Jason Calacanis - He Hates SEO's

[ihelpyou]

http://www.calacanis.com/2007/02/07/why-people-hate-seo-and-why-smo-is-bulls-t/

This blog by Jason Calacanis of Sequoia Capital (http://www.sequoiacap.com/sequoia-capital/) has created a stir among "SEO's".

I'm actually agreeing with a bunch of what he is saying. I kind of like the post a whole bunch. I've felt for a long time that firms who do "only" SEO stuff are going to die off into the future. I just don't feel it's needed at all. If a firm cannot build a great site from scratch, they are not needed by websites looking for help.

[Quadrille]

I have a lot of sympathy with him; SEO snake oil is bad enough, but SMO is faking snake oil - never impressed me, and won't impress many YouTube fans, either.

Mind you, anyone whose corporate web site needs horizontal scrolling for screens below 19" can't be all good :)

[SEFL]

I've seen that guy's blog before (when he posted the SEO is Bulls**t post) and been a fan of it for a while. And in this case, he couldn't be more right.

Sites such as Digg, etc. have been abused and contained nothing really useful for quite some time. I personally put social bookmarking links on SEFL but only to encourage LEGIT traffic. (I've never voted for my own stuff, don't have an account, or anything like that...I just want to see who does like the site, if anyone.) But by the same token, these idiots drown out a quality signal with their noise.

I even received a "promotional copy" of an eBook yesterday for the purposes of reviewing it (which I did) regarding the same techniques that Calacanis refers to.

THE FOLLOWING LINK IS PROVIDED FOR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE/INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. It does NOT in any way express my views, opinions or techniques that I use. If you use the techniques outlined, I assume no responsibility when you end up becoming some blackhat's personal tutu-wearing bitch in SEO/SMO prison. So yeah, don't blame me. You were warned.

I also don't have the right to do this apparently since the eBook is for sale. But to that I say, "screw the scum".

http://www.searchenginefriendlylayouts.com/grey-hat-seo-book/greyhat.rar

(Note: the RAR file won't open in StuffIt!, but will open in WinRAR.)

[Quadrille]

How people can charge real money for these tired old tips never fails to amaze me!

The only people who will make two cents out of this are sad individuals who have too much time on their hands, who can find other sad individuals to sell their sad websites to.

He actually says, in two or three places, that for this to work, they need good content that is so good it's 'must see' - well, if they could do that, they wouldn't need his c-book*, would they?

However, he is the first blackheart I've seen to be open and honest about Alexa; it is only webmasters who care - and if clients are taken in by Alexa ratings, they ought to read "The Emperor's New Clothes"; no difference!

*cr*p-book :D

[SEFL]

Bigtime cr*p book. Good thing I didn't pay for it (although I still feel kinda ripped off. ;) )

[WebSavvy]

OK, so who's the author of this highly touted web gem?

[Quadrille]

Fella called J. Quindlen

[WebSavvy]

Never heard of him before.

[polarmate]

There are some whitehat SEO firms out there I know, but frankly the whitehat SEO companies are simply doing solid web design so I don't consider them SEO at all.
You agree with this?

That whitehat SEOs only do solid web design (which he defines as good content and clean page design)?

It's his opinion, of course. And, I disagree.

[SEFL]

polarmate: you're taking what he's saying a bit too literally, and that's probably the source of confusion.

What he's saying is that the only people that are trying to stay whitehat are focusing on the user experience and building sites properly first, then adding the SEO in after. The blackhats, on the other hand, are the ones who have tainted and warped the conventional SEO definition so that it only applies to them now. And to that end, he's dead right.

So yeah, I agree with what he means completely...I'm not really sure I agree with what he says, though. (They're two different animals.)

[Dave Hawley]

SEO = Search Engine Oil

I agree with what he posted. Unfortunately the www is largely unregulated and scum, con artist, fly-by-nighters, scammers and basically people with low ethics, will take advantage of that.

It is VERY much akin to the pyramid schemes that do the rounds every year of 2.

I relish the day when their castles built of sand are swept away by the inevitable tide of common sense, logic and regulation catches up.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, Adam is reading it like I am reading it. All I think he's saying is that SEO starts with site design. We've been saying this in here for five years now. I've said for years that the future does not have firms in it that only do SEO.

[Catfish]

I understand what he means. I still think he is a pompous jerk...lol. But everyone has their own opinion.

[Rockrz]

Originally posted by WebSavvy
Never heard of him before. He used to play center field for the Chicago Cubs.

[ihelpyou]

:green:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40304

The guy sounds exactly like me. That is Jason's latest rant about the web and specifically about "SEO's". Too funny.

A large part of the criticism we got for Mahalo in the first two weeks was from SEOs, who were complaining that it was negating the work they'd done. And I'm glad. I hope they fail, because I hope they all go out of business, and have to leave their jobs, and they go and do something positive with the rest of their lives that doesn't try to piss in our well.
Very funny stuff. :)

I truly actually agree with this guy.

BTW: Here is his new venture. It's a human edited search engine in case you have not heard:
www.mahalo.com

[SEFL]

One SEO (who I'm not linking to for any reason) summed up the pathetic attitude of all of them towards Mahalo with one simple question. The bolding, by the way, is the SEO's:

My question is: why bother spamming it, when it won’t gain enough users to send any real traffic?

How can you not root for Calacanis when idiots like this are against thim?

[ihelpyou]

Agreed. Isn't that the same thing the same person said about Google when it launched as "BackRub"? I'm sure it is along with all those other "SEO's" bashing this new concept.

Frankly; Jason is a breathe a fresh air, and not unlike me in many, many ways. :) He speaks his mind and doesn't hold back. He has enemies and does not care. Boy does that sound familiar.

Further; the SEO's see him as a big threat. God forbid that he actually does away with the need for SEO's. Goodness gracious; those SEO's might have to learn that SEO starts with the design/structure/architecture and should end with it as well. :)

Oh gee; wouldn't that put SEO only's out of business? Goodness.

[ihelpyou]

http://www.mahalo.com/Search_engine_optimization

I have to say though; that search is gawd awful stuff. The editor named "Dave" for that result is obviously skewed and biased to the conference circuit weenies out there. ALL the SEO's listed in there are damn speakers at conferences. It does not matter if they are actually good at what they do, but that they speak is what matters. Boy is that result BAD. Someone needs to complain about that pile of shite.

[Connie]

I admire what Jason is trying to do, but I really can't see his SE becoming a serious contender to Google at this time.

As you noticed Doug the results are terrible, as they were for a couple of searches I did.

Using human editors, he will never get enough of the web indexed. If only one editor is recognized as an expert in his area, then the results are going to be heavily biased.

[ihelpyou]

yes, but in his defense however, he hasn't said he was going to compete with Google or even Wikipedia for that matter. He does go out of his way to say he isn't competing with them.

I agree with you though that editors will be biased. I actually think with this SEO term that the editor just doesn't know anything and is only going on what he has heard and seen at conferences, which is a very small part of the industry as a whole.

If you are going to list results for that term, and then say that SEO only's do not have a future, why would you stick in SEO only's as the only results? LOL Doesn't make much sense to me.

[g1smd]

>> He hasn't said he was going to compete with Google or even Wikipedia for that matter. <<


What we're looking for in part-time Guides:

* a) a desire to help people–a lot!
* b) the ability to surf the web
* c) previous work experience at DMOZ, Wikipedia, a well-known blog (i.e. Engadget, LifeHacker, etc), a social news site (Reddit, Netscape, or digg), or a social bookmarking site (delicious, stumbleupon).


Nah. He just wants to pinch all the people working on those sites already.

[ihelpyou]

BTW: I added a "Mahalo" forum to the front page for anyone who did not notice. I felt it necessary knowing of all the investors who are buying into this new directory.

[Dave Hawley]

A human edited search engine, I can't see ever getting past 1st base myself. Not unless he plans to employ the entire population of India!

[SEFL]

He can't, Dave. They're all working at redAlkemi or whatever they're called, "obeying the SEO guidelines" while spamming every chance they get.

Doug: I can't seem him not competing with Google...eventually. If Calacanis wants to make a serious go at this, at some point Mahalo have to do the MSN circa about 4 years ago and come up with their own engine, as opposed to using Google's. Not only that, they'll have to come up with an engine that is different, anti-SEO and pro-user, AND better than Google's all at the same time.

Having said that, I think he's got a shot. He's more aware of the SEO industry and how to push the collective buttons than anyone else out there. He's either a brilliant tactical genius or completely out of his mind; either way, he's loads of fun to watch.

By the way, Dave, this is why I disagree in a roundabout way with what you said. If it were just a directory, then yeah, I can see your point. But the directory's going overtop of a search engine, and that may be the key to all of this.

[Dave Hawley]

IMO, if it was just a searchable human edited directory he would have as much chance as anyone.

There are just far, far too many pages on the www to even consider doing it manually. Even if he could (which is impossible) the whole thing would be totally subjective. Users don't want SE results sorted by subjective means, they want objectivity.

[Forrest]

Unfortunately the www is largely unregulated and scum, con artist, fly-by-nighters, scammers and basically people with low ethics, will take advantage of that.

So you've bought a camera online, then...?

[Quadrille]

:uplaugh:

But seriously, though, I think there are two issues:

1. Will this new SE?Directory?whatever make money for the investors?
2. Will it genuinely add anything useful to the Internet?

I'm willing eat my words here, and I do wish them well.

But I'm betting on:

1. Yes
2. No.

[Dave Hawley]

I'm betting no on both.

[ihelpyou]

I just can't bet against someone like Mark Cuban. He hasn't made many mistakes, if any at all. I don't know Jason well enough to make the same statement, but I do know Cuban seems to hit things right.

Yep Adam, it's totally fun to watch the back and forth between Calcanis and these SEO's out there. :D

[Dave Hawley]

Everyone has made mistakes Doug, the difference is some are willing to admit to them, while others aren't.

