Article: “Search Engines and Spam.” Comments?

[daniel_bazac]

Hi all,

Just wrote an article: “Search Engines and Spam.” Comments?.

http://www.web-design-in-new-york.com/search_engines_and_spam_1.html

Daniel


Daniel Bazac
Web Marketer
Web Design in New York
http://www.web-design-in-new-york.com/

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums Daniel! :hi:

You might have been better off to answer a post in here first before making that your first post, BUT, it is a good article as I have read it before.

I also like your site. Very nice and clean and by the "Jacob" way of doing things.

BTW, make up a signature file for all your posts. It's allowed in here.

[daniel_bazac]

Doug,

"You might have been better off to answer a post in here first before making that your first post, BUT, it is a good article as I have read it before."

You right, and thank you for the appreciation.

"I also like your site. Very nice and clean and by the "Jacob" way of doing things."

Thanks again.

Daniel

Daniel Bazac
Web Marketer
Web Design in New York
http://www.web-design-in-new-york.com/

[rmridgew]

I also like your site. Very nice and clean and by the "Jacob" way of doing things.

?

[ihelpyou]

Jacob Nielsen.

www.useit.com

[Alan Perkins]

Daniel, I've read your article. We seem to be mostly in agreement ... have a read of

http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/

to see if you agree.

The bit where I think you have to be careful is page 5. A couple of examples:

1) SEs don't need an anti-spam agreement as they can remove a spamming page or site from their index without such an agreement.
2) SEs need a revenue stream so it may not be helpful to your case if you try to tell them what is and isn't acceptable.

IMO, on page 5 you should also try to separate your questions from your opinions and your suggestions. :)

[Spider Man]

Personally, I like it. In fact more than Alan's <ducks> :)

I have to say that the understanding of what constitutes spam should be an understanding that you gain as part of a natural learning process. Much the same as morals are learnt in society. And as such, for me, it is better to see something that is an overview than something that concentrates on deep down specifics and terminology.

The only thing that worries me is the use of the word "illegal" at the beginning. I tend not to give writings that express too strong an opinion early on much attention, in my mind opinions should always be conclusions.

[Alan Perkins]

Personally, I like it. In fact more than Alan's <ducks>

No need to duck. Different opinions are a good thing. :)

I would say the two documents are aimed at different audiences and have different motives.

I tried to avoid being specific, concentrating instead on "in principle" what is spam. This means I don't have to keep changing the document every time a new form of spam appears!

I also thought it essential to define some things clearly so that useful technologies (e.g. agent-based delivery) could be differentiated from spam technologies (e.g. "cloaking").