishments, and sometimes a different type of crime altogether (EG killing with or without intent - manslaughter vs murder (in UK terms)

b) law enforcement are allowed and encouraged to work with certain tolerances, particularly with extremes

But when it comes to website's TOS, although they most likely DO apply tolerances (one bookmark to your own site is unlikely to get you banned), for the purposes of the discussion these tolerances are irrelevant.

The debate which arose centred around Steven saying -

Actually, by artificially driving traffic to your articles (and another
great way is just to go to a TE, buy 50,000 views and have the URL
be one of your articles) you are hurting the authors who would have
been on the top viewed 90 days list by legitimate means.

These people get less views, less traffic and less money...all because
of a broken TOS.

So yes, people are being hurt.

Just wanted to clarify that

But then suggesting that it mattered less, if the site was Digg or a bookmarking site.

It's either wrong to break ANY of these sites TOS, to ANY level - or it's not wrong at all to break ANY of their TOS to ANY level. Whether it's wrong or not, it's not allowed at any level - which is the point Jeremy was making.

stealing only what you need is every bit as wrong as stealing everything, so you may as well take it all

That logic doesn't stand up. In a court of law, you would most likely get a worse punishment for the latter, as stealing only enough to survive would be viewed differently, and possibly dealt with differently, than greedily stealing as much as possible - 'mitigating circumstances'.

In this instance, it's possible to cause more problems by breaking the TOS repeatedly (like with automated software) but according to the TOS of these sites the punishment is not changed - termination for minor AND major breaches of TOS - exactly the same punishment. The law is different. The analogy doesn't fit, specifically when you consider the point that Steven was making, and the counter point that Jeremy made.

In short -

Steven said that when the TOS violations are applied to EZA, people get 'hurt'. But with the other TOS violations he referred to with other sites, they don't. This is incorrect.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520487].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

It's either wrong to break ANY of these sites TOS, to ANY level - or it's not wrong at all to break ANY of their TOS to ANY level.

The problem here is a fallacy of equivocation.

Do you mean it is "wrong" in the sense that the TOS does not allow it? Here, I agree.

Do you mean "wrong" in the sense that it is morally distasteful to you? Here, too, I agree.

Do you mean "wrong" in the sense that nobody should do it? Here, I disagree.

I believe that it is perfectly rational for someone to violate the TOS of a site in the expectation that they can get away with it. They need only accept that they may not, and that there could be consequences.

I believe that it is perfectly natural and normal for people to do things I find morally distasteful. They need only accept that I (or others) may develop a different opinion of them.

My moral objections do not, and should never, constitute a restriction on your freedom. Neither should some web site's TOS. So I do not believe anyone should be told "You can't sell that BlueFart WSO!" or "You can't buy that BlueFart WSO!" or even "You can't use those BlueFart tactics!" - because it's up to them.

I am not going to stop anyone from hiring the little army of Filipinos to swamp the world with backlinks, and I am not going to say they shouldn't be allowed to hire them. I am simply going to say that they shouldn't hire them, and then let them decide for themselves.

Freedom is good.

That logic doesn't stand up.

That's rather the point of any sentence which begins with "by that logic." If it was good logic, the sentence would have started with "hence" or "therefore," and ended with "QED" because I'm pretentious.

Steven said that when the TOS violations are applied to EZA, people get 'hurt'. But with the other TOS violations he referred to with other sites, they don't. This is incorrect.

Actually, Steven said that small TOS violations don't hurt anybody. I disagree, but I do agree that they hurt people less. His argument applies to both social bookmarking sites (where he says it is okay to bookmark your site, but not to hire a small army of people to place hundreds of bookmarks) and EZA (where he says it is okay to click on and read your own article, but not to buy 50,000 visitors in a paid traffic exchange).

In both cases, he accepts that he is in fact violating the TOS and may face repercussions for it. He also accepts that some people might not like it or approve of it.

And, consequently, I'm fine with that. Because it's not my job to teach Steven the difference between right and wrong, and it's not my problem if he doesn't agree with me on what that difference is.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520624].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi CDarklock,

You missed a bit out of my quote on the first point, which makes a difference -

You quoted -

It's either wrong to break ANY of these sites TOS, to ANY level - or it's not wrong at all to break ANY of their TOS to ANY level.

I had said -

It's either wrong to break ANY of these sites TOS, to ANY level - or it's not wrong at all to break ANY of their TOS to ANY level. Whether it's wrong or not, it's not allowed at any level - which is the point Jeremy was making.

What you quoted is totally out of context and meaningless without the other bit, and therefore the debate over the 'wrongness' and 'freedom' is pointless and distractional - we're going off on tangents again. The sentences are quite clearly linked and of different meaning when seperated, regardless of the full stop.

Quote:
That logic doesn't stand up.

That's rather the point of any sentence which begins with "by that logic." If it was good logic, the sentence would have started with "hence" or "therefore," and ended with "QED" because I'm pretentious.

You picked up on the wrong context/aspect again.

But in your defence, my answer was a little ambigiuous - especially when removed from the surrounding words and quoted out of context.

I'll clarify -

When I said 'that logic doesn't stand up', the logic I referred to wasn't this -

After all, stealing only what you need is every bit as wrong as stealing everything

But rather, it was this -

if you are in a desperate enough position to steal, you should steal the most you can

and this -

so you may as well take it all

The first quote related to Tina's comment . The following two quotes were your assertions, so they weren't the part you referred to at the start of your sentence when you said -

And by that logic

And again, when you apply the context in which I framed it (immediately after), which you didn't quote -

In a court of law, you would most likely get a worse punishment for the latter, as stealing only enough to survive would be viewed differently, and possibly dealt with differently, than greedily stealing as much as possible - 'mitigating circumstances'.

In this instance, it's possible to cause more problems by breaking the TOS repeatedly (like with automated software) but according to the TOS of these sites the punishment is not changed - termination for minor AND major breaches of TOS - exactly the same punishment. The law is different. The analogy doesn't fit, specifically when you consider the point that Steven was making, and the counter point that Jeremy made.

...what I was trying to say is a lot clearer.

Actually, Steven said that small TOS violations don't hurt anybody. I disagree, but I do agree that they hurt people less. His argument applies to both social bookmarking sites (where he says it is okay to bookmark your site, but not to hire a small army of people to place hundreds of bookmarks) and EZA (where he says it is okay to click on and read your own article, but not to buy 50,000 visitors in a paid traffic exchange).

In both cases, he accepts that he is in fact violating the TOS and may face repercussions for it. He also accepts that some people might not like it or approve of it.

And, consequently, I'm fine with that. Because it's not my job to teach Steven the difference between right and wrong, and it's not my problem if he doesn't agree with me on what that difference is.

I disagree. if you want, I can go and multi-quote Steven to prove that you are incorrect.

But as you're quite clearly misquoting me and taking me out of context at every opportunity, I will assume that you are doing the same with Steven and leave it at that.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520662].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

You missed a bit out of my quote on the first point, which makes a difference -

I don't see how. The TOS thinks you should follow the TOS, and doesn't like it when you don't, but it's not going to try and stop you. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?

I disagree. if you want, I can go and multi-quote Steven to prove that you are incorrect.

Or, I can quote him myself:

To me, that's the same as somebody making one bookmark to a site they shouldn't as opposed to somebody using software to bookmark 1,000 sites.

The latter is going to do much more harm and that's where I have a problem with some of the hard core black hatters. They go way over that line of "what's acceptable."

Oh, and sometimes I don't quote your entire post because it's a pain in the arse. It's not that I can't answer it, it's that I just don't feel like it.

Thanks

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520730].message }}

rondo 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

Please share with us where Google says ppc, ppv, and email traffic are against Adsense TOS.

I didn't say they did. I was referring to things like traffic exchanges, paid clicks and fake visitors etc
- Thanks
Signature
Online courses
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520350].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

The level of what youll be prosecuted for is different from the morality of committing an action no?

-Trevor

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1520436].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi CDarklock,

I don't see how. The TOS thinks you should follow the TOS, and doesn't like it when you don't, but it's not going to try and stop you. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?

