Latest SEO Scheme

[Just Wondering]

The latest linking scheme brought to buy:
http://www.polepositionmarketing.com/

I don't know why I attract this stuff, but on first glance, you think hey this might not be a bad idea. Except that the site they want to put it on has nothing remotely in common with the site they solicited.

Like to see what others think about this type of linking scheme.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Crystal Pack @ Cooper Aerial
> [mailto:cooper@polepositionmarketing.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:27 AM

>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm the web marketer for Cooper Aerial. We are compiling an article
> about "Business Loan Information" for their website. Since mysite.com
> is an authority on this topic, we would love to have you contribute
> your tips or ideas and add a link back to your site.
>
> You can read the article-in-progress here:
> http://www.cooperaerial.com/articles/bogus_tips.php
>
> If you would like to contribute to the article above, you may:
>
> a) send us your tip/idea in 40-70 word with a link back to your site,
> and we'll add it to the article above.
> b) send us your text link information and we'll write the tip/idea
> content for you.
> c) send us an original article of 250+ words that will be placed on its
> own page which links back to you.
>
> In exchange, we ask that you would place a unique article of ours on
> its own page on your site. This article will provide valuable
> information to your visitors allowing them to benefit from information
> about an industry related topic. The article will be 100% unique and is
> subject to your approval to ensure it meets your quality guidelines.
>
> If you are interested or have any questions, please feel free to
> contact me with the information provided below, or simply reply to this
> email.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Crystal Pack
> Pole Position Marketing
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Pole Position Marketing - Professional Search Marketing Solutions
> (EMP) E-Marketing Performance - Professional Search Marketing
> Information
> crystal@polepositionmarketing.com - Professional Search Marketing
> Answers
> 775.677.4799 :: 866.685.3374

[Quadrille]

Nothing wrong with exchanging content - but to do it in the hopes of gaining a 'unique' article with SEO value ... this looks like a lot of effort for almost certainly nil benefit.

And, of course, if the content is not relevant, then it's spam.

Weird ideas these people have. Is it Nevada heatstroke, d'ya think? Should we send them some water? ;)

[ihelpyou]

It's the article type link crap going around "in certain circles" now. It's simply an old concept of third party linking packaged up in some different wrapper.

It's still email spam however as you did not ask to receive this SEO's email, right? It's spam.

[st0n3y]

Hi Everyone, I just found this thread and see that there are some "concerns" or what have you about our link "scheme". I will gladly discuss the merits of what we are doing here with anyone who has any legitimate concerns.

As to the question to relevance, that's a pretty tricky topic as what is relevant to you may not be relevant to me and vice versa.

At first glance I would have to agree that "business loan information" doesn't seem to be a related match to Aerial surveys, so I would have to pick the brains of my team to see how they came up with that. They are usually pretty good about sticking to what is relevant and what isn't but sometimes a stretch is made, as it appears to have happened here.

this looks like a lot of effort for almost certainly nil benefit.

I will have to disagree here. It is a lot of effort, yes, but the benefit has been hugely rewarding for us all the way around.

And Doug, I know you have a very strict definition of spam and I see no need to debate that issue here but I simply don't subscribe to the belief that all unsolicited mail is spam. Automated, mass distributed mail, yes, but this isn't that.

I'm also not sure what you mean by third party linking package. Could you clarify what you mean by that.

[Quadrille]

You are hoping that as the links are 'run of text', buried in the 30-40 words, that Google will not spot them.

I doubt it will last for long; as, if you are honest, it is no more or less than an attempt to game Google.

Once it reaches a certain size, it will trigger the filters, and the whole house of cards will come down.

As for the email spam; it ain't Doug's definition, it's a matter of fact. This is unsolicited mail that does not say what it is in the subject line.

And you've pretty much confessed that your 'team' is creating this 'opportunity' - creating the article is not the prime objective; building a new style link farm is the real aim.

[st0n3y]

Quadrille, I have to disagree with every one of your conclusions. Not sure what you mean by "Google will not spot them". The bottom line here is that there is not a "link page" being created but a worthy article that contains outgoing links. If that's "gaming Google" then so is building a website with good content.

