Mahalo Human-Powered Search Engine

[ihelpyou]

I'm creating a new forum for this new search engine. I feel it's significant as it is backed by lots of vested monies from people like the Dallas Mavericks owner... Mark Cuban, and Sequoia Capital Investments, etc. This means it is something to watch with interest.

Jason Calacanis is the person behind it. You can view his blog here:

www.calacanis.com

The front page of Mahalo:

www.mahalo.com

The press release:

http://www.mahalo.com/Mahalo_PR

They will pay you to help with search results:

http://www.calacanis.com/2007/06/13/mahalo-greenhouse-launches/

[Quadrille]

I like their attitude - but not their directory.

For me, the 'Guide's Choice' is termnal; it's a way of attracting volunteer editors, by hinting that they can plug their own site.

ODP did it, and the internal arguments raged for years.

A decent directory delivers what the USER wants, not what an editor thinks.

Also, this 'human powered search engine' stuff is just plain silly, and it's not the first time I've seen such a claim - remember ChaCha?

They are young yet, and have time to learn. I wish them well, as they seem to have 'good heart'. But beyond Beta, heart will not be enough, I fear!

[ihelpyou]

Well, that is how I saw it when I first heard of it. But now I see they are backed by big-time people who don't back new things so easily. They have the big bucks to make a good go at it.

I am leary of some results I am seeing so far, but it's new so I'm willing to do the wait and see thing.

Anyone who can sell something to AOL for 25 million is not someone I would bet against. .... jason calacanis did that.

[WebSavvy]

AOL? LOL. In a word, AOL = desperate. They've always been desperate because their SE isn't any good. They'll never be anything near Google, Yahoo, or MSN.

The idea of a human edited directory spidering more pages from sites they index, isn't a "new idea" either. WebSavvy started that TWO YEARS ago and our bots name is Savvybot.

Really, I've looked at this new ... hybrid, or whatever, and honestly wasn't impressed at all.

Things change over time so maybe this will develop into something? Who knows?

[ihelpyou]

No. Not spider at all. It's all human. All results are hand picked that I can see. At least the terms they have done so far. Like I said in the other thread, I can't bet against Mark Cuban who is an investor. He doesn't make mistakes. I also can't help but like this Jason as he's not afraid to speak his mind.

[Mel66]

LOL Doug, doesn't surprise me that you like him. Sitting in front of a room full of SEOs and saying that "SEO is bull***" takes a lot of cahones. :D

I like the concept of Mahalo, but how can it possibly scale? That's my big question.

Melissa

[LikeMike]

It's going to be really interesting to see how this works out since they say in their press release that they are just in month 5 of a five year project. They realize it's going to take a good long time to go through all the processes to make it really successful if they ever do. Sure human search isn't new but obviously they're going to put a bunch of new spins into it to make it work. :cheers:

[ihelpyou]

Yep Melissa, ya got it. I've been saying for along time you have to do more than just SEO, and is exactly why most clients we get have the total redesign. Why get a site ranked on page one when it cannot sell to begin with? I'm just a believer that you cannot simply "SEO" a site,... whatever that means, as I believe it starts with the basic design.

Besides, he disses on ALL SEO's, and I diss on SEO spammers. Neither one of us is afraid to do so. We have the same goals when it comes down to it. :)

[SEFL]

There's a difference between SEOs and SEO spammers these days?

[Quadrille]

Mahalo is the world's first human-powered search engineOh yeah?
A more original slogan may help ...

1. Wikiasari (http://search.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)

Human Powered Search Engine (http://www.thewhir.com/blogs/isabel-wang/index.cfm/2006/12/23/Goodbye-to-SEO)

2. Jatalla (http://www.jatalla.com/)

Human powered Search Engine (http://blog.achille.name/search-engines/jatalla-the-humam-powered-search-engine/)

3. ChaCha (http://www.chacha.com/)

Human Powered Search Engine (http://seo.seocompany.ca/human-powered-search-engine/)

4. Sproose (http://www.sproose.com/)

Human powered Search Engine (http://eisabainyo.net/weblog/2007/06/04/sproose-human-powered-search/)

Insulting SEOs was a masterstroke; they are a sensitive bunch and that was guaranteed to get loads of free, uncritical publicity - they were so upset by being insulted, that few even looked at the proposal at all, it seems ;)

[WebSavvy]

Yeah, Adam. And the difference looks like this:


$,$$$,$$$
¢

[WebSavvy]

OK, maybe they should change that to:

Mahalo is the world's 5th human-powered search engine.