I'm not actually sure, but I'll take your word for it. Neither of them seem to be a meaningful response to the point that I was making.

Or, I can quote him myself:

Quote:
To me, that's the same as somebody making one bookmark to a site they shouldn't as opposed to somebody using software to bookmark 1,000 sites.

The latter is going to do much more harm and that's where I have a problem with some of the hard core black hatters. They go way over that line of "what's acceptable."

It would appear that you are suggesting that when Steven says - 'is going to do much more harm than...' this means that Steven says they 'don't hurt anybody', but you disagree and think that 'they hurt people less'.

I think that you're confused.

Oh, and sometimes I don't quote your entire post because it's a pain in the arse. It's not that I can't answer it, it's that I just don't feel like it.

That's fine, as long as it doesn't happen to be a statement that has a totally different meaning when taken out of context, and in particular when that incorrect context happens to conveniently support your view in suggesting that I am mistaken.

Thanks

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521031].message }}

pavionjsl

14 years ago

Here is a question. If I see someone being successful in the States in a market using US labor, following US laws, and I go overseas and use child labor to build the widget cheaper and destroy that US based company is that ok? In the US child labor is illegal. But it is not somewhere else and I am using the world to beat the Company. And we here in the US support the company playing unfairly in some peoples eyes, by buying their cheaper widget wanting only the results and not being interested in how the omelet was made.

Sort of like the I only use correct artificial backlinks..........Now having ADD Im not sure where I went, that is for me to know and for you to figure out .........sorry Steve........did not mean to attack your sig, but degrees are degrees.

Thanks

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521150].message }}

pavionjsl

14 years ago

Crap I remember my point........society rewards success no matter what the methods........it never takes the time to measure the right or wrong in handing one company money making it successful over another. No matter how loud you yell about right and wrong the giants of the world in all industries have abuse of some form in their methods and because of that they are succesful. Are you here to win or be right?

Blood diamonds, oil from impoverished nations, products from child labor, rankings from bookmarking a 1000 sites. If your not here to win, go home, start a organization and try to change the world. We as a society reward the best price and service not how right they did it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521181].message }}

ExRat 14 years ago

Hi Pavionjsl,

Are you here to win or be right?

You make an interesting point, one which I've been discussing recently with different people.

Some adopt the attitude that it's wise to soldier on doing things the 'right' way, stating that you will sleep well at night, set a good example, and offer the argument that if no-one bothered to try and be 'right' by doing the 'right' thing, we would all be royally screwed.

They have a good point or two that I agree with.

But unfortunately, many of the people who spout off about doing things the 'right' way, are often either misguided, delusional or simply creating a smokescreen of ethicality.

So in your example in your first post (RE child labour), when the person finally decides that they will use the child labour to try and get one over on the US company rather than 'doing what's right', they would probably find ironically that the big company beat them to it, and has tied all of the foreign cheap labour up and welcome anyone trying to undercut them as they have the advertising major networks contracted, tied up and closed off....so you can't compete, even at lower prices. If you manage it, they'll just buy you.

I think many people with a conscience face this dilemma - fail while being 'right', or just do what's 'wrong', but 'right' in terms of ensuring your own survival/prosperity.

When it comes to internet promotion techniques, personally I draw the line at giving the independent little guy a hard time - I see no need to, when there are so many huge, big-finance backed 2.0 sites out there offering free webspace and profiting from people using them, along with competitively priced paid linking services where no-one gets 'spammed'.

As for other stuff, I guess we all have to make our own decisions about whether we give a T.O.S.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Roger Davis
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521222].message }}

pavionjsl

14 years ago

And one more thing.....TOS...Jeremy had a post on those websites busted by scotland yard selling knock off UGG boots and when their links where examined they basically had 400-500 irrelevant chinese links that got their websites number 1. They were busted for selling knock offs, but we all give the "G" this wizard of oz credit, someone behind the curtain with all this tech and guidelines and when they are shown to give PR for nothing chinese links what does that say?

My first "wso" how to get 5000 irrelevant chinese website links and rank #1 for your keyword.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521231].message }}

WD Mino 14 years ago

By Steven.It was like buying my house years ago, should I choose to buy another one I now know all the mistakes to avoid. However this is a much more costly lesson.

Isn't that the truth i sure learned an awful lot of what to look for next time for sure. good point about the products we really do need to disclose everything to allow one to make an informed purchase.

-WD
- Thanks
Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522897].message }}

ilagan_grace

14 years ago

Originally Posted by avenuegirl

Ok,

Just now I have encountered 2 products that offer paying for traffic solution to bump your views on Ezine - both of which are being sold in the WSO section with NO WARNING that the method is not white hat - and even one of the initial reviewers says it is "legal."

I just think there is some bad information swimming around this forum, and it is information that will get peoples accounts banned without them having a heads up on the consequences.

I was SHOCKED EVEN MORE to find that information had been offered in the WAR ROOM as one of these WSO's is offered FREE in there (the other one I purchased and will deal with seperately). Again, if it was offered with an up front - "this was my wso and some techniques are now considered grey or BlueFart" kind of warning I don't think I would have been annoyed. But this is not what is in there.

Am I just being a prude about all of this?

I think I'm most upset that people were charging for this information and not being honest about what it was up front. The second one I found more so than the first as I think there are people probably finally making some money who may have followed the tactic and think everything is "ok" with what they are doing and now trust that marketer even more.

Would it upset you to find out you had been taught something that could now jeopardize your business because there was no updated disclosure?

You are not prude Jill. In a way you help us to be more careful in buying products as well. I am new here and I've seen great stuff and good reviews and so on. I actually purchased one already which I believed can help me get extra $$$. But before I purchased it I read all the reviews posted along with the thread. That actually happened before I read this thread of yours and in a way you given me some signal to be careful in buying a product may it be here or to any other selling site.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Learn How to Make Money Online - free guide

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521272].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Well, this has certainly been an interesting thread. I want to thank everybody
for keeping it civil, if a little bit heated.

I've had a whole night to think about this and a bit of this morning after
reading Roger's replies to come up with something sensible.

Roger, I have said in the past, I always look to the replies of yours and
Paul Myers for logic, reason, common sense and what is right.

But in this case, I have to disagree with one thing.

Please explain to me what harm my one digg to my Blogger blog is doing
to anybody.

Do you know that in almost all cases, my Digg is the only one?

Do you know that in almost all cases, my Digg is off of the new Diggs
page in 5 seconds?

If anything, it is an exercise in futility as far as immediate traffic...BUT..it
does provide me with a backlink...and every one helps.

Now if you want to say that backlink hurts another site because it has
one less backlink than I do and thus will be lower in the SERPs, I will
accept that, though I would love to know exactly to what degree that
one backlink will actually matter.

In all honesty, and if we're going to be realistic about this, my one
backlink is a joke and we all know it.

But okay, I understand. We're not talking about actual harm here. We're
talking about technicalities. Technically, that backlink was attained against
a TOS and whatever the harm, no matter how small or non existent, it is
still harm of some kind.

In that case, every Internet marketer here might as well call themselves
a black hatter if they do anything to get their site to the top of the
Google SERPs.

If you read Google's TOS, it specifically says that anything done for the
purpose of getting your site up to the top of their engine is against their
TOS.

So...anybody who submits an article to EZA with a resource box linking
to their site is breaking Google's TOS.

End of story...We're all guilty.

If people here want to call it black and white regardless of the offense,
then let's ALL get out of our ivory towers because we are all guilty.

And you know what? I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with, and it's really the only thing I have a
problem with is being told that I have to put Black Hat on my product
because it tells people to bookmark their site.

That to me is a joke.

People actually into Black Hat tactics would laugh my claim of being
black hat off the planet. In fact, my refunds would probably skyrocket for
false advertising.

I've seen real black hat and it is ugly.

But here is the bottom line.

It doesn't matter what any of us thinks, because ultimately, it is each
site that is responsible for executing its own TOS.