Certain size? Are you thinking that we'll just continue to add onto this article indefinitely until we get 100+ "outgoing links"? Wrong. We limit these articles because this isn't a link farm, its really noting more than building quality content but using other people to do it, voluntarily. And yes, link exchanging is part of the benefit.

Now you're defining spam as an email that "doesn't say what it is in the subject line." No offense, but this has got to be the most ridiculous definition of spam ever. I get hundreds of business emails every week that "don't say what it is in the subject line." On top of that, the information below doesn't even say what the subject line is so I don't see how you can say this fits that definition.

Not sure where you got the whole "creating this 'opportunity'" idea. Those are your words, not ours.

[ihelpyou]

But stoney, if you sent me that email, and I did not give you permission to be emailing me, and I did not "opt-in" to your email list, it's email spam. Period.

I don't want your link exchange offer and did not ask for it. I don't want anyone's link exchange offer, and do not ask for them. I'm not sure what's hard about any of this?

It's still requesting a link exchange. You can package it up with an article thing, but it's still requesting a link, and it's still doing so "because" of the search engines.
In exchange, we ask that you would place a unique article of ours on its own page on your site.
If this email was not "because" of the se's, there would be no need to put in that stipulation into the email, right? Shouldn't someone link to you just because they want to?

Just because a website is online and on the internet, does that mean that site wants to receive email from any other business?

You see, I don't get that at all. Do websites automatically "opt-in" to receiving all email from others just because they have a website?

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by st0n3y
Quadrille, I have to disagree with every one of your conclusions. Not sure what you mean by "Google will not spot them". The bottom line here is that there is not a "link page" being created but a worthy article that contains outgoing links. If that's "gaming Google" then so is building a website with good content.You ask for a few words of text, wrapped around a link. That's not worthy, that's inviting link-seekers, and I'm afraid I don't believe you seriously believe it's a way to build good content.


Certain size? Are you thinking that we'll just continue to add onto this article indefinitely until we get 100+ "outgoing links"? Wrong. We limit these articles because this isn't a link farm, its really noting more than building quality content but using other people to do it, voluntarily. And yes, link exchanging is part of the benefit.You limit each article - but there's no limit to the number of articles. It's a link farm, rather naively disguised. It'll not last long.

Now you're defining spam as an email that "doesn't say what it is in the subject line." No offense, but this has got to be the most ridiculous definition of spam ever. I get hundreds of business emails every week that "don't say what it is in the subject line." On top of that, the information below doesn't even say what the subject line is so I don't see how you can say this fits that definition.No, I'm defining spam by the fact that it's unsolicited mail. I helpfully added the point about the subject line, because that's the law in some places. Spam is spam, if it's not to an opt-in mailing list.

You can dress this up how you like - you may even believe your own marketing speak.

But it's a link exchange, and you are promoting it by spam.

[st0n3y]

Like I said, I don't really want to get into a discussion of what is or isn't spam because we obviously disagree on the finer points. To you, Doug, it's spam and we all know that you set the standard pretty high. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, just saying that I don't necessarily agree.

Would we be asking for links if the search engines didn't care? Good question, but I would have to answer yes, but probably not as aggressively, for lack of a better word. Yes, these build good content, and yes we get traffic from these articles because they are good content. There is no way you're going to convince me that good content suddenly becomes crap because it's got links in it which happen to be solicited.

[ihelpyou]

good content suddenly becomes crap because it's got links in it which happen to be solicited.
It will work for awhile. Just like good o'l link exchanges worked for awhile. But you know as well as I do that the se's are now de-valuing link exchanges when it's clear to them the sites are swapping links. Why would a good search engine continue to weigh those types of links more or equal to than they weigh a "vote" from one site to another with NO stipulations? They wouldn't, and why your new article thing will work "for awhile", but it's not something for "long term".

You say it's "good" content, and that may be true, but then you put in the stipulations of linking, etc, which makes that good content "tainted".