:p :p :p

[ihelpyou]

yeah. The difference is that those others were not backed by Mark Cuban and Sequoia and other major people who also happened to back Larry and Sergey with $100,000 when they were called "backrub". Then were given LOTS more bucks later on.

I won't bet against those investors with anything they do.

[Connie]

I won't bet against those investors with anything they do.
Do you mean those investors can do no wrong?

[Dave Hawley]

Mahalo is the world's 5th human-powered search engineNo Deb, they are just the ones that can be found. There are likely hundreds more that never got past 1st base :)

[Quadrille]

They have humans with less imagination than machines - which is theoretically impossible.

Look up your favorite TV program - most of the results - so far - are standard wikipedia, IMDB, Google image ... etc etc ... not one interesting page by someone who cares, just a long list of corporate sites.

Even Google gives the 'little guy' a chance to get on page one.

No wonder CBS, Murdoch, etc., got in line to invest. They will get all the referrals!

And the bad news is, few people will bother to use such a site, if the results are so, er, boring.

BTW:
mahalo.com/Special:Search?search=Human+Powered+Search+Engine (http://www.mahalo.com/Special:Search?search=Human+Powered+Search+Engine)

[ihelpyou]

Okay. We've been having this debate in "private" about hidden links on the Mahalo site in the CSS file. I've stated my opinion that it's just silly mistakes by the programmers and truly no big deal. It does not help with search engines at all IMO, and is just not what I call search engine spam. Besides, I see "no intent" to spam at all.

Here is the code in question:
<div class="printfooter">
Retrieved from "<a href="http://www.mahalo.com/Abraham_Lincoln">http://www.mahalo.com/Abraham_Lincoln</a>"</div>
#siteSub,.urlexpansion,.hiddenStructure,.mainLegend,.printfooter,table.collapsed tr.collapsable,#p-logo h5 {
display:none;
}
Some mods are saying it's spam, and some moderators are saying it's not spam.

I wanted to make this public as the programmers "could" have done things differently, so maybe they can fix this to avoid the confusion. :)

[ihelpyou]

Oh; there are other pieces of code that other mods can post in here so they know what some other issues are.

[Quadrille]

You can cut these things several ways; I also judge spam by intention, and there's no compelling evidence of that at all, in my view.

Also, all the links 'in question' are internal site links. I know some will argue that they could be spam, but in my book, the worst a hidden internal link could conceivably be is plain old-fashioned stupid. That's worst case. Any SE gain is trivial, fictional or wishful thinking.

While I have serious (and growing) doubts about this site, documented here and elsewhere, I don't count spam among them.

[SEFL]

Since I just emailed Jason the thread link and since he may participate, there are two other issues that came about:

http://www.mahalo.com/abraham_lincoln redirects to http://www.mahalo.com/Abraham_lincoln , which in turn shows the same content (sans redirect) as http://www.mahalo.com/Abraham_Lincoln . I'm inclined to think this is a bug, but others disagree.

http://www.mahalo.com is indexed in Google, whereas users are redirected to http://www.mahalo.com/Main_Page . Since there's no caching of the index page, it's impossible to tell if this is an SEO trick or just a goofy feature within the Mediawiki software that powers Mahalo, according to Jason.

Anyway, he's been emailed the thread and we'll see what he has to say (if anything).

Oh yeah...and I agree with Quad about the intent. I think the printfooter thing was done for print reasons.

[Connie]

Oh yeah...and I agree with Quad about the intent. I think the printfooter thing was done for print reasons
I agree with that sometimes. But as Google continues to rewrite their guidelines and even link to pages with additional information, I think intent becomes less of an excuse.