As Kurt Melvin said once, and I will never forget this, it is up to Google
to knock my sites from the SERPS, it's not up to him to play by their
rules because they are not a law body. They are just a site like you and
I are and breaking a site's TOS is NOT the same thing as breaking the law
because TOS is not law.

I can do anything I want to screw Google, if I so choose.

It is then up to THEM to make it so that NONE of my sites appear in
their listings.

And I have no problem with that. I've been doing this long enough to
know what the limits are so that I won't have anything happen to me.

Thus, my book telling people to bookmark their blog ONE time is not going
to get anybody banned from Digg, as opposed to these books that teach
people to drive thousands of clicks in paid traffic to EZA articles for the
purpose of staying on the most viewed list for 90 days.

And I'm sorry, but IMO, you cannot compare the two, in harm or any
other way.

But I understand that we won't agree on that, and that's fine.

But please, folks, let's all get out of our ivory towers because if you use
Google, I am 99% sure I can find something that you are doing that is
against their TOS.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521322].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi Steven,

Please explain to me what harm my one digg to my Blogger blog is doing to anybody.

If 500 million people all decided to digg their own page today, would the site become worthless?

You're missing the point.

You said stuff like this over the page -

That is when you end up abusing the system...especially when you
multiply that by 10, 20 or 100 articles.

...in reference to driving traffic to EZA to inflate figures.

You also said -

Actually, by artificially driving traffic to your articles (and another
great way is just to go to a TE, buy 50,000 views and have the URL
be one of your articles) you are hurting the authors who would have
been on the top viewed 90 days list by legitimate means.

These people get less views, less traffic and less money...all because
of a broken TOS.

So yes, people are being hurt.

...but THEN tried to justify other black hat methods, based on a single person not doing much of it. Whether I do 1 TOS breach, or 1000, I am still using illegitimate means - just on a different scale. But it's still illegitimate.

But that's the problem. You only see it from one perspective - your own. As I said, what if 500 million people all do a 'little bit' of TOS breaching?

We had the same debate about using forum profiles for links. It wasn't until someone pointed out that the forum owner HAS to delete spammy profiles, otherwise he is giving a green light to spammer communities that he is a good target. So he is forced to undertake repetitive admin deletion tasks as they occur, or it will only get worse.

You can't say that something that breaks a TOS is OK because you only did a bit of it, in answer to someone telling you that all breaches of TOS are the same - however big or small.

The debate isn't about whether breaking a TOS is right or wrong. It's about deluding yourself that breaking them a little bit is OK, and breaking them a lot is really bad. Or breaking them on Digg is OK, but on EZA is not.

In that case, every Internet marketer here might as well call themselves a black hatter if they do anything to get their site to the top of the
Google SERPs.

Precisely. But that doesn't mean you have to call yourself one on your sales pages. Just don't try and bend the truth in a discussion to back up your assertions.

What I do have a problem with, and it's really the only thing I have a problem with is being told that I have to put Black Hat on my product because it tells people to bookmark their site.

That to me is a joke.

I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that you should do that. They were trying to make a point to you.

I've seen real black hat and it is ugly.

Such as?

As Kurt Melvin said once, and I will never forget this, it is up to Google to knock my sites from the SERPS, it's not up to him to play by their
rules because they are not a law body. They are just a site like you and
I are and breaking a site's TOS is NOT the same thing as breaking the law
because TOS is not law.

It's also kind of what I said, here -

The law is different. The analogy doesn't fit

Thus, my book telling people to bookmark their blog ONE time is not going to get anybody banned from Digg, as opposed to these books that teach people to drive thousands of clicks in paid traffic to EZA articles for the purpose of staying on the most viewed list for 90 days.

And I'm sorry, but IMO, you cannot compare the two, in harm or any
other way.

Again, that's a one sided point of view. If everyone just did this, the site would have millions of single self promotional Diggs each day, and would be as useless as it would if everybody did thousands of self-promotional posts each.

But please, folks, let's all get out of our ivory towers because if you use Google, I am 99% sure I can find something that you are doing that is against their TOS

So now you're making Jeremy's point for him. The very same point that you disagreed with previously. Perhaps people who are smart enough to automate, or those who see EZA as the same as any other web 2.0 site would ask you to leave your ivory tower too.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521357].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Yeah ... especially with something like EZA where you put a lot of work into your articles and your standing with EZA increases and you have a lot to lose if you have a lot of articles and good standing. Probably best to get 2 or 3 opinions on a method if you're not sure.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521403].message }}

Blase 14 years ago

I didn't read all of the posts
so it's proably been said.

Before you do anything if you care.

Read the TOS.

I am a member of a $197.00
course and a $695.00 course
that tell you to do a number of things that
are against Googles TOS.

I bought an ebook last month for
$69 from a VERY well know SEO
guru that told you to do something
against Googles TOS.

I called him on it he blew me off...
I got a refund.

I have no problem with a product that tells me
what they are recommending is against TOS.

In two out of the three cases I mentioned they
didn't know it was.
- Thanks
Signature
"Nothing Happens Until Something Is Sold"
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521441].message }}

GeorgR.

14 years ago

The problem is that the borders WHITE-->GRAY-->BLACK HAT can often be fuzzy.

For example: If i use Xrumer to build thousands of links...is it "legal"? Maybe the fact that i am building links is - but then the fact that i would spam forums and blogs is not.

I have seen such WSOs, and remember one of them covering white-hat for the most part and then mentioning a few BH methods which i personally wouldn't use since my EZA account is to valuable to risk it

As for "SEO" in general...in google's eyes ANY kind of SEO, link building, book marking, digging is against TOS i am sure...from that point of view ANY "manipulation" to get better rankings would be considered "bad" unless it happens 100% naturally. But who would *really* think that digging or making a web2.0 site with some links to your site is "illegal"? Its not always easy because as said the borders here are very fuzzy.

Thanks

Signature

*** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
-> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
*** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521459].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

A while back I saw a product guaranteed to take any page to # 1 position for any number of key words.
I had never heard the term white hat or black hat.
The product did not indicate how it would do so

It turned out the product imported rss feeds and cloaked them. The page was static, but the code the bots saw was ever changing and optimized using rss feeds mixed with input keywords for nonsensical content that bots ranked high. Sometimes the 'view code' pages were longer than some sales pages I've seen. All not visible to a human. The seller claimed the method was white hat and OK.

When I questioned the cloaked part, I was told it was not Grey or Black hat. That Google read cloaked info all the time to determine PR and ranking, such as meta data, no follow tags, etc. I was new enough to be unable to dispute it. No where in Google's TOS was the method singled out. I decided not to use it anyway and was acually re-reimbursed.

Knowing what I do now, that was as black hat as it comes. But was unable to nail down where it broke the TOS. The TOS did list several ways of cloaking that were against their TOS, but this was not listed. It just went against my own sensibilities. Being unable to KNOW or point to the place in the TOS it violated, I suppose the seller could have not refunded, especially after telling me that method was OK. The fact they did anyway showed me they actually knew more than they let on as to the viability of the method.

As a newbie, I would have had no idea ether way, in the end it was just my feeling uncomfortable with it that made me decide to not use it and ask for a refund. Had I known then what I know today, I never would have bought it had enough of it been disclosed to be able to determine that is was in fact not a kosher way to go.

So I think Black/Grey methods should be disclosed, or promptly refunded. Not disclosing them still costs the buyer unwilling to go that route time, in any case.

(if ever Digg decides to terminate an account due to a single self Digg, what, if any responsibility lies with the person advocating the practice because it is just a small infraction and until then, had never been enforced?)

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521460].message }}

GeorgR.

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DogScout

A while back I saw a product guaranteed to take any page to # 1 position for any number of key words.
I had never heard the term white hat or black hat.
The product did not indicate how it would do so

It turned out the product imported rss feeds and cloaked them.

I like how some people use really potentially "dangerous" methods and try to sell them as white-hat

If he presents the bots something else than his visitors...yes its totally bl@ckhat.