Kinda like the average punter, you always hear about the wins and never the losses.

[SEFL]

Mark Cuban is anything but your average bettor, Dave. Among other things, he owns the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA (2007 playoffs notwithstanding, a very successful franchise.)

Between him and Ted Leonsis (someone who would be acutely aware of crappy Internet startups and the reasons that they fail), there are some heavy players involved.

It's one of the reasons I think it stands a chance. It needs to improve, but it stands a chance.

[Dave Hawley]

I wasn't trying to allude that he was an "average punter" Adam. What I'm saying is, ALL investors make mistakes and bad investments, some know when to cut the rope, while others don't. Warran Buffet (arguably the greatest investor of all time) has made mistakes and bad investments, it's just part of the investing game. Who knows, perhaps his accounants have adviced him on sinking some $$ into a bad investment for tax reasons!

Either way, investing is just like gambling as there are no sure bets when done legally and BOTH tend to announce successes a LOT louder and longer than failures.

It needs to improve, but it stands a chance.Yes, but so does a snowball in hell ;)

[ihelpyou]

I am closing this thread:

http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25121

and continuing to post in this one. I feel there are valid reasons why SOME SEO's are a TRUE SEO's are being as adamant as they are towards Mahalo and the mistakes and Jason Calacanis. I feel THIS thread is more clearly stating what Jason is saying as it refers to an earlier article about SEO's and a new article as well.

I want to clear up things with all of this, so please post your concerns "in here" about what he says about SEO's so as to make it very clear that SEO is sometimes needed by sites. At the same time, if sites were actually built RIGHT the first time, there is really no need for SEO.

Let's be civil and have a good discussion, okay?

[WebSavvy]

I'm not an SEO, nor do I consider myself one. I'm a programmer and designer, mostly a programmer that dabbles in design. Accessibility and usability are also things that I'm passionate about.

I don't have any issues with Mahalo based on what Jason C has stated about SEOs so let's not blur the line.

He's aware of the problems created by the software. IMO, he should spend the time now to fix it and then he can be as vocal as he wants to about anything else he wants to.

Somehow, I gather, he doesn't see any "problems" with the fact the software is doing questionable things to his pages.

But, then again ... I'm a programmer and when I find a bug in something or poor code, I rewrite it, and fix the issues. But, that's just me.

[SEFL]

That's precisely it, Deb. You are a programmer, and you're operating on what appears to be a much smaller scale. You micromanage your site, whereas Calacanis doesn't.

(Neither is wrong, by the way, I'm just pointing out the differences.)

The next problem is that Calacanis will have to somehow pass the message downward to whatever programmer(s) are responsible for it. In all likelihood, the programmers aren't #2 on the food chain and don't answer directly to Calacanis. There's probably a team of VPs, and maybe even one or more levels of management, and then we get down to the programmers.

Given the backing involved, it's probably "run corporate", which means a round of meetings, then another round of meetings, then probalby a third, a nice game of broken telephone as the message gets bastardized and people don't reference the source of it (i.e. us), the programmer "fixes" the issue, testing goes on, the issue isn't fixed, more meetings, another fix, maybe the issue is solved or maybe they repeat the cycle until it is fixed.

On top of that, any programming issues will probably head down the priority list because of content issues and other feedback that way.

This is one of the reasons I don't work in a corporate environment, by the way...I want control over what I'm doing, and if there's a problem, I at least want to be the second person to hear about it (ideally, the first). But I'm thinking that it's the reason you're struggling to understand the issue, Deb.

Note: I'm not justifying not fixing problems. I'm just explaining that anyone that can fix the problems (a group of people that probably doesn't include Calacanis) aren't aware of it yet in all likelihood.

[Quadrille]

I doubt the guy has any real feelings one way or the other about SEOs - why would he? He doesn't even know what it is!

He's spouting off in order to control the debate; so long as he has SEOs talking about his site, on the basis that "there's no such thing as bad publicity", he keeps his 'alpha site' in the news, where no sensible person would dream of placing it.

The real issues are how he proposes to succeed where numerous very similar schemes have failed, and how he proposes to make any money for his impatient investors.

His 'SEO debate' is a false one; while we've said - ad nauseam - that much of what he says is right, so what? What else is there to be said?

He has not advanced the debate, or made one single constructive suggestion.

SEO bashing without a sensible discussion is no more interesting or useful than Google-bashing, ODP-bashing or IHY-bashing. And in his case, is just as ignorant as the other 'bashers', as Irena has explained.

If the guy comes up with something interesting, rather than link-bait and PR stunts, then we have something to talk about.

When Hell freezes over, let me know - because I'll bet $1.00 that happens before this guy has one useful thing to say about SEO.

[Irony]

Well put, Q.

Okay... I just had to post it:
http://www.spam-whackers.com/blog/2007/06/21/seo-is-not-bullshit/

Hope it explains why I feel the way I feel.

[ihelpyou]

No, it doesn't. Not really anyway. You should explain in detail about why you don't like what Jason is doing. Be very clear about it.

We ALL know that SEO has a bad reputation, etc. It's no wonder people like Jason feel they way they do. MOST OUT THERE never find THIS PLACE. They find the great many other places where these "so-called" people call themselves SEO's, but they are nothing but link mongers and search engine manipulators. It's NOT SEO. You and I know it's NOT SEO, but people like Jason do NOT know this.

You have to be clear about this.

[Irony]

You and I know it's NOT SEO, but people like Jason do NOT know this.

That would be Jason's problem, not mine. He should have researched before bashing. Yet I have taken the trouble to explain what SEO is.

The biggest problem I can see with Jason's article is the heading. People tend to read just the headings, then skim the rest of the content, at best. Many won't do even that. That's why the heading is the biggest responsibility, and needs to be carefully chosen. As an article writer, I know this.

I disagree with his thesis of whitehat SEO not being SEO, as well. For me, that's the only true SEO.

[ihelpyou]

If he said "whitehat SEO is not SEO", then I don't agree with that either.

We know that sites out there are NOT built right the first time. It will be that way for along time. REAL SEO IS needed for those sites.

People like myself believe in building a site the right way first so no SEO stuff is needed later. That's another type in this industry.

Jason is making the mistake of painting the entire industry with one brush. He should make it very clear as to WHO is and is not a SEO.

Spammers are not SEO's.
Blackhats in general are NOT SEO's.
Link crap mongers are NOT SEO's.
Submission type services are NOT SEO's.
29 buck crap is NOT SEO.
Taking money for a site for so-called SEO services that does NOT have a prayer of selling much in the first place is NOT SEO.

Jason is right when he states that 90% of so-called SEO's are are BULL****. That is VERY true as those people are NOT REAL SEO's.

Only 10% out there can hold the title of REAL SEO that I can see. Many of those 10% are moderators and members right in here. LOL

[Irony]

Yep Doug... all true. But what Jason says, verbatim, is:

Note: There are some whitehat SEO firms out there I know, but frankly the whitehat SEO companies are simply doing solid web design so I don’t consider them SEO at all.

Sheesh!

He is sending the wrong message, and his article is undoing much of our effort at creating the right ideas of what SEO really is, in the hearts and minds of the general public. Instead of helping us, he hinders our efforts. Do you see my point now?

[ihelpyou]

Yes I do. He is simply not seeing the "small" segment who are REAL SEO's. The reason he does not see this is because of what I have stated a few times now already. How would he or anyone outside the industry see it when ALL the conferences blur the REAL SEO????? or MOST other discussion forums blur the REAL SEO as well???

In here, we do not do this, but we are small compared to VERY LOUD voices out there. I doubt Calacanis even knew this place existed before one week ago, right? All he knows is what he sees out there and who he communicates with. He has never communicated with me or anyone else in here that I know of to learn and understand the real issues in our industry. If he did, he'd know what is what without all the back slapping and lip sucking and brown nosing that truly goes on out there on a daily basis.

He would know that the results for the term of ... search engine optimization .. that Mahalo is now showing are biased and skewed in a big time way. He would know many, many things and problems with this industry. He doesn't know any of this "because of this industry".

We are doing our part to change the views and the perception, but we are one corner of the industry.

He does acknowledge the firms where SEO IS the design of the site, which includes my firm, but he is missing the REAL SEO who is needed because, let's face it, not all sites are built first by firms like mine or Adam's, etc. They are built by designers without a CLUE in the world about search engines. Those sites NEED A REAL SEO to help them fix things.

Irina; it's not that he is purposely saying what he is saying; it's just that he does not truly know about what REAL SEO is and is not. It's real easy to see why with all the BS and crap in our industry.

That being said, he DOES know how to do PR and he DOES know how to get people's blood boiling. He just needs to learn there are real SEO's who truly do help websites in a good way.

[Irony]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
That being said, he DOES know how to do PR and he DOES know how to get people's blood boiling.

Oh yes he does! Wish he used that for something positive though. As for the need to learn, the question is whether he is willing to learn, or he is just using SEOs to PR himself. Somehow I don't believe he cares about our industry, or he would have researched.

[SEFL]

Irina: where would he have researched? Even if he did research here (and it's not likely that he did), he would have also looked at places like Search Engine Land, Digital Point, V7N, and other spammer havens to gather the prevailing definition of SEO (all the silly link building, link exchange, keyword optimization, social media optimization, etc.) Whether you, I or anyone else agrees with the prevailing definition, the spammy definition is the definition, and the spammy definition is what someone like Calacanis is going to base his statements off of. I'm not prepared to find fault with him for that...that's the reputation of the industry, and it's pretty justified.

For every person with ethics and morals like you, there are 100 snake oil salesmen. That's why I tend to look at myself the way Doug looks at himself (he said it, but I've had the thought for a long time now)...we're former SEOs, since the definition has changed. Things like architecture and link structure and building a user-friendly site don't fit that prevailing definition anymore, even though they should.