[st0n3y]

You have a point about it being "tainted". There is a definite quid pro quo here for sure, but that's not really uncommon in any business relationship. As for search engines devaluing reciprocal links, I think that's a bunch of hooey. Yeah, sure they may not be worth as much, but there is no way that SEs will simply discount a sets of links just because they happen to be reciprocating. I've made this argument in other places and I know there are many who disagree with me, but talk about a major jacking of the internet. The fact is, any search marketer does things because it's good for the search engines. And if reciprocal links were devalued you'd find thousands of people suddenly removing links out as a means to hoard the link value. Google already tried that and it failed and they had to reverse course so people wouldn't hoard links like that. Bottom line is that there are far better ways to determine if a link is valuable than simply looking at reciprocity. Sure that's one factor, but not the deciding factor, nor should it ever be.

[ihelpyou]

I said "de-value" meaning that a recip link is "not" worth much anymore. I did not say they were not worth anything at all, .. just de-valued. Because of this, I see zero need to find these type links nor want them either. Websites could be doing other things that are for "long term" than to simply chase links.

I'm sick of software programs that "still" tout links. I'm sick of "groups" out there that still tout links, and who prey on new people to the internet who don't know better.

If they new better, do you really believe they would buy into this kind of crap?

www.seoelite.com ??

Nope. They sure wouldn't. It's these type groups who tout reciprocal linking like it's the be all end all to promotion. That could not be any further from the truth. These types people even see this software guy as some kind of guru in OUR industry. That also could not be any further from the truth, but it's OUR industry who touts these people and helps bring about the "link monger" mindset that is sooo prevalent in this industry.

Anyway; Recip links ARE being de-valued now. And again; why would a good search engine count them/weigh them like a "real" vote from one site to another site? They wouldn't. Search engines are not as dumb as many would want others to believe.

[st0n3y]

I don't disagree with anything you said. Only that we still find value in quality reciprocal links, which is what we believe we are doing. This is just a fraction of our overall link campaign and intend to keep it as such simply to build a solid foundation of various types of links.

We don't do anything we don't feel is not quality, but that's based on our own beliefs and knowledge of SEs. While recips undoubtedly are of lesser value than one-way links, the fact is they still have value. I think link pages are easy to discount completely and largely worthless, but articles, regardless of the intent, if well written, are of value to readers and also to search engines, when all is said and done.

You can think of it as an advertising exchange and the SEs can do with that what they want. But we have found that it is useful to our visitors and the visitors of the sites we link to as well. As long as it maintains visitor value (and brings traffic) we'll likely continue to do it.

[Glo]

I think you should do some research on what email spam is and/or how it's defined. Now, you may not agree or like the definition but if you aren't following the CAN-SPAM laws, you might just find yourself labeled as a stammer by those who can do you and your business some harm, regardless of your disagreement with the definition. Unsolicited-email is defined as spam and that has been true since it began. You disagreeing with that definition doesn't change how it's defined and Doug isn't the one who defined it.

I hate spam ...

[g1smd]

If an unsolicted business email does not have certain things in the email subject line, then by LAW it is defined as spam in certain countries, and legal action can be taken against the sender.


As for the usefulness of this "scheme", link farms worked to begin with, but now do not, and I am quite sure that we will all be hearing much more about how "article farms (TM)" are being devalued within a year from now....

[st0n3y]

I think you have your wires crossed on the CAN-SPAM Act.



The law, which became effective January 1, 2004, covers email whose primary purpose is advertising or promoting a commercial product or service.

* It bans false or misleading header information.

* It prohibits deceptive subject lines.

* It requires that your email give recipients an opt-out method.

* It requires that commercial email be identified as an advertisement and include the sender's valid physical postal address.



I'm not going to be put in a position here to defend spam, but the emails clearly are not, when using the CAN-SPAM definition. Individual definitions may vary. We don't have false or misleading headers and we don't have deceptive subject lines. We'll add an opt-out link to allow anyone to tell us not to email them again and while we have our phone numbers clearly posted in the email, we'll also add our physical address just to be in full compliance.

Look, I'm not trying to skirt the line between what is and isn't spam. We don't spam, we don't mass mail, we don't blindly send emails to any website that ranks for certain keywords. Everything is researched and sent one at a time for relevance. HUGE difference.