ALSO..AFAIK we are not allowed anymore to discuss such methods LET ALONE SELL THEM AS WSOS! <---- There are other places on the web for this. Correct me if i am wrong.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

*** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
-> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
*** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521463].message }}

Jill Carpenter

14 years ago

Originally Posted by GeorgR.

I like how some people use really potentially "dangerous" methods and try to sell them as white-hat

If he presents the bots something else than his visitors...yes its totally bl@ckhat.

ALSO..AFAIK we are not allowed anymore to discuss such methods LET ALONE SELL THEM AS WSOS! <---- There are other places on the web for this. Correct me if i am wrong.

Ha,

How many WSO's do you think would be instantly removed for suggesting something within them that is not purely white hat?

I dare say, things would empty out by at least 50 percent at least. Pretty much anything that is a tactic of some kind would need to be removed. Anything suggesting SEO that is not directly related to the SEO just on the site that you own (using proper keywords for example) would be "illegal."

And probably 90 percent of the internet would need to be completely wiped out if everyone suddenly decided to execute their TOS. LOL

I even now need to examine the advice I have given to others. I have told people to bookmark in the past, so I am just as guilty as the next guy.

I suddenly feel very dirty.

LOL

Thanks

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521520].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi DogScout,

No where in Google's TOS was the method singled out.

This page is Google Webmaster Guidelines. Even though they are 'guidelines', going against them is against the TOS of most of the google services like adsense for example, and it says this about the guidelines at the top -

Even if you choose not to implement any of these suggestions, we strongly encourage you to pay very close attention to the "Quality Guidelines," which outline some of the illicit practices that may lead to a site being removed entirely from the Google index or otherwise penalized. If a site has been penalized, it may no longer show up in results on Google.com or on any of Google's partner sites.

Broadly speaking, if you go against their guidelines, you are going against their TOS.

Here are some of the quality guidelines -

Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
Don't use cloaking or sneaky redirects.
Don't load pages with irrelevant keywords.
Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines,

Thanks

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521528].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

Well as Google Bots do read Meta data that IS cloaked, that would make every site using it technically in violation of the TOU according to that statement.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521550].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi DogScout,

Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings

Is there anyone who isn't breaking the TOS?

Google have broken their own TOS a few times. (Selling links, scraping other websites and building a business around scraped content.)

[ 4 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521562].message }}

Jill Carpenter

14 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi DogScout,

Is there anyone who isn't breaking the TOS?

Google have broken their own TOS a few times. (Selling links, scraping other websites and building a business around scraped content.)

I was beginning to hear, "She's a witch!" and I was being led to the place were I was about to get stoned by all the villagers.

In any event, I think this has more clearly defined the range of topics that I would cover and to what extent in any future offerings I may put together.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521605].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

14 years ago

Jill,

I was not inferring that anyone should label their product that talks about bookmarking as "black-hat" - Well, not seriously anyway

It would be funny though lol

I was just trying to draw parallels to different things to show how just about all of us in our goal to get traffic, make money, and be successful sometimes break a sites TOS and that to me anyway, one sites TOS isn't any more relevant or important than anothers.

Again, sorry to lead your thread in that direction as I know it wasn't the way you were intending it to go.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521628].message }}

Jill Carpenter

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Jill,

I was not inferring that anyone should label their product that talks about bookmarking as "black-hat" - Well, not seriously anyway

It would be funny though lol

I was just trying to draw parallels to different things to show how just about all of us in our goal to get traffic, make money, and be successful sometimes break a sites TOS and that to me anyway, one sites TOS isn't any more relevant or important than anothers.

Again, sorry to lead your thread in that direction as I know it wasn't the way you were intending it to go.

You never know where the AvenueGirl might lead you. Could be down some dark and mysterious alleys.

On a more serious note, I'm not offended in the way the conversation went as at least one person in the thread has stated that it will make them a bit more cautious in their buying decisions - which is always a good thing.

We've learned that digging your own site is technically against the TOS and virtually anyone building a website is a blackhatter - including Steven. ROFLMBO - I love you Steven.

The first really successful campaign I had (which by the way promoted a scam product that I did not know was a scam (lmho) and I consider successful only because I made thousands in a short period (combination of minor action taking, timing and dumb luck) was based on a site that was a simple 5 page website that had NO SEO. I tossed the site up and blindly thought it would magically rise to the first page search. The only way I made money was using adwords. If I had not paid for advertising, I would have never made a dime. And even then, the adwords technique I used was considered "blackhat." I don't even think now it really was blackhat in the way I used it - but again this is my personal feeling from it and someone else may look at what I had done and think I was being mean and highly deceptive.

Looking back at it all, I would personally consider it foolish for anyone to follow that model of just tossing a site up and expecting it to just "go." To sit around and wait for someone to bookmark you and toot the horn for you it would likely take years before your site will find true organic benefits. So then you are at the mercy of paid advertising and Google has you by the balls.

In a sense, we say we want organic results - but like those who experiment with the gene alteration to create the biggest tomato, we manipulate things in our little internet garden to our advantage. Anyone drop out seed articles?

Heck, I just finished another ebook review just now on article marketing and some link building strategies are presented. Not strategies to pay for visits - but according to this whole thread and conversation this book would be "unacceptable" to those still sitting on a high horse.

"What? bookmark and build a link? How dare you!" LOL.

I agree, if Steven started to warn everyone that his techniques are Black hat - well, all I can say is my sides start to ache from laughing at the thought.

Here is my new Adwords ad for promoting Steven:

Wagenheim Black Hat Truth
His dirty article marketing tactics
may get you BANNED
BlueFart.com | Underground Marketing Just Got...Smellier

Thanks

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521842].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

Is there anyone who isn't breaking the TOS?

I don't, and I advise strongly against breaking it.

Not that anyone listens to me.

Everyone wants it easy, and they want it now. They go out and set up five thousand backlinks, and I say "how many people are linking to your site?" and they go "I set up 5,000 backlinks, and only about 1,500 were deleted!"

So you have somewhere around 3,500 backlinks, and you have absolutely no clue how many are from real people. They could just all be... yours.

What did you learn from this? Do you know a new market that you didn't think was interested in your site? Have you found a new place to market your products? Have you found a place that might be interested in another product?

But when your site gets a sudden spurt of traffic from, say, a Harley rider's forum... maybe you should start thinking about why they come to your site and what else they might like to see there.

Too bad you crapped up your stats with every random site under the sun. You already look at your referral logs and see a mishmash of sites with no overriding theme, because that's what you used for your links. But if you didn't do that, the Harley forum sticks out like a turd in a punchbowl, and you know something. Something you can use to make your business even better.

So I tell people not to do it, but they do it anyway.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1523096].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

Meta data does/can improve a site's ranking and how it is written can considered 'tricky' Lol. When I read the page on cloaking, though it uses JavaScript, flash and images as examples, it clearly tells me I HAVE to make a none meta data version of the information in the meta data available to the site viewer in order to be in compliance with their TOS. They actually leave no wiggle room. According to that TOS META Data is a violation. (To be stupid, any code rendering at all is a violation based on that!)

I doubt showing them breaking their own TOS will save you. Nor will pointing out that everyone does it.

Thanks

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521584].message }}

Lyn Woodring

14 years ago

I have a couple of questions.
One has to do with intent and emphasis. For instance Google's TOS seems to indicate that it places a high value on user experience and expectations. That brings to mind most good sales and marketing advice I have read is that you have an obligation to put your quality product that solves a problem(s) in front of as many people as you can.
That is bringing value to the marketplace and with it the rewards.
So I don't have a problem with using almost any means possible to get a top-notch product at the top of the SE and into people's hands. And I wouldn't think Google would have either if your quality is high level.
What I do have a problem with is using those same means or even "white-hat" methods to promote a scam of some type.
I also suspect some rules listed in TOS are CYA to the site owner. I'm a newbie so I don't know if this is true but I suspect that, for instance, Diggs doesn't mind you bookmarking your site. It seems to me that doing so increases their rankings. I think that is in there to discourage mass bookmarketing which might get them penalized. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
In any event I think full disclousure is in order. That is what I do in filing taxes, find their comfort level and make a recommendation based on that with full disclosure. Tax laws are so broad almost anything can be a breach but you get a feel for what's allowable and not get audited. And that seems to be what has been discussed; what's allowable or winked at.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521700].message }}

BIG Mike

Banned 14 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521798].message }}

Tina Golden

14 years ago

Your original point was that information is being sold as WSO's that is clearly BlueFart and the author is lying about it being "Legal" or "Allowed", with no mention of the inherent risks to the user's accounts.