We can sit here and be high and mighty and say what things should be and preach until we turn blue in the face, but it won't be worth a **** unless other people start following. I think this is one of the biggest weaknesses of the "whitehat SEO" argument; many can preach, but few can convert. (Sorry Doug...you're not a very good converter, and I'm not either.)

[ihelpyou]

LOL agreed Adam.

What is needed is firms like Google to truly tell it like it is. Those same firms have an interest in backing ALL the conferences out there and trying to stay close to those speakers who some just happen to be spammers. I don't fault Google and people like Matt Cutts for doing that, but I do think much more should be done to clearly define the lines as to what SEO is and is not. Google may want to "friend" up with spammers for obvious reasons, but that can be quite the sharp sword as well. It makes it seem to outsiders like those types ARE SEO's and should be listened to when that is just not the case at all.

It's quite the big round-top circus really. I don't have all the answers,.... well, not all of them, lol, but I do have SOME of them and have good ideas as well. I just don't have the support and backing needed to make them real.

BTW: If Mark Cuban really wants to invest in something new and that can truly help, he needs to contact me. :) Not talking about something as simple as a website idea either. It's very vast and all encompassing.

[SEFL]

Me too. I don't actually have anything to offer him. I just want some money. :D

[Irony]

There are a lot of ethical SEOs, guys. Many of them don't post in forums... any forums, but they exist and work. I've met some of them at Ecademy; I've seen the admirable work done by others. No need to be so pessimistic. What we do need, is taking our efforts to the new level and reach out to those good people. Doug's newsletter might help with it.

[SEFL]

Doug has a newsletter?

[ihelpyou]

This member calls himself a SEO:
http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=262485

There are thousands like there like him.

He went on and on about how he can do SEO for 8 bucks, etc and give you a 40 page report for 8 bucks. :D

This is real silly type out there who calls themselves SEO, but these people are real people who scam others out of their money, and this stuff helps contribute to the BAD reputation the industry has.

[ihelpyou]

Well, it's not done being tweaked and finalized yet Adam.

A newsletter is fine, but I'm talking about something much, much bigger and very, very vast of which I need backing for. And I'm very serious about it as well. Very.

[SEFL]

Let's get his attention then:

Mark Cuban's Blog (http://www.blogmaverick.com/)

Everyone click on that.

[Quadrille]

I see why this guy is so rich - people work for him for free!

If he wants to discuss, let him discuss.

As he (obviously) doesn't, why are we all making ourselves look silly putting both sides of the argument?

we all agree on what SEO is, and isn't; he isn't here and doesn't care less.

Why are we going around in circles?

Any new member looking in will question our sanity!

[Forrest]

Originally posted by SEFL
The next problem is that Calacanis will have to somehow pass the message downward to whatever programmer(s) are responsible for it. In all likelihood, the programmers aren't #2 on the food chain and don't answer directly to Calacanis. There's probably a team of VPs, and maybe even one or more levels of management, and then we get down to the programmers.

You forgot project managers. If ever there was a job title worthy of hate, it's the PM.

[Quadrille]

:D

[SEFL]

I forgot team leaders, supervisors, and regional coordinators too. How silly of me. :D

[Dave Hawley]

Note: I'm not justifying not fixing problems. I'm just explaining that anyone that can fix the problems (a group of people that probably doesn't include Calacanis) aren't aware of it yet in all likelihood.That's exactly how your post reads though Adam. You are stating excuses for him as if you are in contact with him. IF the person(s) who is responsible for the "problems" (AKA Spam) is not yet aware, who's fault is that?

I think you greatly exaggerate their structure and you likely find all those invloved are in the one room!

[IncrediBILL]

Just thought it would be the right time to point out that the 2 threads here about Mahalo probably have more content than Mahalo itself.

Heck, at least you could get paid $10 (http://greenhouse.mahalo.com/howto.html) per page over there ;)

[ihelpyou]

lol Good one Bill !!

Some keep saying Mahalo is spamming. They are not spamming as I and others have stated. Let's stop saying they are spamming, okay? Now; if someone from Google were to post in here saying .... YES: they are spamming. I'll accept that. Until that happens, they are 'not' spamming.

Spam is doing something "for Google" or other se's ONLY.

[IncrediBILL]

Spam is doing something "for Google" or other se's ONLY.

Considering that's the only way anyone will ever find Mahalo, they must be doing something for the SE's.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by IncrediBILL
Considering that's the only way anyone will ever find Mahalo I reckon a few Hawaians may find them by mistake. In fact, it may be the first site to make a million on write-in errors.

Plus a few porn-lovers with good long-term memory (and poor short-term memory) ;)

[ihelpyou]

nono. Me thinks JC is great at public relations, dont' you think? He doesn't even need help from se's. The way he gets the industry up in arms and linking and talking about Mahalo is amazing stuff.

[WebSavvy]

Ah, you mean like a master noisemaker that can linkbait with the best of them? ;)

[Dave Hawley]

Let's stop saying they are spamming, okay?You can stop saying it, but I wont.

Now; if someone from Google were to post in here saying .... YES: they are spamming. I'll accept that. Until that happens, they are 'not' spamming.That's extremely inconsistent and dissapointing with your history on spamming Doug.

[ihelpyou]

Dave, you really should stop saying it as it's not search engine spam whatsoever.

It's also not inconsistant with me at all. I've had the very same stance on ANY hidden link that is there for real users in some way. When a user prints out the page, the very same page is referenced by the link in the printed page. It makes it easy for the user to go back to the original page.

Spam is something done for search engines. It's VERY clear there was no intent to spam, and it's just not spam according to Google's definition of spam and my definition of spam as well.

Besides; I've directly been involved with large firms who had sloppy code IE: Sony. Do you really believe I call them a spammer just because the programmer didn't have much of a clue? Not.

If anything at all, it could be construed as sloppy coding like many other things in the Mahalo code, but NOT spam.

[SEFL]

It's my definition too! And Quad's! Don't forget us. We don't like being forgotten. It makes us very lonely and sad, and hurts us right in our feelings.

(Who am I kidding?)

[ihelpyou]

oops sorry. :D I should say that ChrisHirst and Farhan also have stated 'not' spam when we were discussing this in private. If I left out anyone, let me know. LOL

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by SEFL
It's my definition too! And Quad's! Don't forget us. We don't like being forgotten. It makes us very lonely and sad, and hurts us right in our feelings.

(Who am I kidding?) I believed you! ;)

But seriously, mahulahoop (or whatever) fails the spam test on two grounds

1. It uses the same sloppy code as virtually every wiki; off the shelf, sloppy code. Yes, of course they should have fixed it, and they probably will by fiscal year 2021/2. But sloppy code and spam are NOT one and the same thing.

2. The URLs concerned are ALL internal; even if it was conscious deceit, it would have been pointless conscious deceit.

There's plenty of substance to find wrong with these folk, lets move on from the spam-trap. Don't forget, Calciumthingy (or whatever his name is) deliberately baited SEOs just so they'd pick on his code - so long as it's only the code people notice, he's laughing all the way to the bank.

[Dave Hawley]

Doug, it's not spam IYO and IMO it is spam. Never before have I ever read a post from you even close to this;Now; if someone from Google were to post in here saying .... YES: they are spamming. I'll accept that. Until that happens, they are 'not' spamming.If you have, please show me.

Now, someone explain to me how these hidden links benefit their users?

[ihelpyou]

huh? :D

Google says if spam or not. IMO it's not spam at all. It's not even a close call for me.

I already stated the reasons it's not spam throughout this thread.

I'm the one who did not want to bring this spam debate to the public as I have not thought it was spam from the get go. Me along with others have said from the start it's not spam. You can have your opinion Dave, but let's just agree to disagree since you don't understand my reasons. :)

[SEFL]

Dave: let's say you printed a Wiki page (for purposes of this post, a Wiki page is anything printed from a Mediawiki site).

You don't remember where you got the information from, and you want to revisit the page.

You also removed the option to print page URLs at the footer of every page (some people do this).

How would you find it again? You could go to the Wiki site and hope they have a search function and that you could type in your term and there it is, or you could take the URL that was printed out, retype it and save some time.

That's a pretty reasonable idea to me.

[Dave Hawley]

I fully agree that Google are the ONLY ones who can define what spam is according to them (I have said more than once is this Thread). But, going their own guidelines what they are doing is spam (hidden text and links). There is no exceptions that it's OK for X reasons or ignorance, sloppy coding etc. I and others, have stated our reasons why we believe they are spamming. But as you say, you cannot understand what we are saying so let's agree to disagree. :D

I take it though Doug you wont show me anywhere where you stated anything along the lines of your statement I quoted.

Adam, sorry but that is one of the most feeble excuses for hiding links I have ever heard. It doesn't even warrant a reply. You are forming a trend of making excuses for this site on their behalf without knowing who, what, where, how and why.

[ihelpyou]

Actually Dave, I thought Adam's post explained things extremely clear as to why it's not spam. Something done for "real users" is not spam. Do you really, really believe that some obscure programmer that probably does not have a clue about se's is going to stick a hidden link in there on purpose to manipulate se's, even if that link would not and could not help the site in any way with the se's? Of course the answer is no.

What you are saying is that Google's guidelines state that ALL hidden links are spam no matter if that link is for real users, right? I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong with this. You can keep your opinion and you are most welcome to it, but you are in the minority with this if you believe that link is spam.

[SEFL]

What Doug said. There's a perfectly legitimate reason for a print-only feature to be included in the Mediawiki software.

Is it coded the way you would code it? No. Is it coded the way I would code it? I don't know. I might, I might not. Since I've done something similar in the past with store addresses that didn't show up on screen, so I probably would do something like this too...again, for the user.

Maybe not exactly like this, but similar. I'd have to think about it fairly hard, though.

I'm guessing that you've never messed with print stylesheets before, Dave. Try it out. You can do some cool stuff with it.