And before anybody thinks that I might have a double standard just because we send out these emails, I don't. Any link requests we received we consider, they don't automatically hit the trash bin... unless of course they are caught by the spam filter. :-)

[st0n3y]

I am quite sure that we will all be hearing much more about how "article farms (TM)" are being devalued within a year from now

This is something we have considered and I'm sure there are already a number of article banks that are quite useless to submit articles too. When developing this program we have taken great pains to ensure that what we produce wouldn't qualify as an article farm in any way.

[Glo]

I didn't get my wires crossed. Your message was not compliant by the CAN-SPAM definition. It's not clear that it's a solicitation/advertisement and there's no opt-out info and no physical address. Had I gotten this, I would have turned it in to the FTC.

The purpose of a clearly defined advertisement/solicitation in subject field is to allow those who do not want anykind of unsolicited commercial email to set their spam filters so that it gets nuked and they never have to see it.

The quality of what you are soliciting, I have no comment on other than you had better be sure that the content isn't duplicated all over the Internet.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by st0n3y
When developing this program we have taken great pains to ensure that what we produce wouldn't qualify as an article farm in any way. You can fool some of the people some of the time ... but you can't fool Google all of the time.

I'm amazed you've managed to fool yourself, but I guess that's 'business'.

Good Luck to you ... you'll need it.

[st0n3y]

I have no comment on other than you had better be sure that the content isn't duplicated all over the Internet.

100% original. All of it.

[Connie]

It requires that your email give recipients an opt-out method.
Why should I have to opt out of receiving something that I did not want to receive in the first place?

Personally I would never click on a link in an unsolicited e-mail because that simply confirms that the address is valid.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by st0n3y
100% original. All of it. Er, no.

You are inviting people to submit their link wrapped in 40 words of text.

May I suggest it's entirely possible, not to say a dead cert, that all the link mongers on the planet will send their self promos (sorry, article snippets), to every site they can.

And as this years growth industry is spam articles (or parts thereof), you can bet that uniquity is in very short supply.

st0n3y, don't you ever get that feeling you are flogging a dead horse?

:horse:

I promise I'll shut up now :D

[ihelpyou]

Members post articles "in here" all the time. Is one of my stipulations that they "link back" to these forums because I let them post their article and link?

Nope.

My root of this domain is also going to allow article submission... moderated, but do you think I will require a link back to my site?

Nope.

I feel if I am linking to "quality" resources, I get more of a boost from that alone then if that site linked back to mine as well. That's a fact. Of course anyone can link to me anytime they wish, but when it becomes some kind of requirement or stipulation when they submit their article, that moves into the recip link category which has been on it's way out for along time now. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly not getting it yet.

[st0n3y]

May I suggest it's entirely possible, not to say a dead cert, that all the link mongers on the planet will send their self promos (sorry, article snippets), to every site they can.

Possible, but we run checks for this sort of thing frequently.

st0n3y, don't you ever get that feeling you are flogging a dead horse?

Of course, especially here where the dead horse stands higher up than all the others. ;-)

My root of this domain is also going to allow article submission... moderated, but do you think I will require a link back to my site?

Apples and oranges, Doug. Different sites with different purposes. But you don't have to require reciprocal links to be an article farm!

And we NEVER require a reciprocal link to sites we link to or get links from. Such links happen all the time. But we do ask for a quid pro quo with our content articles and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Blue]

Forrest for the trees comes to mind.

[ihelpyou]

Different purpose?

Last I knew your firm and my firm offered SEO. Am I mistaken? My article thing is going to be in this domain:

ihelpyou.com

It won't be in the /forums/ folder or in the forums at all.

You still "require" a link back. That's the very same thing as any other recip link. I don't know how you can call any of this different.
Of course, especially here where the dead horse stands higher up than all the others.
We call things as we see them in here, while always looking at the long term. Our industry is damn lucky to have ONE forums out there who actually don't cater to everyone just because they might give us money. We see what goes on out there and don't like it one bit. The goal is to change the landscape in this industry.