Those types of WSO's should not be allowed because the newbies get sucked right into doing things they don't understand and invariably get their accounts terminated.

It's not about the method being right or wrong, or being a prude or not, it's about screwing over other members by intentionally misleading them into thinking it's OK.

Just like these idiots that come in every once in a while promoting cash gifting as being legal...NOT!

I know that I may seem to be flip-flopping here but this I agree with. If the creator is misleading about the nature of the method, that isn't fair. As someone in this thread mentioned, though, isn't that against the rules in the WSO section now? The offer can be reported. Plus if you buy something that has black hat techniques, you certainly have the right to post in the thread and warn others that the techniques could prove dangerous to their accounts.

Tina

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521845].message }}

Jill Carpenter

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

I know that I may seem to be flip-flopping here but this I agree with. If the creator is misleading about the nature of the method, that isn't fair. As someone in this thread mentioned, though, isn't that against the rules in the WSO section now? The offer can be reported. Plus if you buy something that has black hat techniques, you certainly have the right to post in the thread and warn others that the techniques could prove dangerous to their accounts.

Tina

There is a possibility that some of those posting those WSO's are not even aware of what it is they are suggesting.

Perhaps a rating scale to be created where members could evaluate an offer before hand to give others a rough idea on the level of the product.

Here is what could be considered - a rating system for the person holding the WSO that asks questions and will give them a number to attach.

So, this poll would ask some yes and no questions and would score you based on results.

1. Does your product include methods that may break a TOS on the suggested sites?

This would be a yes or no and would be factored in with some other questions.

Of course, this would be a bit of a pain to get in order - but I would be honest in my answers - and anyone who wasn't would be quickly uncovered.

Would many products fall into grey and black? yep.

Does not make them bad - just makes the buyer aware of what they are getting up front and would probably aid in more confident purchases.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1521875].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Well, this thread has been a real eye opener for me.

Before I start, I want to apologize if I offended anybody...it was not my
intention.

Where to begin?

What really struck me was Big Mike admitting that he did some things that
he'd never suggest other people do for fear that they'd, as he put it, "shoot
themselves in the foot."

One thing I can honestly say is that all the advice I have ever given, even
if it is in violation of a site's TOS (in my case, Google and Digg) was ever
given without explicitly telling them exactly how to do it so that their risk
is almost zero.

Maybe I need to put a disclaimer in my forwards that any tactic can be
abused and thus, either get you banned from a site or sandboxed by
Google. I think I have about a half dozen products that I will have to do
this for, and have no problem with making the changes.

I still have a bit of a problem equating mass spamming with one Digg, but
am more understanding of the problem after Roger's "what if 500 million
people made one Digg to a self serving site?" While it's logistically unlikely,
it is possible and therefore, has to be considered.

The bigger problem I have is this.

If we're all guilty of some violation (especially people who do off page SEO)
then what leg do we have to stand on when we complain about spam
email being sent to us?

If all violations are the same, not matter how big or small (after all, that's
ultimately what you're saying Roger) then what right do we have to bitch
about any violation against us unless we are 100% squeaky clean?

That's a slippery slope we tread on if we want to equate all offenses,
because I for one don't want to give a mass spammer ammunition to say
"Well, you do off page SEO, and that's against Google's TOS, so who are
you to tell me I'm bad because I spam?"

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Where do we draw the line?

If the line truly is drawn at zero tolerance, then we all have to totally
clean up our acts 100%

How many of us can do that and STILL retain the same level of
profitability?

For me, that means the ceasing of writing articles and submitting to EZA
for the purpose of getting people to my review blogs because I am
artificially manipulating Google by doing that.

And that's off the top of my head. Heaven knows how many other little
things I do that are against some TOS, no matter how small?

And that means all you article marketers folks...especially you guys who
submit to multiple directories...which I don't do.

If we're going to make it a zero tolerance policy then we are opening up
the doors for the really dangerous folks to say, "Hey, you're not better
than me."

Do we want to go there?

So again I ask, do we really want to draw that fine a line in the sand?

I welcome any comments on this issue, because quite honestly, I still
don't see it as black and white as some are suggesting it is.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522033].message }}

The GoTo Team

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Well, this thread has been a real eye opener for me.

Before I start, I want to apologize if I offended anybody...it was not my
intention.

Where to begin?

What really struck me was Big Mike admitting that he did some things that
he'd never suggest other people do for fear that they'd, as he put it, "shoot
themselves in the foot."

One thing I can honestly say is that all the advice I have ever given, even
if it is in violation of a site's TOS (in my case, Google and Digg) was ever
given without explicitly telling them exactly how to do it so that their risk
is almost zero.

Maybe I need to put a disclaimer in my forwards that any tactic can be
abused and thus, either get you banned from a site or sandboxed by
Google. I think I have about a half dozen products that I will have to do
this for, and have no problem with making the changes.

I still have a bit of a problem equating mass spamming with one Digg, but
am more understanding of the problem after Roger's "what if 500 million
people made one Digg to a self serving site?" While it's logistically unlikely,
it is possible and therefore, has to be considered.

The bigger problem I have is this.

If we're all guilty of some violation (especially people who do off page SEO)
then what leg do we have to stand on when we complain about spam
email being sent to us?

If all violations are the same, not matter how big or small (after all, that's
ultimately what you're saying Roger) then what right do we have to bitch
about any violation against us unless we are 100% squeaky clean?

That's a slippery slope we tread on if we want to equate all offenses,
because I for one don't want to give a mass spammer ammunition to say
"Well, you do off page SEO, and that's against Google's TOS, so who are
you to tell me I'm bad because I spam?"

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Where do we draw the line?

If the line truly is drawn at zero tolerance, then we all have to totally
clean up our acts 100%

How many of us can do that and STILL retain the same level of
profitability?

For me, that means the ceasing of writing articles and submitting to EZA
for the purpose of getting people to my review blogs because I am
artificially manipulating Google by doing that.

And that's off the top of my head. Heaven knows how many other little
things I do that are against some TOS, no matter how small?

And that means all you article marketers folks...especially you guys who
submit to multiple directories...which I don't do.

If we're going to make it a zero tolerance policy then we are opening up
the doors for the really dangerous folks to say, "Hey, you're not better
than me."

Do we want to go there?

So again I ask, do we really want to draw that fine a line in the sand?

I welcome any comments on this issue, because quite honestly, I still
don't see it as black and white as some are suggesting it is.

That was very well written and laid out.

I totally agree with your point, that somethings are just too minor to pursue.

I think it comes down to what is Wrong and what is Acceptable. To be decided only by those involved.

-Trevor

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522042].message }}

Jill Carpenter 14 years ago

Yep.

What Steven and Big Mike said.

I think it's always good to cover your own arse, and re-review your disclaimers.

As for the 2 products -

One I purchased which has a very lucrative affiliate program and I want to go there as I think there are a lot of really good other things in the product - but I am awaiting hearing back from the original author as to what is being done about the product itself. Either some additional warnings need to be added or some additional traffic solutions need to be added but something needs to get fixed or I may need to change gears.

As for the other one, the last thing I am here to do is to single anyone out or throw stones and rain on someones parade. I can not police every offer I come across, but I will/should either pm them and see how they handle it or just drop in a support ticket to deal with it.

I'm in no position to judge what should and should not be tried and allowed, but I do want to help people figure out just what they might be getting themselves into.
- Thanks
Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522118].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Where do we draw the line?