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/goingtoprint/

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
What you are saying is that Google's guidelines state that ALL hidden links are spam no matter if that link is for real users, right?

With that definition I'm a spammer.

I have a hidden link on every page in an iFrame used as a honey pot to trap bad bots.

Not only that, I have hidden text embedded in every page also used as a honeypot to see where my content shows up on the 'net. Some 'bots only hit 1-2 pages, not enough for the bot blocker to notice, but the SCRAPED hidden content shows up in the SE.

Yup, I'm a honey pot spammer!

Whew!

Glad that's off my chest.

[SEFL]

Now look at what you guys did! You poked the bear and now he's awake and pissed off. :D

[Connie]

Originally posted by IncrediBILL
With that definition I'm a spammer.

I have a hidden link on every page in an iFrame used as a honey pot to trap bad bots.

Not only that, I have hidden text embedded in every page also used as a honeypot to see where my content shows up on the 'net. Some 'bots only hit 1-2 pages, not enough for the bot blocker to notice, but the hidden content shows up in the SE.

Yup, I'm a honey pot spammer!

Whew!

Glad that's off my chest.

I'm about to become a spammer because I'm going to install a bot trap on my site.

The bot trap needs an invisible link, to keep my pages from looking stupid to visitors, and to prevent them from clicking on the link, and banning themselves from the site.

Yes, I will be violating Googles guidelines IMHO.

Here is the problem that I see in trying to interpret what is clearly in violation of the currant guidelines, as to whether it is spam or not.

A lot of things are picked up by the ALGO. It's not uncommon for an innocent site to get hurt because of an ALGO change.

In a human review, I doubt the hidden link would cause a problem. However, it will not surprise me in the least, if it does cause me problems.

If we send the message that hidden links, or text is OK under certain circumstances, some poor webmaster is going to take that to heart, and get his ass burnt.

Mentally, I have debated with myself whether to do this or not. I have finally made the decision to do so. In that decision, I'm fully aware of the possible consequences.

Unfortunately, IMHO, some new webmaster who reads this thread, may get his ass burnt, because of the light hearted attitude (and poor excuses) that some of you have given for violating the currant guidelines.

On the other hand I know exactly what I'm doing, and have decided to take the chance.

IMHO when you condone (or overlook) spam because of sloppy code, then you are sending a message to other that sloppy code is OK.

If Jason C is going to criticize the SEO industry, I still say he needs to get his house in order.

[Dave Hawley]

What you are saying is that Google's guidelines state that ALL hidden links are spam no matter if that link is for real users, right?Pretty much.Do you really, really believe that some obscure programmer that probably does not have a clue about se's is going to stick a hidden link in there on purpose to manipulate se's, even if that link would not and could not help the site in any way with the se's? I don't believe it has to be an intentional attempt to game to the SE's for it to be defined as spam. Just as ignorance is no excuse to break the law, ignorant coding doesn't mean all code done in ignorance is not spam.

[Dave Hawley]

There's a perfectly legitimate reason for a print-only feature to be included in the Mediawiki software.Perhaps it is, but that doesn't automatically means it's not spam when used online. There is no valid reason for those links to be hidden as apposed to visible.

Doud and Adam. If you believe all these hidden links have real value for humans by virtue of being hidden, why have you both stated they should be "fixed"? You both seem to want to have it both ways. On one hand you state they have a "perfectly legitimate reason" yet on the other hand you say it's sloppy coding from a clueless programmer. :confused:

[Dave Hawley]

Yes, I will be violating Google's guidelines IMHO. I'm glad you said that Connie, as I believe this where both Adam and Doug are confused and are not applying common sense, likely due to their rose colored glasses ;)

1) Google is NOT some evil giant waiting to ban/penalize sites for ALL/ANY spam.

2) Google wants a VERY comprehensive database of pages to draw from.

3) Google users do NOT care if a, otherwise relevant page, has some spammy elements.

4) Google is likely fully aware of 99.99% of spam and fully understand it can come about by sloppy coding etc.

5) Google's algorithm can very likely neutralize 99% of spam on the fly.

6) As they can factor in most spam, they can still rank sites WITHOUT giving undue credit to spam.

Now, this means that most sites on the WWW probably have some sort of spam happening. Some intentional, some ONLY for SEs, some ONLY for humans, some unintentionally and everything in-between. But regardless, it is spam IF it's not within the Google guidelines.

[WebSavvy]

OK, off topic conversation has been split off and moved to a new thread: CSS Controlled Layouts (http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25214)

[ihelpyou]

Unfortunately, IMHO, some new webmaster who reads this thread, may get his ass burnt, because of the light hearted attitude (and poor excuses) that some of you have given for violating the currant guidelines.
Light hearted? I don't think so. I've been VERY clear in my posts in this thread. I've not been light hearted at all about this.

Yes Connie and Dave; It's not spam BUT they should clean it up because we have said MANY times now in this thread that it could have been done differently. EVERY piece of code out there can be done differently. I would do it differently mainly because of others thinking it may be spam. LOL So yes, I agree with ya all on that point.

In THIS case however; it's just not spam whatsoever.

Google states this:

"Would you show your competitor what you have done?"

My answer if Mahalo; Yes.

Google states this:

"Would you do it if search engines did NOT exist?"

My answer if Mahalo: YES, but differently as it's sloppy code.

NOW: if you or I or anyone would do the same thing if search engines did not exist, why the hell would it be spam? It isn't.

I wish Adam Lasnik or Matt Cutts of Google would make a post to make it very clear about this.

[ihelpyou]

What really gets to me is the FACT that some of the criticism should be against the developers of this crappy mediawiki software. They are the ones marketing this piece of crap software that is horribly built. How much did Wikipedia pay for this piece of crap? How about Mahalo? If I were them, I'd be complaining about it and even demand my money back.

Further; I can see the Wiki using this software as I do not think the founders had any funded monies when they started it, but we know that Mahalo received monies for funding of Mahalo. For this reason, I find it astonishing that they blindly are using this crap software when they easily could have hired a good programmer or firm to build them a CUSTOM script to do what they wanted to do.

Cutting corners for a project they claim is going to be successful is not in their best interests at all. They basically are using a bad script and probably are using it for almost no money. Heck; my firm builds lots of custom scripts and I've NEVER received any funded monies. This is what makes my blood boil more than anything else. These "more than educated" people throwing up sloppy code, etc, and having LOTS of money to actually do it right is really bad business at it's best.

So yes; I am not happy, but at the same time, it's just not search engine spam as I see it.

Here is a snippet from the Google guidelines:
Hidden links are links that are intended to be crawled by Googlebot, but are unreadable to humans because:

* The link consists of hidden text (for example, the text color and background color are identical).
* CSS has been used to make tiny hyperlinks, as little as one pixel high.
* The link is hidden in a small character - for example, a hyphen in the middle of a paragraph.

If your site is perceived to contain hidden text and links that are deceptive in intent, your site may be removed from the Google index, and will not appear in search results pages. When evaluating your site to see if it includes hidden text or links, look for anything that's not easily viewable by visitors of your site. Are any text or links there solely for search engines rather than visitors?
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353

Reading that carefully; is Mahalo spamming? NOT.

[Quadrille]

Making a fuss about sloppy code is playing into the hands of the blackhearted; they have long argued that 'incompetent seos/webmasters do more harm than spammers', and it's rubbish.

Almost ten pages of 'discussion' about a minor piece of coding which does not, in any way, give one iota of search engine advantage, is just plain crazy.

And all the while, we are NOT discussing aspects of the site which should cause concern.

So who are we helping? Mahalo, who are more than happy to see people waste time on trivia while they have bigger fish to fry.

And the spamming community, for giving credence to one of their lines of defence.

Look at the big picture; does this harmless - if stupid - piece of coding compare in any way to what goes on daily in the real estate, travel, and other segments of the web?

:horse: And that is my last word on this issue, you'll be pleased to hear ;)

[g1smd]

David Naylor recently said:

>> I have noticed that they [Mahalo] have links that going to domain holding pages with ads on them as well.. oh hum <<

[SEFL]

Dave: I don't think the printfooter thing should be fixed. I don't have a problem with it being there at all, and never did. If it does need to be fixed, it only needs to be fixed because some people perceive it to be spammy, not because it actually is spam. There's a perfectly logical reason for printfooter t to be there, but most people don't understand it or choose not to admit to it.

I wouldn't code it any differently, either. Doug might based on webmaster perception, but I wouldn't. It's there for users reasons, and unless the end users of the site are bugged by it, it can stay put for all I care.

What should be fixed are two things:

1) The case-sensitive URL issue.

2) The script itself should be scrapped and something custom should be built, as Doug said.

Mind you, I'm not prepared to blame Mahalo itself yet (yet being the operative word) since this could quite easily be the "work" of a lazy, clueless programmer. Give them time to solve and then let's see where we are.

Quad: you'll never get me to agree with that theory, and the reason is because most spammers are inherently lazy and create much of the crappy code we see today. Good code is one of the things a decent webmaster or design team can use to level the playing field, and help to neutralize spam.

[ihelpyou]

Not sure what Dave N is talking about, but how much room does Dave N. have to talk. LOL

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
How much did Wikipedia pay for this piece of crap? How about Mahalo? If I were them, I'd be complaining about it and even demand my money back.
They didn't pay one red cent for it, Doug. NOTHING. Nada. Zip. Bubkiss.

It's FREE open source software. The boys with the deep pockets building their "better than google search engine" wanna-be were too stinking CHEAP to buy GOOD software. :rolleyes:

[ihelpyou]

They deserve the criticism then. LOL

I guess all the start-up funding monies go to the employees or something?

It's hard to say why a new site like this needs investors then since the actual "build",etc is already built for you, eventhough it's crappy. Usually the programming is what costs the most, but it seems Mahalo had the programming already done for them.

I wish I had investor friends. Ideas sweep through this brain almost daily. It's a shame that some people have lots of ideas but can't ever get them off the ground, while others just fall into things because they know someone else who knows someone else.