[st0n3y]

Last I knew your firm and my firm offered SEO. Am I mistaken? My article thing is going to be in this domain:

ihelpyou.com

It won't be in the /forums/ folder or in the forums at all.

my mistake. I assumed it was the forums. But I sand by the statement that you don't have to require reciprocal links to be an article farm.

If there was every anything wrong with reciprocal links then the internet would be dead. I won't buy any argument that reciprocal links in and of themselves are bad (devalued in one form or another, yes). It's the quality of the link which matters most which can be measured by many other ways.

I guess I'll always go back to 1) the responses we get (largely positive) and 2) the success we've achieved. You can argue that the success is fleeting and we won't every get 100% positive response or feedback, but it works for what we want.

Even if reciprocal links were 100% devalued the program is still a good one because it provides mutual benefit between two businesses, that is a way to advertise and drive traffic from each others sites. That's good marketing, really. Anybody who doesn't like the quid pro quo aspect can simply choose to say no. No biggie, free will is a great thing. But is it any different if the link was paid for instead of exchanged? There's another quid pro quo for you. Sure, SEs don't like paid links either, but that doesn't mean they are not a legitimate advertising vehicle.

I know we are going around in circles here but I don't mind a good healthy debate. And Doug, I hope you know I was just being tongue-in-cheek with the high-horse comment!

[WebSavvy]

Bread is still bread no matter how you slice it.

Regardless of how well you dress it up and teach it to do whatever, SPAM is still SPAM per the definition defined via the CAN-SPAM act.

The fact that it is Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) it is by it's very existence, SPAM.

You neglect to identify the SPAM in the subject line per the CAN-SPAM act.

You neglect to provide an opt-out method per the CAN-SPAM act.

You also neglect to provide full contact information (e.g., name, phone, physical address) per the CAN-SPAM act.

The fact that you have neglected to meet the mandatory guidelines which are law with regard to sending UCE could very well subject you and your company to hefty fines which when reported to the FTC, is not likely to be taken so lightheartedly.

If your "team" is so good at "research" ... perhaps it might behoove you to seek out another method of operation which doesn't violate so many laws?

Best of luck in your "business" endeavors, but please do not send me this SPAM as I promise, it would be forwarded to the FTC.

[st0n3y]

UCE is not necessarily synonymous with spam. Spam, when it comes down to it, has no real definition other that what any individual wants it to be. Even the CAN-SPAM act is vague on what spam is (and if you read it, it's really talking about a whole different beast than what we're talking about here.) If all UCE is spam to you, OK. It's not to me. I'll be the first to admit that most is, but not all.

You neglect to identify the SPAM in the subject line per the CAN-SPAM act.

Not sure how that's to be done. Should we write, "BEWARE: This may either be spam or an incredible opportunity" in the subject line. I haven't seen anything stating such must be done. If I've missed that please point it out to me.

You neglect to provide an opt-out method per the CAN-SPAM act.

Hmmm... can't really opt out of something when there really is no "in". But this will be remedied in future emails.

You also neglect to provide full contact information (e.g., name, phone, physical address) per the CAN-SPAM act.

Fair enough, and remedied. (We had two of the three.)

If your "team" is so good at "research" ... perhaps it might behoove you to seek out another method of operation which doesn't violate so many laws?

Well, this is a bit judgmental and self-righteous. Convince me that you don't jay walk, exceed the posted speed limit, or speed up to get through a yellow light, and then you can lecture me on violating "so many laws." Again, the CAN-SPAM act is intended for an entirely different kind of UCE, not anything that might be of a personal annoyance to you. I prefer to keep the gov't out of that kind of heavy-handedness.

Might I also suggest you invest in a good spam blocker. I've got one that works wonders. Saves me a bunch of time and eliminates a lot of useless bitching about minor personal annoyances.

I'm pretty sure you have all made your points clear as have I. I simply wanted an opportunity to give this community a much broader picture of what's the original post was all about. I understand that we don't agree. I'm OK with that and I think at this point most everybody can judge for themselves.