If the line truly is drawn at zero tolerance, then we all have to totally
clean up our acts 100%

How many of us can do that and STILL retain the same level of
profitability?

I think it has already been mentioned what would happen; they'd just have to close the Internet. The current TOSs are at best unworkable and unachievable in their present form. It is almost as if the same lawyers that write FTC guidelines wrote most of the TOSs we deal with daily. And perhaps they did. Lol And of coarse the purpose for many is to CYA with regards to other TOSs of those they depend on for business...

But how would you feel if something that was considered universally acceptable was suddenly enforced and one of your clients you had advised use that universally accepted practice was suddenly de-indexed, banned or whatever and out of business, with all that entails. (Just an observation, and I mean no offense, just wondering at what point I WILL draw the line).

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522099].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi Steven,

I don't know if you really mean what you are saying, or whether this is just part of some typical posting pattern of narcissistic view of business/mild drama/pull out of thread/return to thread/guilt-trip?

I now feel as though I should feel guilty because you seem to have misunderstood things and appear to believe that something needs to change in your business, due to the points that I made.

I hope not, because -

1) the things I said were for discussional reasons - I saw a debate going on, saw two sides, felt strongly that I could contribute by sharing my point of view on the one side - result - we all learn something, and perhaps think more clearly.

2) if you asked me, I would tell you that you shouldn't change a single thing based on what's been discussed here.

I don't know if you're genuinely confused about what's been discussed here, but I don't think anyone suggested you should change anything in your business, and when prompted previously, I actually mentioned that someone was trying to make a point, rather than suggesting that you should add 'black hat' warnings to your products.

The only thing that I saw suggested (or suggested myself) was that you might benefit from adjusting your point of view towards this subject.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522133].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Steven,

I don't know if you really mean what you are saying, or whether this is just part of some typical posting pattern of narcissistic view of business/mild drama/pull out of thread/return to thread/guilt-trip?

I now feel as though I should feel guilty because you seem to have misunderstood things and appear to believe that something needs to change in your business, due to the points that I made.

I hope not, because -

1) the things I said were for discussional reasons - I saw a debate going on, saw two sides, felt strongly that I could contribute by sharing my point of view on the one side - result - we all learn something, and perhaps think more clearly.

2) if you asked me, I would tell you that you shouldn't change a single thing based on what's been discussed here.

I don't know if you're genuinely confused about what's been discussed here, but I don't think anyone suggested you should change anything in your business, and when prompted previously, I actually mentioned that someone was trying to make a point, rather than suggesting that you should add 'black hat' warnings to your products.

The only thing that I saw suggested (or suggested myself) was that you might benefit from changing your point of view towards this subject.

Roger, I assure you that I was very sincere about my last post. My old
"ways" are dead and gone. But I see this as a very serious issue if we're
going to start throwing stones at people regardless of how much or little
they do something wrong?

Again, where do we draw the line?

Look, I know nothing about your personal marketing tactics, but I freely
admit that I violate Google's and Diggs TOS, though I honestly feel in
my heart, compared to some of the crap out there, that what I am doing
is perfectly acceptable within the context of how I do it.

It must be because...

1. Google has never sandboxed any of my sites.

2. Digg, in all these years, continues to allow me to Digg my little Blogger
blogs when I create one and/or update it.

Can I be absolutely sure that this will continue forever? Of course not. No
more so than the folks who created MFA sites a few years back and
had all their income killed literally overnight.

I wasn't inferring that you were suggesting that I do change my business
model, but in all honesty, yes, you did make me feel guilty for doing the
things that I do because of your very rational and logical argument.

Truth is...I don't have a leg to stand on.

And either does anybody else who does article marketing or bookmarking
of any kind.

So if we're going to fight against the really "evil" people (the hardcore
spammers) the only way we can do this and look at ourselves in the
mirror is to clean up our own acts 100%.

Again, how many of us can do that and stay in business.

Remember, any off page SEO and/or article marketing is essentially
breaking Google's TOS.

How many people here do either of those two things? (please raise your
hands)

That's why I'm having a big problem with this whole issue.

As far as disclosure to customers, again, this brings up some real
problems.

I don't want to go alarming people for no practical reason and at the
same time, I don't want them to do things that could get them in hot
water. So in a sense, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place and
quite honestly, I don't really know how to handle this now.

Why?

Because this is something I've never thought of before simply because
the methods I teach I thought were on the lower end of the abuse scale.

But since it has been determined (thanks to your flawlessly logical
argument) that there is no scale...it's either right or wrong...I no longer
know how to view my own tactics as far as warnings to customers.

But please don't feel guilty. This isn't your problem. It's mine.

But can you see where this can be a problem for a product creator who
truly wants to do the right thing?

Again...it isn't as black and white as some here have tried to paint it to be.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522171].message }}

ExRat 14 years ago

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the thought-out reply.

What appears to have happened was not my intention.

If you go back to my recent post where I quoted Google -

Quote:
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings

Is there anyone who isn't breaking the TOS?

And notice that below I said -

Google have broken their own TOS a few times. (Selling links, scraping other websites and building a business around scraped content.)

So what I am saying is that we can't win. Of course we need to be able to do the normal things that we do to promote our sites.

But when Google lays out guidelines, they obviously have to paint with very broad strokes because -

a) they are giving guidelines to millions of people at once

b) they can be quoted on it and have it picked apart

c) there is a certain percentage of people they are addressing who aren't the cleverest, and a certain percentage who will push every 'rule' to the limit

So a successful marketer needs to understand Google's problem. Then they need to draw their own line. And they should also consider my second quote - the fact that Google have to set guidelines so ridiculous that it makes them hypocrites - because at their core they are site scrapers. Have you or I ever given them permission to scrape our content and use it to make billions?

To understand the point of my contribution to the thread, it would help if you understood that I was trying to show you where your thinking seemed a little faulty.

But I only did that for the purpose of the discussion.

I am pleased you feel that you learnt something, but I'm disappointed that you think that you should change something because of it, because that demonstrates that you didn't understand it completely.

Any clearer?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Roger Davis
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522192].message }}
- Steven Wagenheim 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ExRat
  
  Any clearer?
  
  Yes, much clearer.
  
  Problem is, this whole thread was taken way off course from the original
  intent, that of warning potential customers that certain tactics in your
  book could have dire consequences.
  
  That is actually the part that I am still having a problem with. Point is,
  Jill made some good points and she herself even admitted that she had
  to go back to some of her instructions and take a second look at it.
  
  You made one very excellent point and it didn't get by me.
  
  We tend to look at things in our own isolated little world, and not see
  the big picture of what would happen if everybody did what we were
  doing.
  
  It is so easy to justify what we do. It is very hard to look at ourselves
  objectively and admit where we are in error.
  
  So while your intention may have not been to get me to change anything,
  you have made me realize that I really do need to change some things if
  I want to still present myself as an ethical marketer, which is something
  I pride myself on.
  
  But what do you know...when it comes right down to it...I have my own
  little marketing demons that I have to deal with.
  
  As far as Google breaking its own TOS, don't even get me started on
  that. Sidewiki alone is enough to make me lose any respect I had for
  that company.
  
  But you know what?
  
  It doesn't matter what I think of them. They don't need me. I'm the one
  who needs them for my traffic, or at least a portion of it. They are so
  big, they feel they can do anything...and they do. They may not have
  to play by their own rules, but we do have to play by them.
  
  Fair? Maybe not. But nobody said any of this was fair?
  
  Truth is, if some of these black hat tactics didn't truly hurt other
  innocent marketers, I would probably use them myself, because honestly,
  and if I am going to be totally honest and candid, I don't give a rat's
  behind about any of those sites. They make more money in a month
  than I make in a year. I have no pity for them.
  
  But I'm not going to pay a gazillion people to drive my article to the
  most viewed list because I don't want to play that game. Call it a pride
  thing, but I'd rather have an article naturally get a decent number of
  views. In fact, I have 6 articles at EZA that get over 1,000 views every
  month...all naturally because of good keyword selection and a topic
  that people are interested in.
  