[g1smd]

You ask investors for a few million (for hosting, design services and programming); then spend some of it on holidays, houses, fast cars and women.

It worked for Enron ... ... for a while.

[WebSavvy]

Registrar scandal split and moved here: Unethical Registrar Practices (http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25217)

[Dave Hawley]

LOL Doug, the 2 questions from Google that one should ask themselves is not sure test for spam or not, it's a rule of thumb.

I have also read the page you have linked to many times. I see nothing in there that lends weight to your defence of Mahalo. I think you are confusing what Google use to ban a site as your definition of spam.

If sloppy coding, ignorance and intent is an 'out' for spamming Google and all SEs, would be drowning in spam. But they aren't as most SEs have enough common sense to know that these factors can create spam (knowingly and unknowingly) and their algos HAVE to deal with them WITHOUT banning the page or site.

This is what makes my blood boil more than anything else. These "more than educated" people throwing up sloppy code, etc, and having LOTS of money to actually do it right is really bad business at it's best.I'm glad you are finally seing the light on their "business model".

[ihelpyou]

Finally? I stated they have "sloppy" code from the start of this thread Dave. Are you sure you are actually reading my posts in here? Me thinks you want to simply continue to argue with me. :)

That's fine by me, but Mahalo is not spamming the search engines and Mahalo is not a spammer. Mahalo is many things which does include a clueless programmer, etc, and includes very bad code which was 'free', but they are not spamming. Period.

I, more than most anyone else out there, can spot spam in a heartbeat, and will OUT spam in a heartbeat when I see it. Seven years worth of outing spam in here is proof of that fact. That's not my opinion either,..... it's my facts.

[Dave Hawley]

Doug, you have stated over and over how this business model has some great backing, you can't bet against it etc etc etc. Heck you even added the silly thing to your front page. The "finally" is because you finally admited that "it's bad business". Are you fully aware of what you have posted about Mahalo over the last few weeks? Perhaps the star dust is blurring your vision ;)

We must agree to dissagree on the fact Mahalo have spam on their site.

However, I must say, both yourself and Adam are speaking on Mahalo's behalf rather than stating it as your own opinion. I find that odd to say the least.

[SEFL]

There's nothing to wonder about from my end of it. I'm hoping Calacanis will give me free shares. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5% ownership is fine. :D

[Dave Hawley]

Let's do the math. 5% X $0.00 = $0.00 ;)

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by Dave Hawley
SEO = Search Engine Oil

No no no... it's SnakE Oil

[Dave Hawley]

LOL! That flew straight over your head Bill.

[ihelpyou]

No Dave. I stated them using a free script with sloppy code is bad business. Most people reading knew what I was referring to in my post. There must be a language problem. I'm willing to wait and see what happens. It seems some want to trash and burn firms without a chance.

[g1smd]

Other people are noticing what they are up to: http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/archives/2007/06/25/wwwmahalocom-and-its-spam/ ... and they are calling it spam too.

[SEFL]

That establishes three things, g1smd, neither of which has anything to do with spam:

1) Mahalo's largest chance at success will come from the very same "SEOs" that doom it to fail by pointing things like this out in the same insecure egomaniacal way that they do everything else.

2) Anyone who follows the Naylor logic doesn't know much about database development and relationships. If that entry was indeed edited by someone, and now it's edited by "No one", it may well be possible that the record corresponding with that entry was orphaned when either the editor/entry combination was deleted (assuming the editor is the guy Naylor pointed out) or when the editor was deleted (assuming it was someone else that edited it).

I'm thinking it's the latter; there are already bugs in the MediaWiki software, and this could easily be one of those.

I don't get why most of you want this guy to fail. I really don't. And don't feed me the line of crap about how Calacanis claimed SEO is bullshit either, because in order for that line to bother anyone that much, there's got to be an element of truth to it.

[ihelpyou]

I don't think it's a case where people are upset with the SEO is bull statement, but I think it's a matter of JC not clarifying the statement very well. ALL SEO is not bad. SOME SEO is very bad. What JC does not understand is that "WE" don't believe for a second that people who spam the search engines are SEO's at all. He lumps them all together and I/we do not. Only "best practice" SEO's are real SEO's. ALL others are something other than SEO but NOT SEO at all.

He also states that "whitehats" just do good design. While that is true for the most part, I've yet to count the number of "good" designers on one hand who also KNOW how to design for search engines AND visitors both. That's the key. JC does not understand the details about things, and I believe that is his main problem. That's also why he is pissing off most in this industry. The only one's he is NOT pissing off it seems are firms that do it all, including full development.

I agree with Adam; DN is a SEO ONLY who should keep out of the design/database issues me thinks. I just read that page and I don't even get where the damn spam is at all. :) It looks like more sloppy stuff to me. Certainly nothing that moves the ball any further with a google. Certainly nothing major at all.

[Dave Hawley]

I don't get why most of you want this guy to fail.Where did you read that????No Dave. I stated them using a free script with sloppy code is bad business. Most people reading knew what I was referring to in my post. There must be a language problem. I'm willing to wait and see what happens. It seems some want to trash and burn firms without a chance.I'm not referring to any specific post by yourself Doug, rather a multitude of posts on the topic. Besides, if sloppy coding is "bad business" then surely the business employing "sloppy code" has bad business practices?

I'm not trying to " trash and burn firms without a chance". I am however calling a spade a spade based soley on what is known.
He also states that "whitehats" just do good design. While that is true for the most part, I've yet to count the number of "good" designers on one hand who also KNOW how to design for search engines AND visitors both. That's the key.Come on Doug, how could ANYBODY know all about the millions of SEO/designers out there? You are being blinded by the vocal minority!

[ihelpyou]

then surely the business employing "sloppy code" has bad business practices?
Oh, is that right? Then I guess Sony, Wikipedia, and the majority of websites on the internet have bad business practices, right? Most sites have sloppy code Dave. You know this as we see them daily. The larger firms are the worse culprits of sloppy code. I could not believe my eyes dealing with the code for one Sony property.

And now you think most designers out there build good sites in every way? I know you know that is just not true as well. Most designers always say "afterthefact", "I built the site and now you have to find someone to help you with search engines."

That's what "most" designers do out there.

BTW: why you jumping on my ass Dave? What the hell have I done to you lately?? LOL You have been spinning and twisting my words throughout this thread, and for reasons I have NO idea about. Heck Dave; you more than anyone I know should actually Like this Calacanis guy. Sheesh; as much as you trash SEO's and the industry, and have done so for along time now.

What's up anyway?

[Dave Hawley]

On the issue of Spam. Heck, I very likely have some code on my site that is technically "Spam". However, I believe I have nothing at all to fear as per my post below;

1) Google is NOT some evil giant waiting to ban/penalize sites for ALL/ANY spam.

2) Google wants a VERY comprehensive database of pages to draw from.

3) Google users do NOT care if a, otherwise relevant page, has some spammy elements.

4) Google is likely fully aware of 99.99% of spam and fully understand it can come about by sloppy coding etc.

5) Google's algorithm can very likely neutralize 99% of spam on the fly.

6) As they can factor in most spam, they can still rank sites WITHOUT giving undue credit to spam.

Now, this means that most sites on the WWW probably have some sort of spam happening. Some intentional, some ONLY for SEs, some ONLY for humans, some unintentionally and everything in-between. But regardless, it is spam IF it's not within the Google guidelines.Spam MUST be defined in black & white and without ambiguity, else it's a slippery slope to nowhere.

The choice to ban/penalize sites/pages by Google is the ONLY grey area and where intent comes into play.

[ihelpyou]

LOL Fine Dave.

Calacanis is a search engine spammer.

Are you happy now? Tell me what good that does for you? Do you really, really believe that statement? If you really do believe that, then I've been really mislead by you for along time now.

Spam is black and white to me as well Dave. The guidelines are crystal clear to me. Because they are clear, I can tell you unequivocally that the Mahalo piece of code for the print thang is NOT spam "according" to Google guidelines.

[Dave Hawley]

Oh, is that right? Then I guess Sony, Wikipedia, and the majority of websites on the internet have bad business practices, right?Of course most do, if not all! Any business that believes it has the perfect business model is dreaming Doug!
And now you think most designers out there build good sites in every way?Sorry, don't understand that question. The best I reply is I don't profess to knowing "most designers out there", I know you don't either, despite you stating otherwise.BTW: why you jumping on my ass Dave? What the hell have I done to you lately?? LOL You have been spinning and twisting my words throughout this thread, and for reasons I have NO idea about. Heck Dave; you more than anyone I know should actually Like this Calacanis guy. Sheesh; as much as you trash SEO's and the industry, and have done so for along time now.

What's up anyway?I'm not "jumping on" your "ass" anymore that yourself and Adam are jumping on mine. Is there something you are both not telling me?

[Dave Hawley]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
LOL Fine Dave.

Calacanis is a search engine spammer.

Are you happy now? Tell me what good that does for you? Do you really, really believe that statement? If you really do believe that, then I've been really mislead by you for along time now.

Spam is black and white to me as well Dave. The guidelines are crystal clear to me. Because they are clear, I can tell you unequivocally that the Mahalo piece of code for the print thang is NOT spam "according" to Google guidelines. That's the whole point Doug. The guidelines cleary state to NOT use hidden links. There are no exceptions stated in guidelines and they cannot be left open to individual interpretation. The ONLY time interpretation and intent comes into play is when/if Google has chosen to take action, or not, on the site or page.

Try and look at this way. You are doing 100 KPH in a 70 zone. You are pulled over by a Cop for speeding (no denying). You tell the Cop that your son/daughter is choking and you are going to the Hospital. He looks in the back seat and sees a face turning blue. The Cop now drops all intent on giving you are speeding ticket, even though it's patently clear you were speeding. Instead he sais, "OK, I'll go up ahead and clear the road".