When Google tells you to avoid hidden links and text on one page, and advises you to remove them on a more detail page, I don't think intent comes into play.

If you have hidden links you are in violation of the guidelines. If your violating the guidelines you are guilty of SE Spam IMO.

In addition to the issues already listed the graphics on the front page, link to a specific product page, with a different URL than the actual product page.

The print footer link (hidden link) links to the correct URL.

For instance the Piano graphic links to http://www.mahalo.com/Image:Piano_lm_061407.jpg which is a duplicate page to http://www.mahalo.com/Piano.

The hidden link on http://www.mahalo.com/Image:Piano_lm_061407.jpg
links to the correct URL.

There seems to be several instances of this.

Since those images are right next to category pages I would expect them to link to the category page, not a specific product. At least they should use the correct URL from the image link.

On the print footer tell me one reason why anyone would print those pages? I certainly would not waste the paper or ink. There is nothing on the pages to benefit the average user.

Why the hidden link? My understanding is there are other ways to accomplish the same thing without the hidden link.

Who is to blame when they use a bad SEO who gets their site banned? The ignorant webmaster who hired them, or the SEO who did the actual work?

I think Google has indicated, regardless of who does the work the webmaster is responsible.

Anyone who is going to make derogatory remarks about SEOs, should take care to have their own house in order (even though I agree with a lot of what Jason has said about SEOs).

Since Jason has been emailed a link to this thread, he can no longer claim ignorance to the problems that have been brought up.

I'm not a programmer but I would think most of the issues could be resolved fairly quickly if they are just programming errors.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by Connie
Anyone who is going to make derogatory remarks about SEOs, should take care to have their own house in order (even though I agree with a lot of what Jason has said about SEOs).And that's fair comment!

[ihelpyou]

Yes; very fair comment!

I make derogatory statements about "SEO's" as well, and I know there are bugs, etc, and maybe coding mistakes in "our" new site "right now" that I have not found or discovered yet.

Yes; Google blames the website owner, but that is my whole beef with this industry! The fact that blackhats are giving a free pass to be speakers at conferences, and they also are allowed to advertise their wares and roam freely with impunity is something I've spoken out against for years. And also the the fact that I agree with Calacanis about the status of "SEO only" as I really don't feel it's the future at all.

I just want him to get the programmers to fix the issues. I don't believe for one second there was intent to spam the se's, but I can see where some may think it's spam. It's not spam IMO though. The issues should be fixed.

[Dave Hawley]

Agree with Connie. I don't believe spam is ever about "intent" and it would seem Google agree going by past history. Many, many sites have been banned for spam when all they did was unknowingly hire a black hat parading as a legit white hat.

The site in question is spamming. Period.

[ihelpyou]

Dave; did you look at the code real well? I did and others did as well and don't see the actual spam in it. It's done for print issues. It's not done in a good way as it could have been done differently, but it's just not se spam IMO. Besides, what benefit is it to se's? I don't see any.

[Connie]

Looking at this from a slightly different point of view.

Put a golf ball in a small basket, and it doesn't take up much space.

Put 10 golf balls in the same size basket and they start to fill the basket.

IMHO there are two many errors (golf balls) on the site to dismiss them, as some of you want to do.

I think there are more problems than what have been pointed out in this thread.

If in the next 30 days the issues that have been pointed out in this thread are corrected, then I will agree there was no intent to Spam.

If those same errors are still there it seems to me a pretty clear case that the intent is to Spam.

Since Jason is aware of this thread it seems to me that the ball is in his court.

[Connie]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Dave; did you look at the code real well? I did and others did as well and don't see the actual spam in it. It's done for print issues. It's not done in a good way as it could have been done differently, but it's just not se spam IMO. Besides, what benefit is it to se's? I don't see any.
The print issue is only one of many things that is wrong with the site.

[Quadrille]

I think there are major problems with the site - but not particularly spammy ones; personally, I simply cannot get excited about internal links, and I'd be very, very, very surprised if Google does either. It's a fight about 'the principal', rather than an issue of substance.

