Posts that advocate breaking a site's TOS

Paul,

As always, thanks for telling it like it is.

John

Well said Paul.

It seems like a black hat technique to me.

This is such a good post that I'm going to copy it word-for-word and paste it on my blog. I advise everyone who reads this to do the same thing.

Whoops. Uh, cancel that. Never mind. Please ignore that.

Ah yes, what I meant to say is, "good post." Yeah, that's the ticket. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Cheers,
Becky

Warning: Open can of worms alert!

Paul,

Yes, there are many amongst us who cringe when we see
some of the questionable tactics that disregard the TOS
of various websites being promoted on the forum.

It's not just about using proxies, there have been a myriad
of threads that encourage breaking the TOS of many sites
including Craigslist, Google, Squidoo, Forums that are based
on the vBulletin platform, article directories... I could go on
and on.

Then there are the offers in the WSO forum where people
are selling software that enables automation that, by its
nature, will contravene TOS of forums, blogs and web 2.0
type sites.

Where do we draw the line?

John

if it weren't black hat, why would it require a proxy.. Obviously up to no good if you need a proxy.

Steven,

Google has policies about people using artificial methods to manipulate rankings. Believe it, if they had a problem with article marketing, places like EZA would not work well at all. Da Goog wants links to, and between, pages with real content that help their users find what they're looking for.

I don't see the challenge there, as long as the content is useful. Of course, most of it is trash, but that's another story.

As far as article spinning, I consider that the equivalent of littering. Really big littering.

Here's another less obvious one: Automated backlink building. You could split all kinds of hairs with that practice. Is it as bad if you do the links only for yourself, and limit them to one per site? Maybe not, but it's still abuse if you're not going to participate. Offering it as a service for others probably does violate the terms of service of many sites. If the person for whom a profile is created, for example, never plans to use the site for anything but that link, I'd say it's a pretty clear cut case of abuse.

Automated blog posting? Hard to see how you're going to do that in a way that adds value that's relevant with each post. More abuse.

The fact is, most one-way automation of marketing functions is abusive. The vast majority of it is on a moral and ethical par with email spamming, and is every bit as destructive. If you doubt that, ask the people who own these sites how they feel about having their property used in those ways.

Before any of you automation fans jumps in my face about that comment, ask yourself if you really believe that the people behind the sites would approve of your methods. If not, you've got no grounds to argue.


Paul

I have been reading and observing and this is my opinion as someone learning IM.
first I don't advocate anything BH as I really want to provide value with anything that I do.

That being said, I have observed that there is a huge demand for activities that requires proxy because the people who use them get results and the only ones who say those results are short term are those who are already successful and have many point of leverage.

When you are just starting, where are you supposed to get your leverage? I'am genuinely asking and would like an answer to this question because it will help people like myself more than just saying don't use proxy.

I often hear people say create something great and people will help you promote it, but we've all been there so let's not forget; when you are just starting, whether online or offline, what do you have that is so great people will jump on board?

Most of us start by searching themselves, and it takes time, hard times, to figure out who you are and what you have to offer. But we will never have the opportunity to go through those hard times unless we start the journey. And So we start the journey. The question again is where do we get leverage in the mean time to get the success that makes it so easy to say 'don't use proxy"?

Please don't read this as me saying we should use proxies and do all those GH/BH marketing. I don't and so far it has led me nowhere, thus my question.

This is Marketing. Black-Hat and White-Hat ideals are irrelevant to marketing.

I break rules, not morals. If its a rule, I'll find a way around it, because I can. I also don't give a crap about what anybody thinks of me. If I did, I wouldn't be making money.

@PaulMyers...

Perhaps I've misunderstood this comment:

>>> before you get into calling anyone a hypocrite,
>>> I'll have to warn you... This really is my stone
>>> to throw.

Or maybe I understood it just fine and I'm wrong. But...

Remember when those forum-backlinking packages first became all the rage? There was a thread at that time in which I voiced my opinion that it's nothing more than spamming the web. That it's "[r]eally big littering". I think I compared it to going round to someone's house, quietly pissing in the corner when they weren't looking, and then leaving -- never to return -- complimenting them with a smile on what a lovely place they have.

Naturally, there was vociferous disagreement.

On the other side of the coin, though, about 40 folks hit the ThanksButton on that post, too, so it's not as if everyone here just automatically thinks such practices are tickety-boo.