  Is it as glamorous as getting 100,000 views because you've (I won't even
  mention the tactic)...?
  
  No, but it makes me feel good and allows me to sleep at night.
  
  I guess that's what it comes down to...what I do that I can live with.
  
  Up until this thread, that was a lot easier.
  
  But okay, nothing wrong with a little re-evaluation and a little soul
  searching. If we don't grow as marketers, we don't grow as people.
  
  Anyway, I appreciate all your input into this thread and yes, I finally do
  get what you're saying.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  My Soundcloud Music Channel
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522220].message }}

Tina Golden

14 years ago

If all violations are the same, not matter how big or small (after all, that's
ultimately what you're saying Roger) then what right do we have to bitch
about any violation against us unless we are 100% squeaky clean?

That's a slippery slope we tread on if we want to equate all offenses,
because I for one don't want to give a mass spammer ammunition to say
"Well, you do off page SEO, and that's against Google's TOS, so who are
you to tell me I'm bad because I spam?"

This is rather like comparing apples to oranges, though. Breaking the TOS of a website may get you banned from that site but it won't get you hefty fines or a jail term. Spam is illegal and could get you both.

I really don't see breaking the TOS of any site being on the same level as actual criminal activity. That is the reason why we see the differences in opinion on the color of the hat and the level of acceptable TOS breakage. If it's actually illegal, then it's something you should avoid at any level. If not, then it's up to the individual and what they are comfortable with.

I may think any breaking of a site's TOS is the same offense but I never meant that all marketers who do so are "bad" or "black hat". I don't think Jeremy meant that, either, or at least that's not how I understood him.

What I got from Jeremy's point of view is that none of us has the right to decide the acceptable level of TOS breakage that someone else can do. I know where I would draw the line for myself but that doesn't give me any kind of right to tell YOU where to draw the line.

Tina

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522194].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

What I got from Jeremy's point of view is that none of us has the right to decide the acceptable level of TOS breakage that someone else can do. I know where I would draw the line for myself but that doesn't give me any kind of right to tell YOU where to draw the line.

Tina

Tina, after all of this debate, I do agree with you. I don't believe anybody
has the right to tell anybody what they can and can't do.

However, we do have the right to work or not work with somebody based
on their beliefs on what is right and wrong, especially if they don't
coincide with our own beliefs.

In other words, if I don't like that John Doe drives paid traffic to EZA and
John Doe one day contacts me and says he wants to work with me, I
am totally within my rights to decline based on this one thing alone.

I think that much we can agree on, even if it is a bit hypocritical of us
should we be breaking some other TOS of some other site.

Again, it comes down to what you're comfortable with.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522237].message }}

Tina Golden

14 years ago

However, we do have the right to work or not work with somebody based
on their beliefs on what is right and wrong, especially if they don't
coincide with our own beliefs.

In other words, if I don't like that John Doe drives paid traffic to EZA and
John Doe one day contacts me and says he wants to work with me, I
am totally within my rights to decline based on this one thing alone.

Absolutely, Steve. I'm in total agreement on this one.

Tina

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522250].message }}

Jill Carpenter

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DogScout

Just read Diggs TOU and it would seem it not only allows you to Digg your own site, but provides a widget whose sole purpose is to do that. Unless I am reading this wrong. It just says you cannot comment or add content to Digg itself containing commercial links.

Partnership Opportunities | Digg About
Digg Stories on your Website

We created a tool that lets you create a custom feed of Digg news to display on your own website. You could use the API to do this, but we've made it easier with the Digg Widget.

LOL, who here does not have a site they digg (of their own) that is not commercial? What is the point of driving traffic to a site that is for entertainment purpose only? At some point in the chain we are all looking to monetize that traffic some how. Even if it is a non monetized site that was built on pure content and never made a dime - Until it was tossed up on Flippa and the high traffic is revealed and used to raise the price of what the site is worth.

So many of these TOS are really messed up. I understand the need for some policing to keep some things manageable, but it is the little mom and pop guy just getting started out who tries to do it all right and just gets squished.

They get frustrated when there is no traffic to their site, so they seek out some SEO help and do you think for a second the SEO companies are going to tell them that creating this artificial spark or links pointing to their site is not what Google wants you to do?

And here you have Ezine, clearly allowing you a "take" in your signature box, to take traffic and promote your site - and create links to promote your site.

BTW, I still don't get the deal with no aff. links allowed but you can redirect. That still has me a bit baffled.

It's a mad mad world.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522331].message }}

Steven Wagenheim 14 years ago

Originally Posted by avenuegirl

It's a mad mad world.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.
- Thanks
Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522344].message }}

JohnMcCabe

14 years ago

Originally Posted by avenuegirl

LOL, who here does not have a site they digg (of their own) that is not commercial? What is the point of driving traffic to a site that is for entertainment purpose only? At some point in the chain we are all looking to monetize that traffic some how. Even if it is a non monetized site that was built on pure content and never made a dime - Until it was tossed up on Flippa and the high traffic is revealed and used to raise the price of what the site is worth.

It's a mad mad world.

Maybe I'm reading things the way I want them to read, but I think Digg is making the distinction between digging a blog page or something that might have an affiliate link, and actually digging your affiliate link.

The first might be a review with a hoplink embedded. The second would be digging the hoplink itself.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522391].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

Just read Diggs TOU and it would seem it not only allows you to Digg your own site, but provides a widget whose sole purpose is to do that. Unless I am reading this wrong. It just says you cannot comment or add content to Digg itself containing commercial links.

Partnership Opportunities | Digg About
Digg Stories on your Website

We created a tool that lets you create a custom feed of Digg news to display on your own website. You could use the API to do this, but we've made it easier with the Digg Widget.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522247].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DogScout

Just read Diggs TOU and it would seem it not only allows you to Digg your own site, but provides a widget whose sole purpose is to do that. Unless I am reading this wrong. It just says you cannot comment or add content to Digg itself containing commercial links.

Partnership Opportunities | Digg About
Digg Stories on your Website

We created a tool that lets you create a custom feed of Digg news to display on your own website. You could use the API to do this, but we've made it easier with the Digg Widget.

Okay, so I am not in violation of Digg's TOS. I can bookmark my own site.

Now I can really sleep tonight.

So it seems, given the marketing tactics that I use, that the only site
whose TOS I am obliterating is Google's.

Well, I can still sleep tonight.

Thanks

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522257].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DogScout

Just read Diggs TOU and it would seem it not only allows you to Digg your own site, but provides a widget whose sole purpose is to do that.

Just wanted to revisit this.

I made a little mental note to go through a list of social bookmarking sites, and see which ones actually prohibited bookmarking your own stuff in their TOS.

I have a list with about fifty of them, and I've passed the halfway point on that list, and not even one of the sites I've checked prohibits bookmarking your own stuff. Not one. I am seriously beginning to think this is not and never has been against the TOS of any social bookmarking site.
- Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1559959].message }}

WD Mino 14 years ago

Hi Everyone.
Wow this is quite a discussion.

I personally think that there is no excuse for doing things wrong if one does something inadvertantly<--- spelling) then no biggie if one does things knowingly that is a different ball game.

Using methods to drive traffic are what some people make their whole living on writing e books doing courses etc. they have one thought when doing so is it helping people? Maybe but it seems unlikely the main thought is Cash and ..Branding.

Now even though we could justify and say everyone does it but not everyone does it friends. There are those who use every strategy in the book and others who perfect one or two which prove to be positive for them . of course any tactic can be abused but it is not given an opportunity for abuse if it is already an illegal method.

When i first got online i had an adsense account. i am very smart in some ways but very dumb in most. i did not read googl's tos because i did not understand them. i went and bought a huge traffic package figuring traffic = clicks=cash.
WRONG buying traffic got me removed from the program even though they use expired domains to drive traffic and that is what i bought.

Did i use a blackhat method-YES did i do so knowingly-No
i even disputed it which made me look silly but nontheless i was removed from adsense for that reason.oh yeah and i did not have a privacy policy-didn't even know i needed one.