[WebSavvy]

UCE is not necessarily synonymous with spam.
The "Unsolicited" part, makes it SPAM. If it's something someone didn't ask for, it's spam. Just like when you get mail adverts you didn't ask for, they're "Junk Mail" because you didn't ask for them.
Not sure how that's to be done. Should we write, "BEWARE: This may either be spam or an incredible opportunity" in the subject line. I haven't seen anything stating such must be done. If I've missed that please point it out to me.
Read the whole ACT and you'll see it. According to the Guidelines the email in question if of a commercial nature and unsolicited is supposed to be identified in the subject line as:

Advertisement: subject line
Hmmm... can't really opt out of something when there really is no "in". But this will be remedied in future emails.
Out of the mouth of babes. hmmm ... the fact that there was never an "opt in" makes it SPAM.
Well, this is a bit judgmental and self-righteous. Convince me that you don't jay walk, exceed the posted speed limit, or speed up to get through a yellow light, and then you can lecture me on violating "so many laws."
Actually, I haven't done any of those things. I've never had a ticket, ever. I'm 45 and have been driving since I was 16. I don't exceed the speed limit or race up to beat a yellow light. I'm one of those people that drives 5 miles below the posted speed limit and slows down to stop as soon as the light changes to yellow. I'm sure I set off all kinds of road-rage emotions in my fellow drivers. I don't care, at least I and my child are safe.

I believe in setting the example to be a good role model. This isn't just something to say out here because we're discussing it. There are quite a few people in here who know me quite well and know this is how I am. I'm a play-by-the-rules person who abides by the laws. Maybe it has to do with the fact my parents were employed in Law Enforcement? I don't know ... but it's the way I am and I'm happy with that.
Might I also suggest you invest in a good spam blocker. I've got one that works wonders. Saves me a bunch of time and eliminates a lot of useless bitching about minor personal annoyances.
SPAM is a "minor personal annoyance" ... oh boy. You must have big ones and made of brass to make such a sweeping statement!

SPAM wastes bandwidth. SPAM wastes server space. It's not your bandwidth and not your server space to waste, now is it?

I don't consider anyone wasting the bandwidth and server space that I PAY FOR to be a "minor personal annoyance" :rolleyes:

I do have a good spam blocker and it catches about 99% of the emails that the sender doesn't believe are SPAM.

You may very well believe in some misguided way, that what you're doing isn't really considered SPAM. However, if and when the time comes that you're contacted by the FTC regarding your "non-spam emails" and where you're to pay your fines, your eyes will at that point hopefully be opened.

[st0n3y]

Advertisement: subject line

I guess I missed that.

fact that there was never an "opt in" makes it SPAM.

There is nothing to opt in to. We don't keep an email list for future mailings of any kind. I understand your point but opt-in/out implies that there is some kind of organized list that we pull from and there isn't.

Actually, I haven't done any of those things. I've never had a ticket, ever. I'm 45 and have been driving since I was 16. I don't exceed the speed limit or race up to beat a yellow light. I'm one of those people that drives 5 miles below the posted speed limit and slows down to stop as soon as the light changes to yellow. I'm sure I set off all kinds of road-rage emotions in my fellow drivers. I don't care, at least I and my child are safe.

You have earned your right to be judgmental in regards to the law! Just so long as you don't drive 5mph under the speed limit in the fast lane!!! ;-)

Might I also suggest you invest in a good spam blocker. I've got one that works wonders. Saves me a bunch of time and eliminates a lot of useless bitching about minor personal annoyances.

hmmm... I thought I deleted that comment before submitting. Guess I not. Withdrawn.

[WebSavvy]

I guess I missed that.
I figured you had.
There is nothing to opt in to. We don't keep an email list for future mailings of any kind. I understand your point but opt-in/out implies that there is some kind of organized list that we pull from and there isn't.
Yes, agreed ... but however, it doesn't matter. The person getting the email doesn't know it isn't from a list that future emails will be sent from. The only one who knows this IS YOU.