I'm much more worried about their business model - are they steering users to their partners sites? Or are we really supposed to believe they are going to get even richer on below-the fold-adsense?

That's a MUCH more important area than an ambiguous code issue; but I do agree that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", so I hope they clear that up too.

But let's worry about the users before Google ;)

[Dave Hawley]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Dave; did you look at the code real well? I did and others did as well and don't see the actual spam in it. It's done for print issues. It's not done in a good way as it could have been done differently, but it's just not se spam IMO. Besides, what benefit is it to se's? I don't see any. The bit you posted, yes. There would appear to be lot more happening than you posted though Doug.

I have always said that Google are no doubt 10 steps ahead of most spam and spammers, as such there not much SEO benefit in most spam. But, spam doesn't stop being spam for that reason. Just like email spam that gets caught in spam filters, simply doesn't work, or done out of ignorance is still spam.

Having said that. SE's cannot rely on other SEs to have users find them. Like Google have proven, you must have quality results else all you are doing is leading a horse to toxic water.

[Connie]

Originally posted by Quadrille
I think there are major problems with the site - but not particularly spammy ones; personally, I simply cannot get excited about internal links, and I'd be very, very, very surprised if Google does either. It's a fight about 'the principal', rather than an issue of substance.

I'm much more worried about their business model - are they steering users to their partners sites? Or are we really supposed to believe they are going to get even richer on below-the fold-adsense?

That's a MUCH more important area than an ambiguous code issue; but I do agree that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", so I hope they clear that up too.

But let's worry about the users before Google ;)

Personally I think internal linkage is as important as external links.

I agree that a lot of the issues are user related. But, build pages for users not SEs.

It just happens in this case that many of the unfriendly user pages seem to exist for no other reason than the SEs.

[IncrediBILL]

people like the Dallas Mavericks owner... Mark Cuban, and Sequoia Capital Investments

When this stupid idea of his floats like a rock in a pond those people will be called "plaintiffs".

I actually used to do some due diligence and technical analysis for some VC's and I would've told them this project was going to be a still birth, avoid it at all costs.

FWIW, it's not that much different than the original Ask Jeeves and we already have one of them and they bailed on the idea. Additionally, About.com already has people paid to located results by topic.

Nothing new here and it's all a niche idea that would maybe make a small company very good income but I don't see an IPO, or a purchase by the highest bidder, or even a break-even operation.

Can you say "The bank says we're overdrawn!"?

[ihelpyou]

Yes, I know there are many code problems in the site. I just think it's a matter of programmers with not much a clue and not thinking things out. Remember that the site is brand new. I know directly what it's like to launch a new site without all the bugs and tweaks fixed. My current site is in the de-bugging mode right now as I keep finding more and more daily.

If I, being directly involved with se's and coding and looking at different sites daily, and can't find all the bugs in 6 weeks, why do people think that Calacanis and others in charge would be daily looking for bugs? They wouldn't be.

I agree that he now knows about this, so let's give some time in order to fix things. I still say "not spam" at all. It's a case of clueless programmers not understanding implications of bad code. It's silly mistakes, and certainly not search engine spam as I know it. I think I know spam when I see it. :)

As far as the business model goes, I'm willing to give them time to find out. The money people are giving it five years or so. Something 2 weeks into it is not enough time to pass judgement. What we see today is not what we will see in one month and one year, and so on.

[ihelpyou]

I was just informed that the Wikipedia site has the VERY SAME errors in the site. LOL

It appears that the software script is HORRIBLE and the programmers do NOT know how to fix it/hack it to make it better. LOL

A case of the software developer being clueless, and then the programmers implementing the script being clueless as well. This is very typical of these type "shelf" scripts not in the right hands.

Duplicate content issues throughout the site... both Wiki and mahalo. Front page redirects of the very same thing. Upper and lower case url's with same content...... ALL STUPID STUFF that a truly GOOD programmer would know about and fix easily.

Too funny.

My thoughts are that with all the money and names behind this, they could have hired the "right" programmers to implement things. Matter of fact, they could have hired people who would have built them a custom script for the sites that is both user friendly and search engine friendly.