That thread was -- surprise, surprise! -- nuked, for whatever reason.

Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that I was a little taken aback when not long after that, you promoted one of those packages to your list.

That confused me. (Although, perhaps, you've changed your position on the issue.)

And, consequently, I was a little confused by the the stone comment, above, as well as this one about SocialBookmarking:

>>> If the person for whom a profile is created, for example,
>>> never plans to use the site for anything but that link, I'd
>>> say it's a pretty clear cut case of abuse.

But, hey, I guess I'm being a hypocrite; I don't use or outsource backlinking packages, I don't spin and submit junk articles en masse (or pay someone else to do it), but I do have SocialBot and run it occasionally.

Speaking of which...

=============================================

@BigMike...

I was also confused to see that you'd hit the ThanksButton on Paul's OP because your bots support proxy use. Then I read, further down:

>>> I... sheepishly admit our software supports those abilities
>>> because customers demand it. And it's why we no longer offer
>>> those particular products as WSO's - we stopped doing it long
>>> before Allen implemented rule #7.
>>>
>>> I can't, in good concious, make an offer to members and possibly
>>> mislead them into buying and using a product based on my name or
>>> post count here and leave them thinking it's the right way to do
>>> things.


This, too, confuses me.

If you don't think it's right to do it, why make your products compatible?

Surely, either one does stuff in good conscience... or not.

If your bots support proxy use and you tell readers how to configure bots for proxies in the User Guide, then how is that not "leav[ing] them thinking it's the right way to do things"?

Or am I being naive? Do we just do stuff in good conscience when it suits us and SAY we couldn't do XYZ in good conscience because we've convinced ourselves that we, otherwise, do?

Let's say I were a convenience store owner who objected to any form of what might be construed as pornography and as such elected not to stock ANY kind of skin-mag (even the stuff that lotsafolks think of as vanilla-tame-o). If lots of customers asked me to stock it and I told them I would rather not (I don't need to tell them why or be judgemental about their choices; just state that it's not my cup of tea and I don't want to be part of it), would they stop using my convenience store?

Maybe.

Who knows?

Maybe they'd use my convenience store due to its, ahem, convenience when it suited them and go elsewhere (out of their way, perhaps) for their skin-mag fix.

Maybe they'd stop using my store altogether because they think I'm some moral crusader out to tell them how to live their lives (even if I did no such a thing).

Hard to tell what the ramifications would be.

Would I go out of business on account of that?

Probably not, I reckon.

Would you if your bots didn't support proxies?

Probably not, I reckon.

So where DO you stand on the issue? Hitting "Thanks" on a post about proxy use in marketing probably being BH? Or advocating, by proxy (no less), their very use?

Hey, use of proxies can be fun too!!

Just watch some WSO's where the lack of sales turns into a self-talk with the use of proxies.

Here's one good use for a proxy and I've used them for this purpose before.

One day a while back I was blocking IP addresses from one of my sites and
happen to block my own IP.

I used a proxy to access my admin area where I
then removed my ip address from the restricted list.

The self inflicted problem was solved.

Just my .02
Have a Great Day!
Michael

Jeremy ... Well said.

Caliban, Only the part I quoted. I was suggesting there was no "chicken and egg" problem, because there was no TOS involved to be either.

FaJeeb, If you use someone's property in ways they specifically say are not acceptable, do you not see that as an ethical issue?

NightOwl,

An understandable confusion. I said there are legitimate ways to use those packages, as well as abusive ways. That's true of a lot of tools. For example, I have software to send bulk email. It could be used for spamming, but I only use it to send mail to customers and subscribers.

Just like proxies. I mentioned that there are legit uses, but they're not the usual things that are discussed here.


Paul

One thing you need proxies for in CPA marketing is the following: Say you live in the US, and you are testing a Canadian offer. It will redirect to a different offer when you try to test it as you are in the US. So, you need to get a Canadian proxy to see how the offer will look to your targets. Same thing if you need to test a UK offer, etc. Sometimes it's not needed but sometimes it is; depends on the network. Most likely, it will be needed most by those outside of the US targeting US offers, and they need to see how the offer looks if you are in the US of A. So, yes, definitely some valid, non stinky blue fart reasons to use proxies.