Look at it from the POV of the person getting the email. You yourself said that you agree that most unsolicited email is spam, no? So, why is unsolicited email sent by others considered spam in your eyes, when the unsolicited email you send isn't seen as spam in your eyes?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. It doesn't work that way. If I'm exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph and Johnny-Fast-Thing in front of me is exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph ... I can't say "Oh he's a speeder and I'm not!" simply because I'm going one mile less than he is!

Now do you see the POINT?
You have earned your right to be judgmental in regards to the law! Just so long as you don't drive 5mph under the speed limit in the fast lane!!! ;-)
LOL! I live in IL where the rule of the road is, get into the lane you need and drive in that one because if you need to change lanes we'll run your @$$ over!

People here are very aggressive on the road. It's one of the main reasons why I do drive 5 mph under the posted speed limit. You never know when one of them is going to change lanes suddenly or slam on the brakes.
hmmm... I thought I deleted that comment before submitting. Guess I not. Withdrawn.
No problem.

[Glo]

I hate spam ... :spammer:

[st0n3y]

So, why is unsolicited email sent by others considered spam in your eyes, when the unsolicited email you send isn't seen as spam in your eyes?

I guess the difference is that I don't consider link request emails that I receive to be spam... unless it's obvious that they were sent by an automated software without a human ever visiting my site. If someone genuinely takes the time to look at the site and has a genuine business offer then to me it's a genuine business email. Even if I don't want to accept the offer, the difference, to me, is the human hand (and eye) being involved.

[WebSavvy]

If someone genuinely takes the time to look at the site and has a genuine business offer then to me it's a genuine business email. Even if I don't want to accept the offer, the difference, to me, is the human hand (and eye) being involved.
Which brings us back to the statements of the original poster:
Except that the site they want to put it on has nothing remotely in common with the site they solicited.
By your own definition your company sent out SPAM.

[g1smd]

Spam isn't spam because it was sent to multiple people, or because multiple emails are sent to the same recipients over time, or because there is a list, or because an automated system sent it.

It is spam because it was commercial and it was unsolicited, it failed to say in the subject line that it was commercial (the idea being that the recipient can set up an automated system to delete it without ever seeing it if they want to, without having to open it and find it is something they did not want). The notion that is has to be repeated mailings, or automated, has nothing to do with things at all.


A friend of mine used to receive almost a quarter of a million items of spam per month. He still has a baseball bat and meat cleaver handy for the day he meets whoever was sending that stuff...

[st0n3y]

Except that the site they want to put it on has nothing remotely in common with the site they solicited.


By your own definition your company sent out SPAM.

Actually, having talked to my team they drew the connection between the two sites. Our client does frequent business with the types of sites we sent the email to and therefore the connection between the two was a good one.

It is spam because it was commercial and it was unsolicited

We're going around in circles here with a "definition" of spam. UCE it is. I won't argue that.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, we will have to agree to disagreee with the definition of email spam, and the fact that recip links are just not worth the time anymore.

I commend you for standing by your beliefs about all of this. I just happen to strongly disagree. That's fine by me as the readers can decide. :)

[ihelpyou]

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=10012&page=2&pp=20

It's places and threads like that which HURT our industry in a big way. Touting that text link broker guy like he's something good is pathetic.

Ston3y; you read and participate over there. I can see why you feel the way you do. I don't recommend that place for anyone to read and learn at. They are about all money, no matter what the risk or the long term affects.

What are these brokers going to do when NO ONE buys their links anymore?

If you were a big and good and major search engine who "only" wanted to serve up pages in the serps that were the best of the best to show it's users, would you serve up websites that bought their way to the top with links, or would you want to serve up pages that got to the top "naturally", and had REAL votes from other sites as links coming in?

Which is it?

The goal of any GOOD search engine is to weed out the spammers and those trying to trick them. Reading that jarrod hunt person, and it's very clear what they try to do..... trick the search engines into thinking their clients who buy and sell links are "more" relevant than other sites who get links naturally.

Now tell me something; is this a long term business plan for websites in general, or is their money better spent on improving their websites with a new design, some new content, a new logo, or better navigation, or anything else?

Which is the better place to put your money "for the long term"?

Sheesh; this seems to be ALL pure common sense stuff to me.