Further; I had started a thread along time ago here:

http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24413

.. the first of February. I agree with most of what Jason says about our industry. I agree that SEO IS the design and you don't need to hire a SEO "afterwards". BUT: it only works if the site design and structure is built right to begin with. I'm quite surprised they did not research people thoroughly to build this new search engine.

[SEFL]

That's a lot easier said than done, Doug. The problem with researching potential employees is that you can do all the homework you want and still mess it up 19 times out of 20. Most people are grossly mismatched for the job they're in; either they're underqualified, apathetic, street stupid, or usually a combination of the above.

[ihelpyou]

yeppers. Very true.

JC really should have researched better IMO though. Something as important as this deserves that. Also; reading all the stuff out there about his take on the "SEO" industry and that the site design is really all you need; he should just have been more careful about the design/structure of things. If the designer/programmers built it right the first time, no need to hire someone else later, which is what Most owners out there have to do, and is the main reason why these "SEO only" types even exist in the first place. :)

But yes; totally agree. Most don't know enough to even know how to research "good" people, and that includes people/owners who do have lots of monies and investors. Fast forward about ten years into the future, or sooner, and I'll bet my bottom dollar SEO only's will not exist.

[SEFL]

Update on the printfooter issue: the original issue is not Mahalo's doing. It's definitely part of the horrible MediaWiki software.

http://www.valuewiki.com/w/Main_Page

http://www.pminmo.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

So the only thing Mahalo is guilty of, assuming we all see it as a flaw, is not removing the code. It wasn't put there by Mahalo for spammy reasons; it's part of the Mediawiki software.

It also appears that something Danny thought was done for spam reasons is part of the Mediawiki software as well (i.e. users being sent to Main_Page and Googlebot being sent to the root):

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLF,GGLF:2006-19,GGLF:en&q=site%3avaluewiki%2ecom

I'm not sure about the upper/lower case thing, although it certainly wouldn't surprise me if that were a Mediawiki issue at well at this point.

Having said all of that, I'm still not convinced that this thing is going to fail. Like Doug says, the people backing it aren't stupid. But their programming team (assuming they have one) has their work cut out for them.

[ihelpyou]

As we thought all along; a case of naive programmers either too lazy or just not smart enough to "fix" the software. OR: they are still tweaking things as it's just launched.

It is funny however that Wikipedia also has the very same code problems, so their programmers are no better than "Mahalo's". :D

[SEFL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_rock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Rock

Like that one? :D

They even have the same code issue:

<div class="printfooter">
Retrieved from "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Rock">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Rock</a>"</div>


Wow...I think we're the first group of people that have torn apart Wikipedia's code in this much detail. We're such nerds!

[ihelpyou]

Yep. Both are almost exactly alike which explains things totally.

What it does not explain however; is why the Wiki and Mahalo just trusted "another's" script without knowing what the implications are of doing so.

Even the use of "underscores" in page and folders is not good in my opinion, and old school stuff.

BOTH sites should be fixed.

[IncrediBILL]

What we see today is not what we will see in one month and one year, and so on.

How true, I think we'll see:
"Server not found.
Firefox can't find the server at www.mahalo.com"

They call it "human powered search" which is a fancy name for a DIRECTORY with a search button on it.

Yahoo did it already and more or less pushed it aside as their old ugly cousin nobody wanted to see anymore.

DMOZ did it too, need I go on or is that a good enough example that it's doomed?

[SEFL]

Bill, I very rarely disagree with you (mostly because I'm scared you're gonna go on a drunken hot-food-eating firebreathing rampage and take out most of Southern California.) But in this case, there aren't enough examples in the world to convince me that it is...yet.

1) It's not in its final stage, and none of us have any idea what that is going to be.

2) There are some features in it (e.g. warnings of popup windows) that can be of use. There aren't a lot of those, but the few features that are there are already more than 99.999% of other directories offer (by the way, I agree with you that it's a directory masquerading as a search engine.) If they can build those out and add more, then hey, it might be on to something.

3) The people backing it have deep pockets and their brains are at least on a par with their money.