Technically, that's true. There are things which are pretty uniformly considered Bad News, but may not be spelled out. This forum is a good example of that. There's nothing written about not signing up and dumping ads in your posts, but it's pretty clearly not welcome. Almost anywhere.

People tend to forget that any system can be broken by the wrong kinds of abuse. Automated link building is that kind of abuse and, when it gets bad enough, the owners of the sites involved will have to change things. Those changes almost invariably hurt the people using the system in the ways it was intended to be used and which provide the most value.

Yes, automated profile building may sound like a petty thing to gripe about. Back when I first joined this place, people said the same thing about email spam. I predicted that the problem would keep growing and eventually get to where it is now. I was told that was impossible. Those arguments were ridiculous comments by people who wanted to believe what was convenient, rather than what was obvious.

If I turned off my filtering systems right now, the amount of spam that would hit my main mailbox would be at least 1500 messages a day. Probably closer to 2500.

The fact that I don't have a TOS to send me email does not mean that I'm okay with every idiot in the world spamming the hell out of me. Or even sending me one piece of the wrong kind of unsolicited mail. There are too many such idiots in the world. As proof, consider that better than 90% of email traffic globally is spam.

I know a guy who runs an ISP and says that his email infrastructure is 10 times what it needs to be to deliver legitimate mail. The rest is overburdened keeping the spam to a manageable level.

We all pay for that.

The lack of a written TOS or other proof that a thing is not welcome is not an indication that it's acceptable. The answer to that question has to be in line with, "What if everyone did this?" If automating a one-way marketing process would be destructive, you can rest assured that it's not a Good Thing.

There are things so small that they don't matter. Many of them are forbidden only to keep larger abuses from getting started. I don't quibble over much of that, as long as what's done is not destructive and is within the spirit of the site. That's their business. For the most part, those things involve direct human activity, done by the person who benefits from it. They rarely involve automation.

If your actions - speaking generically here - threaten to destroy a system I use and support, for your benefit and at my expense, you are The Enemy. Do not be surprised if the lack of a written TOS fails to protect you from the consequences of that status.


Paul

Razer, Simple. Pick sites where you can deliver value and do it.

Is that the way they're mostly used? Not likely. But that's the way I advocate using them, and only manually.

As far as me advocating them, you're missing something. My newsletter has a consistent context. People who read it and aren't members of the various IM forums see what I mean and how I think things should be done. They know my approach. They might not agree with it, but they know what I'm suggesting.

I've also quit referring people to any of them since this whole business of automating them has gotten bigger. Once I noticed it promoted within one of the products, that was the end of it for me.

Here's another example. I regularly suggest that people use bulk email. You know the context in which I use the term, but a lot of people who haven't been here for long or who don't get my newsletter may not. To them, it could sound like I'm promoting spamming.

Can bulk email be abused? Of course. Is it an inherently bad thing? No.

Context, my man. Context.


Paul

Jeremy,

Nobody intends to talk past other people. It happens when communication breaks down for whatever reason. Usually because one or more people are more intent on making their point than in understanding the other guy's.

Get a little ego invested in an argument, and we're all potentially stupid in that way.

As far as your main point... I agree that no-one is completely innocent. The system is built to handle the small and/or unintentional transgressions gracefully. There's "give" in it. There has to be in any human-involved process. The problem becomes big when there's an economic incentive, easy automation, and low cost of entry.


Paul

Razer,

I'd forgotten about that. The revised version is uploading now. Thanks.


Paul

The thing is ....

I personally don't care if we can discuss black hat techniques, automation that violates a site's TOS, proxies, etc., but this rule is not enforced in the WSO section. Just checking right now and it's full of techniques that would violate site's TOS.

People who cross the line a.k.a. use black hat techniques are building a sand castle. They think of themselves and not about the customers or the value that they should be creating to the world which has given so much to them. In plain words they are greedy - which is defined by wanting to get something more by providing little or nothing in return.

Look, there is zero reason to violate a sites TOS.

If you don't like how they do business, just take your business down the street to someone you like better.

Why keep ramming your head against a wall when all you get for your troubles is a concussion? Search for a door, open it, and walk through it. Now you are doing the same thing, and you don't have that nasty splitting headache bothering you.

Sheesh, is it that hard?

Breaking a website's TOS is not illegal. Shoplifting is illegal. Why are you comparing them?

