Don't think there's a reason to clean up the WSO forum? Guess again!

I thought that was a Gobsmack Oh well...

TomG.

LOL..

*Ouch*..So thats how Tony feels...

Anyway,
I fully support cleaning up the forum.

hahah ncis (the original not LA) rocks!

They didn't see this coming, they shouldn't be in b1@ck h@t in the first place.

Rule numero uno is to always expect to get caught eventually.

<Smacks himself silly>

RoD

See it coming? Google's had this ability for years. I was posting in 2002 that the biggest risk to black-hat SEO wasn't getting caught by the algo, but rather being reported by your competitors.

Yes indeed.

I might even launch one in there now.

The problem is Brad that rule 7 says:

"NO Software Or training material can be sold here that violates the TOS of other services or that teaches people how."

So that would mean that (reading between the lines on one of your WSO's) that impersonating a woman online to get someone to sign up to a dating site would contravene their affiliate TOS.

So how far are you advocating cleaning it up, as even you have been apparently breaking it? Im not being "funny" with you, just pointing out that you obviously want the place cleaned up and therefore saw that WSO as "legitimate", but according to rule 7, it isn't.

I totally agree with you 100%

can't find my thanks button, I am sure I missed the post that explains why, but thanks.

Kevin,

Where does it say that PLR is against the TOS of Google? Or spinners, either, for that matter?

Tina

This town needs an enema.

Maybe, just maybe, people will realize that what they're doing isn't actually "marketing" and they'll actually have to learn how to create a real product, with a real presence, with a real market demand, using real strategies that involve real, sustainable business models based on fundamental concepts that were well-established, well-proven, and well-refined long before Google ever existed.

This one trick pony crap of dreaming of beating the algorithm of a search engine being the pot o' gold at the end of a rainbow is nothing more than a grizzled ruffian with a pudgy fist full of betting slips at a horse park.

It's seedy, it's not even a sustainable business model because it relies upon breaking TOS of Google and many other sites. It's not a business sytem because it breaks the moment Google changes the rules.

It attracts the worst kinds of business people (LAZY... in fact, I don't even want to call them business people... hustlers with their 3 card monty game on the street corner) into an entire industry segment that is sagging under the weight of scams, garbage products, garbage sites, garbage content, and garbage practices from one end of the business spectrum to the other. I'm not saying that everyone that engages in article marketing and PLR is scammer garbage - but you absolutely understand what I am saying. The entire practice has sunk lower than whale poop... and that sinks to the bottom of the ocean and there isn't anything lower than that.

Yeah, firehose the entire manure pit out with prejudice.

Guys like Seth Godin, Vaynerchuk, Eben Pagen, Chris Brogan, Andy Beal, Guy Kawasaki, et al... they don't sit around with an army of barely literate offshore grunts armed with article spinners, plagarizing whatever they can scrape to hawk some second rate, schmucky e-book crap that was cut and pasted from 3 other PLR products at some obscene, fraudulent price.

Damn this rant is so good, I think I will make it an official blog post.

Where does he get those wonderful lines?

Great expression of the problem, Michael.


Paul

That's only a problem for those who're going against the TOS. If they're not going against the TOS, then they don't have anything to worry about.

I think that Daniel is right. I foresee some issues too. There is a fine line in many things. And no matter what anyone is selling, I am pretty sure that someone could find a way to misuse it and violate someone's terms of service. So where does it end? I really hate it when rules depend on someone's subjective opinion.

I don't visit the WSO forum very often, but I noticed that some of the offers were really suspicious. But I have seen folks complain about products they have been selling for a long time, get the boot. Products that I would have thought were part of normal internet marketing. But, then what the hell do I know. I am still a newbie.

I am wondering if back linking, back link lists, and link wheel services and such will go away. I hope not, but I can see an argument under this rule, I think. That is what I mean about subjective. Who knows? Only Paul Myers I guess.

Anyway, that is my $0.02. Take it for what it is worth.

They might, but thats not a reason to stop the clean up.

Anything thats spun, scraped or in any way doctered specifically to clog up the internet, circumvent the original reason for the site being created should be burned, slapped and quartered.

Its just spray paint gaffitti.


I just went down to brown sector and looked over the threads in the WSO forum, and came away needing a shower... Its the same when you do a search on google,

Laurence, Yep. Gonna happen, at least until they get the process developed.

Spam filtering took a long time to get to the point at which the false positive rate was acceptable. But it had to be done, in order to make email properly usable again. The hassle in the meantime was a pain, though, to say the least.

