ihelpyou
03-05-2006, 19:45/07:45PM
http://outofmygord.com/archive/2006/05/03/YouGettheSEOYouDeserve.aspx
This was brought to my attention. I really like the blog post by Gord, but disagree with some of the main points he is making.
While I do agree that some potential clients out there are why we have many blackhat SEO's in this industry, I refuse to believe that our industry is not responsible for the clear lack of education so it's clients like in the article who don't feel they "need" to use search engine spam to begin with.
I also disagree with his premise that the tougher industries basically have to spam.
It's a matter of the SEO who should be acting as a Professional and teaching that client that spam "does not pay" in the long run. I feel it's OUR fault that there are people out there who feel they need to spam in the first place. The idea that blackhats only exist in the industry because of some client's needs is "not" the way to think at all.
If our industry did not put "some" spammers on a pedestal and cater to them in many ways, those spammers would not be a part of 'our' industry to begin with. They would be completely underground. As it is, they are far from underground as our industry gladly sells them advertising and gladly back slaps lots of them. That is "our" industry's fault. Not the client's.
There are so-called whitehats who actually refer client's to blackhats for a referral fee. Now tell me if that isn't unethical? Of course it is. Why would a whitehat do that instead of simply trying to teach that client that he doesn't have to spam? Either that, or just walk away. No reason I know of to refer that person to a blackhat.
In the case of traffic power; they are a known spammer in the worse way. If other places out there had given plenty of warnings about this firm along time ago,... when this place did, many other clients would not have been taken by them to begin with. This is exactly my point.
This was brought to my attention. I really like the blog post by Gord, but disagree with some of the main points he is making.
While I do agree that some potential clients out there are why we have many blackhat SEO's in this industry, I refuse to believe that our industry is not responsible for the clear lack of education so it's clients like in the article who don't feel they "need" to use search engine spam to begin with.
I also disagree with his premise that the tougher industries basically have to spam.
It's a matter of the SEO who should be acting as a Professional and teaching that client that spam "does not pay" in the long run. I feel it's OUR fault that there are people out there who feel they need to spam in the first place. The idea that blackhats only exist in the industry because of some client's needs is "not" the way to think at all.
If our industry did not put "some" spammers on a pedestal and cater to them in many ways, those spammers would not be a part of 'our' industry to begin with. They would be completely underground. As it is, they are far from underground as our industry gladly sells them advertising and gladly back slaps lots of them. That is "our" industry's fault. Not the client's.
There are so-called whitehats who actually refer client's to blackhats for a referral fee. Now tell me if that isn't unethical? Of course it is. Why would a whitehat do that instead of simply trying to teach that client that he doesn't have to spam? Either that, or just walk away. No reason I know of to refer that person to a blackhat.
In the case of traffic power; they are a known spammer in the worse way. If other places out there had given plenty of warnings about this firm along time ago,... when this place did, many other clients would not have been taken by them to begin with. This is exactly my point.