Yet, the law has been broken

[SEFL]

I guess I should have explained myself a bit more clearly. By "most of you", I meant "most of the SEO community in general".

I've even seen comments just like this one on my blog:

http://www.walkonmypath.com/mahalo-could-succeed/#comment-353

My dislike is more the methods he employs to spread his message. It comes across as very hypocritical to me. But that dislike does create a bias in me about Mahalo and I would prefer to see it fail. I know in my review and in everything I’ll say that I am looking to find things wrong with the site.

I respect the person's candor, and for that matter the person that made the quote a great deal. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. I also think it's the prevailing opinion right now...people want to see him fail because he pissed people off.

The other thing is all the nitpicking that is going on. People are trying, just like Naylor did, to pin things that aren't spammy to Mahalo and Calacanis as spammy.

That's what I'm talking about...in a broader sense.

I don't blame Calacanis for not understanding the inner workings of all aspects of SEO either. Again, he's looking at what the prevailing opinion and current is within the industry, while still reamining an outsider. That's a very difficult thing for anyone to do, but he has done it for the most part.

Are there things he could know? Are there things he should know? Sure there are. There are things we all could know. There are things I still am learning (including one that I semi-accidentally figured out today that I'll show you guys sometime in the next few weeks). But he's gauged prevailing opinion well, and has used it to his advantage.

But, as you (Dave) and I both said about Sullivan at the time he announced his leaving of SEW, let's wait and judge based on what occurs next, not now.

[Dave Hawley]

Adam, but you, like us all, ONLY know what we read. What and how much we read does NOT automatically correspond to "most of the SEO community in general". It is OFTEN a vocal minority.

[ihelpyou]

well yeah, I'd say the SEO's out there who are most offended by him are in a minority compared to ALL in the industry. All we see are who posts in forums and blogs. All do not post places. Many post no where at all.

I'm not offended whatsoever by him as I've been saying for a few years now that if designers would EVER get it and start building great websites, no need to hire a separate SEO after the fact. I've said this for a real long time. I actually think JC is getting this stuff from me. LOLOL The difference being that he does not understand there are TRUE SEO's who do lots of good in the industry, and there are bad people who do bad in the industry. That's the difference he does not understand.

He claims "SEO's" GAME the system to rank bad sites highly.

That is NOT true. REAL SEO's do not game the system in that way at all. REAL SEO's FIX websites to do better with ROI and their REAL visitors. As a consequence, it's just a common sense thang the site will do well in search engines as a result.

[Connie]

Sorry Doug but when you quoted the guidelines you only quoted part of them.

The guide lines also sate this http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
If you do find hidden text or links on your site, either remove them or, if they are relevant for your site's visitors, make them easily viewable.

I personally can't interpret that any other way than don't have hidden links.

A link that can only be seen if someone happens to print out the page in not a link that is easily viewable IMO.

If for what ever reason a site uses a link like that then it should also use the nofollow attribute.

Sites that use crappy software like Malaho is using, have more spam issues
than a hidden link. This has been pointed out several times, but some of you only want to concentrate on the hidden link, without considering, the other issues.

I don't think I have ever actually called Jason or Malaho spammers. I could be wrong about that. I think what I have consistently pointed out is the fact there are several problems that need to be looked at.

Personally I could give a **** less about Malaho, or Jason. But, when the driving force behind a site, wants to bad mouth SEOs in general, then I think he needs to get his house in order.

I don't buy into the idea that Jason (or some of his investors) is/are ignorant of SEO.

I will agree that Jason is a master marketer. At the same time he probably knows more about SEO than I do.

I am in no way questioning anyones integrity who disagrees with me.

[Dave Hawley]

There's no doubt in my mind Connie that hidden links are outside the guidelines, regardless of the reason(s) they are used. It simply cannot be any other way, just like cheating is cheating and spamming is spamming.

It's whether the spam will incur a penalty or ban that is left open to Google's discretion and Google's alone.

I really hope Doug and Adam don't feel they are too far out on the "it's not spam" Limb to come back in.

[ihelpyou]

My goodness gracious, me oh my oh me oh my. You guys are something else. What that is at this point? I have no idea. I have zero idea what angle you are using. I cannot believe two people who I respect for their knowledge are still trying to say that this little piece of code for the "Print" thang is spam. I thought I taught you both better than this? LOL

I'll quote that same little statement Dave as it makes the point nicely. Thank you very much. I just missed that important piece:
If you do find hidden text or links on your site, either remove them or, if they are relevant for your site's visitors, make them easily viewable.
Knowing that piece of code is for PRINT, and knowing that a site visitor's can "easily" view the link when they print the darn page, it certainly makes my point even stronger that it's NOT SPAM at all.

Heck guys; it ain't even close to being search engine spam.

Let's see; I wonder how many thousands or millions of websites out there use a print function and even stick in a link to the SAME page so when a user prints out the page, they can CLEARLY view the link so they can easily find the same page on the internet later??

I'll bet many, many of them have this. So now all of these websites are spamming the search engines? :green:

Where did the teacher go wrong with the students? :)

[ihelpyou]

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating I guess.

If that print function hidden link is used by anyone to show a link leading to ANOTHER website altogether, then that WOULD be search engine spam. It doesn't, so it's NOT.

Some out there seem to be picking at anything they can find on Mahalo. While I certainly know that Mahalo has many, many problems that have to do with the software they are using, it doesn't make them search engine spammers no matter how you slice it or spin it. It just doesn't. Oh sure, Jason Calacanis has pissed off many in this industry for obvious reasons, but that doesn't give a green flag to all to rip apart the site to see if there is any kind of se spam in it. There is Not. Period.

I understand the outcry from SEO's out there. I really do. But they are the people that look very silly when it's all said and done. JC is THE MASTER of public relations. He's proved it many times over through the years. He's "winning" this little battle with so-called SEO's as well. He wouldn't dare post to this thread. Why? Because he doesn't have to do so. It's a pointless thread regarding any search engine spam at all. It's just not spam. It's bad software coding.

JC is NOT a SEO and never has been one. He certainly does not know a bunch about SEO for reasons I and others have stated in this thread. YES: he could have wrote what he writes with more clarity and after doing more research, etc, but he did not do that. That was his mistake, but I'm actually thinking NONE of this was a mistake on his part, but a very calculated plan. Guess what? Because of threads like THIS ONE, his plan is certainly working. We are discussing Mahalo. That's what he wanted all along, don't ya know?

Mahalo has lots of problems with lots of things. But search engine spammers they are not according to all I have seen on Mahalo. I'm no dummy when it comes to search engine spam. Others are not either. The biggest beef I have with Mahalo is that they got lots and lots of monies to create this "idea", but they failed to actually use decent software built from scratch, and they failed to hire a programmer who knew that software was crap so he/she could fix it. With all that money, you'd think things would be right.

Spammers? No way.

[Danny]

We are discussing Mahalo. That's what he wanted all along, don't ya know? Exactly.
That, and the bad concept of Mahalo as a whole -doesn't matter if it's spam or no spam, it is crap anyway- , is the main reason why several people -including me- didn't like to see them rewarded with their own forum on the frontpage of IHY.

[ihelpyou]

Well, that was my decision alone.

Let's see; I gave "Gigablast" their own forum years ago when they "first" launched. I gave websavvy their own when they were new. I have given many new engines and directories a shot and when and if it doesn't work out, then I dump them off the front page. This is simply how I do it, and it's nothing new at all. I'm not dumping Mahalo unless or until they actually prove me wrong. They "just" went live, and in Alpha at that. Next comes "Beta".

I never reviewed the code for Gigablast or websavvy before putting them on the front page. Heck; I've never reviewed the code for ANY directory or engine listed on the front page.

Besides; this "bad concept" thing is a matter of opinion. I highly doubt the many employees of mahalo nor the investors of Mahalo see it as a bad concept. I don't have an opinion about the "concept" one way or the other, but I certainly am willing to give it a chance.

I've never had any pre-requisites for a front page forum in here and never will. It's always been up to me with this. :)

[SEFL]

Exactly, Doug. Calacanis is a puppet master right now, and we're all dancing on the ends of the strings. It doesn't bother me personally, but that's the situation.

Dave: you may well be right in that the people who comment are the minority, but they are the same people who often get into the heads of the majority. A lot of opinion on topics like this is anything but independent; it's lemming logic at its very finest.

As far as being too far out on the "it's not spam" limb, I'm not too far out on it because it's not spam. It's code designed for print. It takes no more effort to reach this than it would a second-tier submenu (submenu of a submenu). It's not spam....period.

Doug nailed the major issue with both Mahalo and with sites in general: they focus so much on the marketing/"SEO" that they miss the most important aspect of the marketing...the foundation (i.e. design and development). Mahalo's got the basic design down, but needs to work on the development. They still might fix it, however.

[Danny]

Well, that was my decision alone.
I've never had any pre-requisites for a front page forum in here and never will. It's always been up to me with this. I don't like it, but it's your forum :)
I can live with that, Doug.

Just wanted to add that obviously a lot of people care about IhelpYou and these forums. It's good that people express their concerns when they spot something that they are convinced to be wrong. That's good but it's also the sole reason why this thread keeps going on and on while Mahala hasn't done anything so far that could deserve our interest. They don't deserve the noise we're making :)

[Forrest]

Originally posted by Dave Hawley
TTry and look at this way. You are doing 100 KPH in a 70 zone. You are pulled over by a Cop for speeding (no denying). You tell the Cop that your son/daughter is choking and you are going to the Hospital. He looks in the back seat and sees a face turning blue. The Cop now drops all intent on giving you are speeding ticket, even though it's patently clear you were speeding. Instead he sais, "OK, I'll go up ahead and clear the road".

Yet, the law has been broken

Just a minor detail, but in the scenario that was just described, no law is broken. United States law is very clear that it's legal to steal a boat to save a drowning person.