It would be interesting to go back through the threads and see which people are selling links and also complaining that Google is trying to respond effectively and keep their search results relevant...

A lot of the problem they're addressing with this starts right here.


Paul

Because you are still free to do what you please on your own site (provided you abide by the other relevant TOS, such as your host, payment processor, and any other entity with which you have a business relationship).

Cheers,
Becky

Hey, you are more than welcome to do what ever you want on your own blog. The issue is you may get dumped by every search engine (depending on what it is you are doing).

And then you can just go and start up your own search engine. Nobody is stopping you.

Google doesn't "owe" us anything. Allen and this forum don't "owe" us anything. And the opportunity to post a WSO is a privilege not a right. Even being a member here - if you are free or paid - is just a privilege.

What goes on here is not a democracy (although some would like to think it is). While we have and do make suggestions or requests from time to time, there is nothing saying what the majority wants is what they get necessarily.

Do I think Google gets a bit too big for it's britches? Sometimes. And I have to weigh in where it has been of some kind of benefit to me.

While currently they appear as the top dog and trend setter - don't think they are guaranteed this for all eternity.

All you need to do is look back at every industry and you will see that a lot of companies that may have started the game, but are now either gone or have had to merge elsewhere.

Frank, Well, for one thing, they're not telling you what you can and cannot say. They're simply choosing whose speech they want to support. In very broad ways, that aren't based on the ideas, but rather the mode of expression. Sort of like me telling someone I'll toss them out of my house if they use certain language. I'm not telling them what to think, just what they cannot say in my home. One more Godwin violation and I'll censor you right out of the place.

There is a rather large difference between "We don't want to give your competitors free advertising if they try to trick us" and "We're going to kill millions of people, and you're one of them if you don't help."


Paul

Google.com is google's property. They can put whatever they want to put on there just as you can put whatever you want on your sites. You're not being censored... feel free to do whatever you want, but Google doesn't have to give you the platform to speak on.

Don't like that? Build your own platform.



People tend to forget that google is a FOR PROFIT company, and as a FOR PROFIT company, they care about the user experience that they give to their "customers". If what you're doing or saying doesn't line up with that message, google doesn't HAVE to display your stuff. It's THEIR business.

Just like you're not forced to share certain messages with your customers that you may or may not agree with.

I think Google has made pretty clear that buying links does violate their TOS. I'm not calling it right or wrong but thats just how they see it and its their site.

edit. Never mind on the rest - its been dealt with.

Matt Cutts responded to me personally and told me this was FALSE.

Then broadcast a huge tweet about it being a sham.

All of those points are great and when the first thread about this a couple of months ago came about most of the stuff in this thread was mentioned.

Due to all of the above reasons, I very much doubt Google is going to start slapping sites on the basis of spam reports.

The primary reason of the spam reports is so that Google can begin to identify common linking patterns and figure out a way to stop them for future updates to their algorithm.

Google is thinking about the big picture and how to tackle people gaming their search engine as a whole - In reality, they couldn't care less about the majority of our sites and in most cases a few spam reports aren't going to result in much.

This actually makes no sense. Google only controls the ranking in their search engine and no matter what anyone does, they always will.

They don't, however, control the ranking in other search engines. They are not and never shall be the Guardians of the Internet.

They do want to provide the best end user experience. They don't give two pennies for your site one way or the other.

There are other ways to get traffic than through Google so if you don't like their methodology, don't focus on them for traffic.

Tina

This is why I take this latest round of this news with a pinch of salt.

It's pretty much impossible for Google to take action over sites
which indulge in back linking stratagies because quite simply
in the mega niches a market would spring up overnight in a huge
way for industrial sabotage.

Currently and for years, sites appear in the SERPS which have huge
active communities dedicated to nefarious SEO tactics. Google
has not removed them and in fact one of them is listed in top
positions for various searches related to all kinds of shenanigans.

Now if a site has cloaked links on it, etc, then I can see Google
taking action as that site has clearly added them, and that's within
the site owners control.

Past that, I think it will have very little real world impact, in fact
if actively pursued by Google in relation to back linking manipulation
etc it would have a reverse effect and cause an even worse situation.

The "grass on a site" link has been around for ages.

The WF may need to protect itself, as a host of content that
explains how to game the SERPS etc but out there in the big wide
world I can't see Google taking any more action on sites
than they have previously, it's just not possible to prove who did what.