Ok so here is the point i could explode myself in income and traffic if i used things that i know like...well nm but if i did so simply to make cash one I throw my own credibility out the window simply because i would be doing things knowingly wrong. second i would make it nearly impossible to succeed long term because once people caught on they would label me as a scammer guy instead of an integral guy and 3 i could end up being responsible for many lives being effected badly just because i wanted to make some dollars.

I drive hundreds of hits to my site every day but i don't do it with -buying traffic. ad words. article marketing. pop ups or pop unders. slide up ads or anything like that i have my own method which was why i worked my but off all night correcting my sales letter based on others suggestions. see i had /have to learn on my own so i can instruct and help others funny enough.
i love to teach and seem to have an uncanny ability to do so . spoken in front of hundreds of people and i love it. But if i don't actually teach anyone rightly i am not a good teacher. if i use methods that are wrong or considered off advertising that is one hting which i don't but if i wrote a course on it i would be responsible for hurting others and potentially having them shut down. i could be held libel <----spelling)

There was a fellow who wrote a book sold it for 97$ and advertised only 100 or whatever available but he sold it hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. sure he got some cash but is blacklisted now and would have little to no chance of getting success because that is what he is remembered for and people don't forget when they get bit.

When advertising for anything we need to be honest. if we are not honest sooner or later it will rise up and kick us in the teeth. there are so many ways to drive traffic have any of you considered going to a christian website offering links and posting in there? that is one way that i will share. when i first started doing websites wayy back around 10 yrs ago now that is what i did. my site went from last page to 2nd page with a 5 star rating . now granted i had around 20 -30 teachings on there but traffic came by hordes thousands of views .

Using article marketing is great but don't inflate because eventually you will be experiencing reprucussions i mean i don't find it right guys to say we all do it if we do we need to stop there is a real line that has been drawn and we need to either adhere to it or swim with the sharks and hope we don't get bitten. Some of you folks posting your opinions are also my friends and i have respect for you for the achievements you have gained. but... i do not respect bad things. if one chooses to do things on their own that is on their shoulders if one teaches others to do the same shame on them.

That is MO

-Will
(WD)
- Thanks
Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522248].message }}

Zeus66

14 years ago

I guess the takeaway from this thread is that every online marketer is breaking one or more TOS rules, probably every day. We should probably just all agree to stop using terms like white, gray, and black when talking about our headgear. I dunno. I think if you deconstruct anything that seems clear cut at face value, you're liable to render it meaningless.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522083].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

For what it is worth, I just read Stumble upon's TOS and that is also vague, but they did tell me (not in the TOS) they encourage Stumbling one's own sites. In fact, if you stumble a site of a non Stumble upon member, a screen shot is nor shown, just a little icon.

The TOS does say you are only allowed to stumble your own 'non-commercial' sites and they have a $20 years 'sponsor' program that appears to allow the Stumbling of your own business urls.

Thanks

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522201].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

Glad I could help

Thanks

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522268].message }}

GeorgR.

14 years ago

Google have broken their own TOS a few times. (Selling links, scraping other websites and building a business around scraped content.)

BigRat, you are so right. Google would actually need to de-index itself, and i am not even kidding.

From a certain point of view Google (Or Google News or whatever) are like big MFA sites with scraped content (OUR content!!) ...with ADS where Google makes big money.

Exactly what IN THEIR EYES is so frowned upon...

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

*** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
-> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
*** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522284].message }}

Gail Sober

14 years ago

Easiest solution?

Dear wso poster: Do these methods violate any websites TOS?

At that point, you can decide for yourself whether you want to buy and shouldn't feel bad about asking for your money back if the seller blatantly lies to get your money.

Is it black or white hat?

The real question is... Is it legal?

It it's legal then it's up to each individual person to decide what shade of grey something is (because it will look different to each person) and what shade of hat they are personally comfortable wearing.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522320].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

They way I read it was you could Digg anything.

You just could not comment on a Digg with a link to a commercial site or affiliate link in it.

I other words, if the link is on someone's sever, Digg all you want, just don't drop commercial or affiliate links on our server.

Thanks

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1522405].message }}

pavionjsl

14 years ago

I am still setting up the 5000 links on chinese blogs to get you to #1 On google wso.

Thanks

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1523137].message }}

mikemcmillan

14 years ago

I think EZA has been busy implementing policies to prevent people from artificially inflating their views to get into the most viewed and most popular categories (certainly understandable).

I have seen a good number of articles with thousands of views in these categories--and yet, the articles don't show anywhere in the search engines at all. True, they could be getting picked up by bloggers who publish them and that could account for high view counts, but my suspicion is that this is not the case.

A number of authors with genuinely mediocre articles (at best) dominate the "most viewed" section for their niche. Many people try to game whatever system they are using and EZA is no different. Rather than working hard and submitting quality articles that can get substantial views on their own merit, many people try to inflate their views with substandard crud by gaming the platform in one manner or another.

The thing is that whenever people tell you how to do things like this, ultimately, whether it is EZA, AdWords, Squidoo, etc--that platform will respond in a manner to void those tactics. Short cuts and black hat stuff will ultimately get squashed and those who practice such tactics may get banned in the process (as they should).

I understand your frustration and for what it's worth, hard work, submitting quality articles, and playing by the rules, as you obviously do--will prove to be the best way to go.

There is so much fluff in many of the article directories now due to inferior quality spinning and outsourcing of cheap articles that the directories must take action to preserve quality experiences for visitors and users of their service.

There is no substitute for quality content. And--like yourself, I take pride in articles I write and submit so I would experience a high guilt factor for trying to game any directory for my benefit. As you sow, so shall ye reap!

--Mike

Thanks

Signature

I'll help you create a reputation-building evergreen product in any niche and launch it successfully!
Check it out here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1560083].message }}

rahulchandra

14 years ago

Quit Fighting you guys!

I just read this whole thread and am
sort of dizzy...

Nowhere does it answer the original
question which I think was: should a
customer be warned beforehand about
the method in question and whether it
complies with TOS with the site/ service
it manipulates

Am I right Avenuegirl?

Well, I think if someone is saying that there
method is blackhat then all the risk is on you
should you choose to follow the method.

EZA or Digg, each Website has their TOS
and you and you alone know your comfort zone
and no one else can tell you otherwise..

(I for example, don't think copying a popular
video's tags to get in the related video section
is ethical in youtube...
But people do it don't they?)

So its up to you...

Bottom line if you think that the offer
in question needs more specifics in the copy
who is stopping you to ask the guy/girl
in the thread?

Its a free forum after all..
And you have your right to ask questions

So next time you smell something fishy,
do a little homework first and ask the person
directly, it would help a lot of others
make a wise purchase decision...

And if that doesn't help, there are
always Mods waiting to solve a genuine
request in this forum...

Peace...
Rahul

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1560207].message }}

Ken Strong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by rahulchandra

Nowhere does it answer the original
question which I think was: should a
customer be warned beforehand about
the method in question and whether it
complies with TOS with the site/ service
it manipulates

I thought it had been answered, but I'm not going back through four pages to read everything again...

So the obvious answer is YES. While the buyer should always beware, do due diligence, etc. etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the WSO seller to reveal the fact that their methods are bluefart or grayfart.

Thanks

Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1560256].message }}

abpres

14 years ago

Avenue Girl,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the real issue here is that you feel misled.

Personally, if everyone knows the rules/law and some people choose to break or disregard them, that's entirely their prerogative.

But, if someone somehow gets me to break the rules without my knowing it or implies that it's okay to do so, that's NOT okay whether it's through selling WSOs or any other transaction.

Yes, we all have to do our due diligence in making any purchase, but shoe being on the other proverbial foot, how many of us can say we wouldn't feel the same way in this situation? In exchange for my due diligence and my money, I most certainly would expect full disclosure. I make the final choice about whether to cross the line.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1618352].message }}

Am I Just a PRUDE? Is THIS even FAIR? Shouldn't I BE MAD?

Trending Topics

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

Should i Index Author pages?

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

Some interesting stats about brand comms

best high quality crypto traffic.