4) They're smart enough to hire editors rather than let anyone edit anything (Wikipedia's biggest flaw).

5) We're having this discussion. It's already marketed well enough for everyone to bury it into the ground, and the marketing hasn't even really started yet.

Now isn't the time to judge. Now is the time to be aware, but not judge. What they do next will go much further in dictating where they end up, and then we can judge.

[IncrediBILL]

3) The people backing it have deep pockets and their brains are at least on a par with their money.

Well, I'll bet these investors and bankers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070614/en_music_eo/aa2bc7b0000e_41a0_afc2_2dbd92a20b46) were smart too, doesn't mean they picked a winner.

I'll admit it could turn into something, but the odds are stacked against it IMO.

[Dave Hawley]

Doug and Adam, I don't think anyone is denying it stands a chance, of course it does. However, the odds are not in its favor IMO. I haven't read anything of substance that states otherwise. It offers nothing unique or useful IMO.

No investor is perfect and they all make bad investments, some intentionally for their own reasons (often tax). I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the case here.

As I said, investors (like punters) sing loud and long about their good investments and softly and short about their bad ones.

Now isn't the time to judge. Now is the time to be aware, but not judge. What they do next will go much further in dictating where they end up, and then we can judge.Actually, now is always the time to judge, in the future "where they end up" is a fact.

[Blue]

Originally posted by SEFL
That's a lot easier said than done, Doug. The problem with researching potential employees is that you can do all the homework you want and still mess it up 19 times out of 20. Most people are grossly mismatched for the job they're in; either they're underqualified, apathetic, street stupid, or usually a combination of the above. So, they'd be:

street under-stupa-theti-fied!

:rolleyes:

[g1smd]

On the Tube today in London (that's the "Subway" to you 'mericans), I saw a lady carrying a bright purple case with the word mahalo in giant text and then underneath it had ukulele in smaller text.

It looks like the trademark for "mahalo" has already been issued to someone else, but the morons didn't buy their company name domain name in .com! How stupid is that?

There may be trouble ahead when they find out that someone else now has it.

[Quadrille]

So are you suggesting she carried a ukele ... or a sub-machine gun?

[Danny]

It looks like the trademark for "mahalo" has already been issued to someone else, but the morons didn't buy their company name domain name in .com! How stupid is that?
Maybe because the name was already taken.
Back in 1998 maholo.com was already registered.
Lol, it used to be a porn site :)
If these guys are lucky, they may stil have some referrals .. whooohaaa

[g1smd]

Nice find.

[ihelpyou]

Maholo or Mahalo?

[Danny]

Mahalo

[Sambit]

Today, I came through an article regarding Mahalo that why SEO's would be so vocal in opposing.

And the reasons given are "No control over the listings" and
"People that are not search saavy will use Mahalo".

[Irony]

People who are not search savvy won't know it exists, especially if they choose to be hostile to SEOs. It's SEOs who made Google what it is now, by noticing it for its benefits, and talking about it.

Sheesh! First, they use a crap script with elements of mild SE spam built into it, though they could afford a custom built solution, now they are ordering stupid articles. They should look at themselves instead of sneering at all SEOs. If only they'd hired an SEO expert to assess the script, there wouldn't have been the noise here about their stupid hidden links and all... but of course, this Jason Calacanis hates SEOs, so no wonder he acts this way.

Keep up the good work is all I can say, and then we can indeed see a 404 page there soon.

[ihelpyou]

Well, all of that is normal and standard on the internet from my end. I see LARGE companies with endless amounts of money taking shelf scripts and running with it regardless of how stupid it is for search engines. Firms are all the time hiring people who just don't get it, and they find out later that they screwed up. Mahalo is no different than many out there now.

Look at the Sony Corporation? They have many, many site properties. They hire "only" university degree types that were course taught in web design and coding, etc. They hire marketing people with degrees and run with it. This is all fine and dandy and it does work for the most part, but ooner or later these websites come to the conclusion that something is very wrong with their site because they are this BIG company with really no presense in something like Google. They realize they have a prob and seek out to find out what the hell is wrong "later".