Intent is a HUGE piece of the law. You can't look at behavior without looking at intent, at least in the legal system. A construction worker on a high-rise building who accidentally drops a hammer that kills someone on the sidewalk below, if it was an accident has committed no crime, if it was to see what would happen would be guilty of reckless endangerment, and if it was trying to hit someone walking by, would be guilty of murder. All three outcomes start with the same action, but are completely different depending on the intent.

On the other hand, legally, intent isn't up to the individual to interpret, that's the job of a judge or jury ... who in this case would be Google's spam team.

[ihelpyou]

Good stuff Forrest.

[WebSavvy]

Yep, Forrest is one really smart cookie -- that doesn't READ his PMs!

Forrest, please check your PMs, buddy.
Sent you one a while ago. :)

[SEFL]

Seriously, Doug, you need a non-JS indicator of new PMs. I've had the same problem.

[ihelpyou]

That's easy. Click on the button at the top labelled "user cp". Click on "edit options". Scroll down to the "private message" things and click on "yes" to receive EMAILS when you get a private message. That email will even tell you who the message is from so you know whether to go quickly or not to answer it. :D

Problem solved. :)

[Dave Hawley]

Knowing that piece of code is for PRINT, and knowing that a site visitor's can "easily" view the link when they print the darn page, it certainly makes my point even stronger that it's NOT SPAM at allSorry Doug, I have stopped reading your posts on the subject after that statement. Next thing you will be saying is hidden links are fine so long as they can be seen in Firefox but not IE.

[Dave Hawley]

Just a minor detail, but in the scenario that was just described, no law is broken.Perhaps, but please try and see it's ONLY an example and PLEASE understand that all the different States (which often have different laws) in the US does NOT constitute all Countries in the World.

On the other hand, legally, intent isn't up to the individual to interpret, that's the job of a judge or jury ... who in this case would be Google's spam team.Yep, and I have said so many,many times. Google have already spoken in terms of what is Spam by saying don't use hidden links. There is no footnote list of exeptions as Doug and Adam are somehow seeing. That's not to say there are NOT exeptions based on intent IF Google feels the need to review the site for a ban or penalty.. But as Google's algo HAS to be able to neutralize most spam, manual reviews are rare in relation to the number of pages out there.

[Dave Hawley]

Seriously, Doug, you need a non-JS indicator of new PMs. I've had the same problem.LOL! Maybe Doug should hide the link and have it only show if you print the page :D

[ihelpyou]

Sure. I can use the print function in here and put a link to it. Not spam.

As far as your other posts, I have NO clue as to what you are saying. I'm done with this silly spam issue that does NOT exist.

I can guarantee you Dave that none of the se's which include Google, Yahoo, and MSN think that this print function hidden link is spam. I can guarantee you that is a fact.

If we all were to take up your new stance on spam, All SEO is Spam Dave. You play right into the SEO spammers out there who say ALL SEO IS SPAM.

I write and edit description tags on pages. That's now spam, right? It's hidden text from the visitor to the page, right? It's spam, right? Google states: No hidden text, so description tags are pure spam now.

[Dave Hawley]

As far as your other posts, I have NO clue as to what you are saying.That's likely why you are not getting it. Yet I fully understand your post, just don't agree with them is all.If we all were to take up your new stance on spam, All SEO is Spam Dave. You play right into the SEO spammers out there who say ALL SEO IS SPAM. "All SEO is Spam" You words Doug, not mine. Please don't put your words in my mouth.

Allowing the Google guidelines open to individual interpretation is playing "right into the SEO spammers out there". That is what they frequently do.

I write and edit description tags on pages. That's now spam, right? It's hidden text from the visitor to the page, right? It's spam, right? Google states: No hidden text, so description tags are pure spam now.Now you are even talking like spammers do Doug. Google state at the very start of their page on hidden text "Hiding text or links in your content ..." You should know that DougFrom Google...... AGAIN; If you do find hidden text or links on your site, either remove them or, if they are relevant for your site's visitors, make them easily viewableHaving to print a page to be able to see the hidden links (which the users doesn't even now exist) is NOT making them "easily viewable" by any stretch of the imagination. It's no different than saying you can see hidden text with the font color the same as the background by highlighting the area. Or, a link that's only hidden until you Mouse over. All very ridiculous IMO.

[ihelpyou]

lol

sorry, but I cannot comment as I'm laughing too hard right now. I can't think of any comment to make anyhoo that I have not made about 10 times in this thread. I'm done with it.

[SEFL]

No offense, Dave, but I'm with Doug here. You just walked right off a cliff here, especially the part about a hidden link not appearing until mouseover. 98% of the hidden links you're talking about (assuming you're referring to two-tiered menu systems, as I suspect you are) are embedded into Javascript and rely on crappy coding, so any impact on those menu systems would be null. There are maybe 1 in every 50 that can do it properly.

I do have a question for both you and Connie, though: I've got an example of something I came up with before this whole Wikimediaholo thing came out, but I won't be able to show it for a couple of weeks because it's still under construction.

But...if I can provide just one example of a legitimate use of print-only text that actually benefits users and would have minimal SEO impact in the most extreme case (Doug, it's the thing I showed you earlier today), would you guys change your mind?

In other words, would you at least be open to seeing something that would be perfectly legitimate, as tested and approved by Doug? (And if not Doug, I'd be more than willing to show it to one other member of your choice as long as that member promised to keep his/her mouth shut about it until I'm ready to launch the site).

[Forrest]

Well ... I took a law class in school, and that particular fact, committing a minor crime to save a life isn't a crime at all, stood out in my mind, seemed unusually sane for the law.

[Dave Hawley]

No offense, Dave, but I'm with Doug here. You just walked right off a cliff here, especially the part about a hidden link not appearing until mouse over. 98% of the hidden links you're talking about (assuming you're referring to two-tiered menu systems, as I suspect you are) are embedded into Javascript and rely on crappy coding, so any impact on those menu systems would be null. There are maybe 1 in every 50 that can do it properly.And your point being?

But...if I can provide just one example of a legitimate use of print-only text that actually benefits users and would have minimal SEO impact in the most extreme case (Doug, it's the thing I showed you earlier today), would you guys change your mind? No, not unless Google change their Guidelines on hidden text/links. The fact some spam has "minimal" SEO impact is totally irrelevant in defining spam. The ONLY one who will consider impact, intent etc etc is Google IF they manually review the site for a ban or penalty.

Does email spam stop being spam because a spam trapper stopped it?

Does email spam stop being spam because the recipient doesn't get burned by it?

Does email spam stop being spam because only a few are sent?

In case you are wondering, the answer is NO in all 3 cases.

[Dave Hawley]

Originally posted by Forrest
Well ... I took a law class in school, and that particular fact, committing a minor crime to save a life isn't a crime at all, stood out in my mind, seemed unusually sane for the law. I'm not going off on a tangent on laws sorry.

[Dave Hawley]

I challenge both Adam and Doug to find one piece of Text from .here (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353) that gives exceptions to hidden links.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by Dave Hawley
Does email spam stop being spam because a spam trapper stopped it?

Does email spam stop being spam because the recipient doesn't get burned by it?

Does email spam stop being spam because only a few are sent?

In case you are wondering, the answer is NO in all 3 cases. I totally agree with that - but it begs the question of when the email started to be spam.

That's the real issue here.

[Dave Hawley]

The very 1st moment the 1st one is sent IMO.

[ihelpyou]

sheesh, I just can't resist.

You keep pointing to the google guidelines Dave. While that is just fine, all you are doing is making my point about it not being spam. I won't rehash why that is a fact again.

But anyway; What you seem to want Google to do is to spell out Every single instance where a hidden link is not spam. Why would they want to help the spammers by telling them when a hidden link is not spam? I don't need the google guidelines to spell things out to me as I just use common sense to know what is spam and what is not spam.

You want spam? Try this on for size:

<noscript> tags are used frequently all over the web. Links in those tags are hidden links. Are they spam? Or doesn't it make a difference how or why the link or links are in that tag?

So you see, in order for Google to "spell" out each and every instance of hidden links that are spam and are not spam, they would have to totally list the many, many things. They are not going to do that, and I sure would not want them to do that. I prefer using common sense with most everything.

[WebSavvy]

<noscript> links can become spam though if there is no JS used on the page in the first place or if the noscript contains content that isn't related to (or a text-only version of) its JS equivalent.

[ihelpyou]

That's right. In other words "it depends" on many things.

If there isn't any javascript on the page to begin with and a noscript tag is being used, then I'd say it is spam.

Let's say you do have JS used with 5 links in it. Let's say a noscript is being used with the same 5 links in it, which are fine, but one added link is being used that goes to another site. That's spam as well. The noscript tag by itself is not spam, but the one link in it is spam. Extra content in the tag not in the JS would be spam as well.

Point being is that it's not the fact that links are hidden, but the fact of "why" are those links hidden that really matters. Another point being is that there are far too many things out there Google would have to list if you expect them to spell things out in the guidelines. You just have to use your common sense to know what is spam and what is not spam in dealing with hidden links. Google states this that Dave has quoted many times:
AGAIN; If you do find hidden text or links on your site, either remove them or, if they are relevant for your site's visitors, make them easily viewable.
That is very correct. They may already be viewable by some group anyway. Groups that have JS enabled can view the JS menu. Groups that choose to print out the page can view the link as well to know what url they printed out the page from. If the links are hidden and cannot be viewable by any group at all, that is called search engine spam. The same print function that Mahalo is doing would be spam if that link was leading to an entirely different site/domain.

There are many, many things to look at with every instance of "hidden links". Google couldn't possibly begin to spell out all of them, and it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so.

[WebSavvy]

Is it spam ONLY if it links to another site/domain? Or would it be spam too, if it linked to another (e.g., different page) URL on the same site, other than the page URL it's living on?

Would it be spam too if there were more than ONE link in that "print footer" ... because a page being printed would only need the URL of just THAT page ... correct?