I'm 100% against marketing techniques that require to do illegal activities, like spam. I'm also obviously against outright scams.

And I'm NOT against breaking a website's TOS.

If you choose to respect every site's TOS, then it's unfair competition, because, most probably, 95% of your competitors don't respect them.

SEO is the main reason why people break a website's TOS. Is there a particular business model or a particular niche in which you can do well without SEO? How about without spending a 5-, a 6-, or even a 7-figure investment to create a great website, with great content, and pay for upfront marketing costs to get some buzz about the website and *hope* to get enough backlinks to rank well?

Then their is the paid advertising option. But is it really an option in a market where you are competing against people who rank well in Google? They can sell a product for $7 and make a profit, while you'll still be struggling to break-even selling the same product for $20.

It is sad, but most people are not playing by the rules, so if you want to have a chance at winning, you need to play the same way.

Or you need a lot of money

Oh, and by the way, the same thing applies to real-life, brick-and-mortar businesses.

didnt this thread start out as...

WE DONT CARE WHAT YOU DO OFF THE FORUM, YOU AINT DOING IT HERE

Seems a simple rule to me, and hardly going to kill people or drown them in any unfair competition and all the rubbish printed up here.

Pauls just saying you want to be a dick, be a dick somewhere else

Since I did not quote anyone's posts, my post was simply my own observation and I'm sure this thread would have been toast some time ago if it had come down to these types of attacks on others started by someone else. In particular, I don't debate with you, since I was personally attacked by you for expressing my opinion in a thread ... one that was somewhat similar to this one in that is was discussing WSOs that violate the TOS and calling people out publicly on this forum. In case you haven't noticed, Paul addressed the violation of WSOs already in this thread, and while he cannot elaborate on it, the WSO forum is being "worked on" and I'm sure that resolving the WSO problems is in completely capable hands.

If the bait is that small, sure. There are plenty of people in this thread who've chummed the waters with much larger and bloodier samples than "junior." You may have noticed that they haven't been hassled for it. Make that "not usually" and I'd agree with you on that point.

On the issue of shared belief systems and rationality, the examples you give are pretty far off the subject matter. It's not especially irrational for a group of people to advocate respecting the rights of others by NOT stealing their resources without permission, or against a specific statement of intent by the owner. I have no particular reason to believe that statement. Or that one.


Paul

Paul,

Shine a little light on things and all heck breaks out...so basically you pretty much want people to take their 'proxies' the @#$% outta here.

Me thinks your point was missed to some degree.

Doug

PS - Totally agree with you on, "If you need to use proxies to do something, the odds are very good that you're using the site in a way the people who run it don't want, " as it seems obvious to me this is the case.

I have a huge list of proxies, they are good for some things. Like blocking your ip, getting on sites that network forbids etc...
For purpose of spamming forums or bookmark site id agree not a very tasteful practice but proxies but they can be handy like when your offline jobs network blocks facebook. :-)

Boy, I sure feel out of the loop on this issue. Proxies? The only use I've ever seen for them is when you can't be at an important meeting and have to send a proxy in your place so you don't lose your vote. :rolleyes:

Sylvia

wow someone must have spent some serious time cleaning up this thread... I'm impressed

Robert

Paul This is not in reference to any previous discussion which I said I would and did withdraw from but coincidentally I came across something that I think is VERY relevant to your OP and I thought of it instantly. I was browsing through the front page or the War room and came across this thread

Web 2.0 Resources - Get (. I'll leave the rest out. I've never referenced or linked to a War room post before and don't know the policy)

You can look it up. Its at this moment on the front page. The PDF within that offer advocates using links on third party sites, it gives SEVERAL sites AND it also endorses the use of proxies. I think you will understand why I reference it for this discussion when you see who made that post.

NOt ANY KIND OF INDICTMENT AT ALL - It wouldn't be I am a backlink package seller

BUt I think it might give you an understanding of why things can be spelt out a little better so people KNOW what is acceptable and not. At this point I do not know whether you consider backlink packages okay or are just referring to proxies. In light of that post I think it fair to know so that I and other backlink package sellers and service providers are given the chance to comply not just be banned without warning.

Incidentally John I have no recollection of what you are talking about. . As anyone can check my post history I haven't been involved in any off topic subject in a LONG time. Just saying that to let you know I hold no ill will . I don't even remember any such thing but we can both leave it there.