That happened to Sony. They researched people to help them. They interviewed quite a few. They chose "me". LOL "Me" with NO damn college degree whatsoever. Me and my guys had to walk through the website explaining what they needed to fix and change.... and change and fix. Now the site property is doing just dandy in Google. Not talking about sony.com though... another one.

My point is that large firms will only see things later than sooner. They just think they have the right people already. Mahalo is no different.

Oh yes; it takes a guy with guts to blast the SEO industry, that's for sure. The thing is though, he's right on quite a few fronts. But I DO agree that he should have built the site differently and should have been much more careful about "how" he built it because he did step on toes. .... not how HE built it, but more careful about who he/they chose to build it and the implemention they chose to use. :)

I still say we have to take a "wait and see" attitude with them. It just launched and is in "alpha". Heck, my new site is in "beta" still.

[Irony]

Sony don't claim they have built a .... erm... hmm.... search engine, Doug :) That's one little difference.

Guy with guts? You need to join Ecademy and take a look at blogs they keep posting there with things like "SEO nonsense", "SEO bullshit", etc, mentioned in every second blog. They just insult the whole bunch of SEOs lightly and don't care that there are SEOs and SEOs. Calacanis does the same.

It's okay to hate spammers (you know I do) and folks who spread BS and wrong ideas about what SEO is and is not. But simply saying "I hate all SEOs" is a crap approach, and Calacanis has proven it by applying the same crap approach to his new project he is so hopeful about. Now, instead of fixing things, he keeps bashing SEOs who are actually trying to help him.

I'm not seeing any bravery here, just foolishness.

And one more thing. Even if I could control their listing, I wouldn't add my site to their "search engine" or "directory" or whatever they think they have built (most likely, a new, much smaller and worse version of Wikipedia). They need to earn the honor of having my site first.

:D

[ihelpyou]

Yes, but my point being that MOST large firms with money don't know "how to build" a site the right way "in general". Doesn't matter if a search engine or regular site.

Yes; I agree they have to "earn" the respect. But I also know it's in Alpha which means they are building it, so I'm willing to give it time. :)

[Irony]

I'd be willing to give them time too, Doug, but they need to sit quietly, work on their bugs and build something to look at. Claiming they have already built something great and publishing stupid stuff about SEOs is not the best way to earn respect.

I hate people who twist and turn, and I hate dirty politics.

[Danny]

they need to sit quietly, work on their bugs and build something to look at So true.
Currently any discussion about them could be as short as the one when Jimmi Wales announced Wikiasari (http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=24045)

It's the very same idea, very same concept, very same air balloon

[SEFL]

Sorry, Irina, but I gotta disagree with something you said. The biggest myth going is that SEOs built Google. Google built Google. SEOs may have found out about it, and have been trying to manipulate it since the get-go, but ultimately what built Google was what Google did for itself.

The major issue I have with that statement is the part that usually comes after it..."SEOs built Google, and we can break it if we want." No group of people, no matter how large, is going to break Google unless that group is the regular userbase that is incredibly loyal to it (and justifiably so). This is one of those statements that just has to stop being said.

As far as Mahalo goes, Doug is right again. Right now, what they appear to be focusing on is what they think is the bigger picture i.e. the content. They're still a long way from that goal, but that's where they are right now. Not only that, they probably weren't even aware of the flaws in the Mediawiki script until we as a group discovered them and pointed them out to Calacanis. I'm willing to wait to see what happens there, although I suspect that won't be their primary goal either. As Doug pointed out, big wheels turn very, very, very slowly and it could be years before we see that. At least now we know they're not intentionally spamming, and I'd rather see bad code than spammy code myself (I'd rather see neither actually, but if I had to pick, bad code is the way to go.)

As far as Calacanis insulting SEOs and acting high and mighty is concerned, I'll say again what I said in the beginning: either he's a master tactician or completely out of his mind, and I believe the former. What better way to ensure that something you're building won't get spammed to death than to alienate the first group that would come along and spam it? And what better way to do that than to insult them, knowing full well that most SEOs have incredibly fragile egos stemming from insecurities associated with their not having a clue in the first place? He's a puppet master, and most SEOs are on the wrong end of the strings.