[ihelpyou]

Don't know Deb without seeing the actual implimentation. Too many things/variables, which is my point. Google could NEVER list them all out and would not want to do so for obvious reasons. Use your common sense when looking at spam or not spam. It's really not hard.

[WebSavvy]

Oh, I'm not one bit unclear on this at all.

If it's linking to the same page it's living on (that's being printed out) it's not spam.

If it links to another URL altogether different from the URL that's being printed out, it's spam -- whether the URL it's linking to lives on the same site or not.

If there's more than one URL listed in the printfooter, it's spam.

Mahalo is guilty of all of the above and it was pointed out with examples to pages where it could be verified, but that seems to have somehow become lost in the rest of the hoopala going on in this thread.

Mahalo has serious issues -- MediaWiki related. If they'd ditch the software and get some REAL software, programmed by someone that knows what the hell they're doing -- the current issues they're facing would go away.

I can also understand why so many people seem to have a bad taste in their mouth with regard to Mahalo. The head guy offends a bunch of people he doesn't know, by saying that their chosen line of work is Bull Sh*t. This from the same guy that's launching a "search engine wanna-be" with FREE software and then yells from the mountaintops (press releases) about his financial backing (big deal).

Mahalo made such statements as "they're going to be better than google" ... but what results are they using when they don't have any to show you? Oh yeah, it's GOOGLE's!!!

You'd have never in a million years seen either one of the founders of Google running around bad mouthing people's line of work, or using FREE software to make (a long shot not going to happen) search engine wanna-be that they were claiming would be better than "INSERT SEARCH ENGINE NAME HERE" and then use the search results of the same search engine they're claiming they're going to be better than.

No, you'd have never seen that from the Google founders, and you know why? Because they're Professionals in every sense of the word and they have class.

Two reasons why Mahalo won't make the grade.

[ihelpyou]

Nope. You are not clear with this issue. :)

Many sites out there use the wiki software. I think you all should list them and then call all of them search engine spammers in public. Make each link live as well so they know this place is calling them search engine spammers.

It's one thing to be ignorant and a bad programmer who doesn't know that something is broken. It's quite another to call the owner of that same site a search engine spammer.

And yeah, I totally agree with Adam about the issues of JC being hated in this industry and that biases come about because of this. It really is truly amazing stuff though.

From the very first time I read his first statements,.. I believe last January or so; it was not offending to me in any way, shape, or form. That was waay before anyone knew anything about Mahalo, but this industry had an uproar about what he wrote back then. Just that a few of us didn't see anything really inherently wrong with what he said. I still don't see what the fuss is about.

To each his own I guess. :)

[SEFL]

That's because what was inherently wrong wasn't what he said, but the reaction of the majority. ;)

Actually, my only issue with it was that he backed down from it for a while. He should have stayed on it. He was right, and that's what really bothers people...not that it was inciteful, but that it was insightful.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
And yeah, I totally agree with Adam about the issues of JC being hated in this industry and that biases come about because of this. It really is truly amazing stuff though.Until Malapony.com, I'd never heard of this fella, and still know only what's been reported here - i think i followed one, maybe two links to other mentions from here.

As always, I judge sites entirely on what I see; why would it matter who thought of it, funded it, or designed it?

I've also consistently argued that the 'spam' issue is a side show.

What matters is what the site says it's doing, and what it really is doing.

And close inspection shows that it adds nothing - unless you like lists of someone's favorite sponsored sites.

It does nothing that several other 'human powered' search engines haven't already done - and failed at.

And as the percentage of 'Internet newbies' shrinks, so the market for pre-packaged site lists is shrinking.

It's a 'nothing new' site with less than honest linking policies, and it deserves to fail.

Sadly, it may make a fair few bucks before it eventually disappears up its own fundament.

[chrishirst]

Originally posted by Dave Hawley
I challenge both Adam and Doug to find one piece of Text from .here (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353) that gives exceptions to hidden links.

If your site is perceived to contain hidden text and links that are deceptive in intent, your site may be removed from the Google index
This says that NOT ALL HIDDEN links are considered spam

If you do find hidden text or links on your site, either remove them or, if they are relevant for your site's visitors, make them easily viewable

If you are continuing do this "all hidden links are spam routine" then

SEO Consultants & DevGuru are spamming along with many thousands of sites, including my site and several sites that I have built.

I honestly fail to see the difference between a CSS / DHTML menu using display:none that is made visible by a mouse action by the user, and this issue over a link that is made visible by a print/print preview action by the user.

If the print link is spam then so are CSS menus.

There is absolutely no SE gain to be had from a link, hidden or otherwise that is to the same page
It's one thing for PR to be a recursive function, it's something entirely different to force closed feedback loop iterations by trying to calculate an increase in the value when including itself in the calculation.
The same is true with anchor text which is of value for both the page it is on AND the page it links to. Does this mean that a self-referential link doubles the weight value of that text?
I don't think so.

[Danny]

There is absolutely no SE gain to be had from a link, hidden or otherwise that is to the same page Mahalo is not always linking to the same pages...

The hidden link on http://www.mahalo.com/Abraham_lincoln
points towards http://www.mahalo.com/Abraham_Lincoln which is a different URL.

[SEFL]

Danny, this has already been explained. This isn't Mahalo spamming: it's a bug in the Mediawiki software, and the links have already been posted that clearly show why that is.

We also all agree (I think) that Mahalo using free software is silly when they should build their own, but having done the same thing recently (albeit for entirely different reasons), I can understand their thinking. They're going to have to deal with it at some point, but it's understandable.

[Dave Hawley]

This says that NOT ALL HIDDEN links are considered spam No it doesn't! It says that not all hidden links will get you banned.

If you are continuing do this "all hidden links are spam routine" then

SEO Consultants & DevGuru are spamming along with many thousands of sites, including my site and several sites that I have built.Please read all my posts if you must debate. I have bought this up myself many times.

There is absolutely no SE gain to be had from a link, hidden or otherwise that is to the same page Again, please have the courtesy to read all my posts if you are to disagree. Whether spam is successful is irrelevant in defining it, but could be when Google review the site/page for a ban or penalty.

And people wonder why I post the same things more than once

[Dave Hawley]

But anyway; What you seem to want Google to do is to spell out Every single instance where a hidden link is not spam. Why would they want to help the spammers by telling them when a hidden link is not spam? I don't need the google guidelines to spell things out to me as I just use common sense to know what is spam and what is not spam.Not not all.

1) Hidden links are outside the Google guidelines as such are spam. Not my words, but Google's.
2) Not all spam gives a SEO advantage, or works.
3) Not all spam fools Google. Likely only about 1% does.
4) Not all spam will result in a penalty or ban. Likely only about 1% does.

[Dave Hawley]

<noscript> tags are used frequently all over the web. Links in those tags are hidden links. Are they spam? Or doesn't it make a difference how or why the link or links are in that tag?I am so glad YOU bought that up Doug. From Googles page on hidden links that you state you have read and understood!Javascript: Place the same content from the Javascript in a no script tag. If you use this method, ensure the contents are exactly same as what is contained in the Javascript and that this content is shown to visitors who do not have Javascript enabled in their browser.
There are many, many things to look at with every instance of "hidden links".Yes, but only Google can do that and can only do that if/when they review the site.

[Dave Hawley]

If it's linking to the same page it's living on (that's being printed out) it's not spam.Actually Deb, that is still spam, technically. Will it game the SE? Unlikely. Will it results in a ban or penalty? Unlikely.

Google cannot AFFORD to leave hidden link spam left up to individual interpretations, or ask the site owner what their intent is! That's why they state what they have in black in white. The ONLY interpretation that counts is Googles and they ONLY time they excercise their interpretation is when/if manually reviewing.

[Dave Hawley]

Danny, this has already been explained. This isn't Mahalo spamming: it's a bug in the Mediawiki software, and the links have already been posted that clearly show why that is.Excused more like it. So what if the spam is the result of software? Site owners ARE held accountable for their own sites. That's a total cop out and lame, just as the excuse of but their are many sites out there with the same spam.

[ihelpyou]

Gawd Dave; you are splitting more and more hairs with each post you make on this subject. Now I'm thinkin you just want this thread to keep going and going just like the energizer bunny. :)

The thread that would not die.

Now things are "technically" spam but will not get you a penalty or ban.

Let's see what we now have:

Real spam.
technically spam
not spam unless reviewed
individual spam
group spam
real spam and no intent
real spam with intent

is that about right? :D

[Dave Hawley]

Not quite, but you are nearly right.

Some spam is intentional.
Some spam is unintentional.
Some spam works.
Some spam doesn't.
Some spam will fool Google.
Some spam will not fool Google.
Some spam will not result in a ban or penalty.
Some spam will result in a ban or penalty.

Regardless, Mahalo, like most sites on the WWW, has some spammy elements to it.

BTW, as you are only JUST reading what I've already stated many times, I guess you are reading my post just like you read the Google Guidelines. That is, with one-eye closed and you only read what suits you.

Anyway, I'm done with Mahalo and wont be commenting in this thread on Mahalo's spam again. Unlike yourself though Doug I mean what I say and walk the talk :D

[ihelpyou]

{wipes brow}

walks away and waves niteyNight.

[SEFL]

Dave, it's not about what suits Doug or I or anyone else. It's about what makes sense for the majority.

Let's take two-tiered menu systems for example. Submenus, containing links, are "hidden" initially; however, on some form of mouse event, the submenu is revealed.

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menus/drop_definition.html

There's an example.

Is that spam? Let's assume, on the basis of what you want to believe, that it is. Okay, it's spam. Evil, nasty spam. The links are hidden, so it must be spam.

Now, Let's assume I take that menu and put that menu on my site. I change the links, but leave the code and concept pretty much the same. So now, I've spammed.

You decide that you're going to tell me I'm spamming. Or Google does. Or someone who interprets the guidel