Oh yeah, and it doesn't hurt that he was right...people hate the truth.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by Danny
Currently any discussion about them could be as shortDon't you believe it; this one will run and run!

First, go see the entry on the wayback machine (http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.mahalo.com) (no porn now); it's so funny seeing a mom'n'pop owned porn site (well, pop, anyway) failing because they couldn't get apache to play ... follow through nine versions in order!

Then look at ALL the sites that have used the slogan "Human-Powered Search Engine" - all have eventually faded away, as they can only survive on the Internet naive, a smaller and smaller proportion of web users as each year passes.

Some make a quick buck on the way, but all die as the users, sooner or later, think "Hold on, I want to SEARCH the web, not get a list of this guy's favorite sponsors".

And their secondary slogan "We're here to help", is shared with many others, including the Scientology Volunteer Ministers.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by SEFL
either he's a master tactician or completely out of his mind, and I believe the former.I'm not convinced. He's either out of his depth, or taking very bad advice.

For all his millions and - it seems - hypnotic charisma, he chooses to use an open source program with multiple bugs, NOT for the purpose intended, and then gets some monkeys to tweak it, aiming to follow a rainbow that has been followed several times before, and found no yellow brick road, no Judy Garland and no crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. Just the crock.

If his name was Joe Normal, would you really, really believe this guy was going to score big time?

[Irony]

Adam, I know that Google built Google, but it is also true that SEOs have contributed a lot to its popularity. I don't claim we can destroy it. I hope it will exist and flourish, because I use it all the time as a searcher.

Are you, too, in the "all SEOs are bad and there's nothing wrong about insulting them" camp? I thought you knew better, considering you do SEO too.

Blackhats will spam this new thing anyway. They spam everything - things they love and things they hate. The more they hate something, the more they spam it. But alienating the best part of our industry is not smart IMO.

Not only that, they probably weren't even aware of the flaws in the Mediawiki script until we as a group discovered them and pointed them out to Calacanis.

... for which this group probably deserves a thank you, but receives a slap on the face instead.

Adam, you are usually the first to criticize things like poor design and point out the importance of quality architecture for SEO (from the start). Well, maybe Doug is actually the first, but then you are the second. But when it comes to Mahalo, you suddenly say things like "they appear to be focusing on is what they think is the bigger picture i.e. the content". Hmmm?

Oh yeah, and it doesn't hurt that he was right...people hate the truth.

Right about what? This?

And the reasons given are "No control over the listings" and
"People that are not search saavy will use Mahalo".

It's dirty PR, Adam, no more, no less. Paint it whatever you wish, it's still it.

There is no reason at all to praise this project yet, apart from guys with big pockets behind. No reason at all. Not a properly built site (and if you claim you have built a search engine, you are supposed to know at least the basics of search engines). No really valuable content. Nothing but Calacanis with his arrogance. I absolutely don't understand what exactly impressed you and Doug so much about this site that you keep seeing them as something special. I don't understand it because I know you both... or thought so.

Oh well. Time will tell.

[g1smd]

Their CMS/scripting totally *****. I can't believe what a crock of shite they used to build this. Someone without any clue made the wrong decision there.

[ihelpyou]

Regarding myself; Frankly; I'm the HUGEST NBA fan in the world and watch games in which I have no team to root for. I'm a Cleveland Cavaliers fan myself. :D I've followed Mark Cuban for years and years now, and his most recent success I know of is owning the Dallas Mavericks NBA team. That's just extremely impressive to me. I know that JC has had successes as well. He sold his Weblogs to AOL for something like 30 million. That's also impressive to me. Does success like this in the past ensure success in the future? Hell no, but it gets people like myself to stand up and take notice.

I'm sure I'm one of the few who does not take offense to Jason's comments about SEO because I'm not really that "SEO" thang anymore. I believe the entire site "IS SEO" and believe ALL owners should never have to hire a SEO aftertheFact. That's all. So for "me", I'm absolutely for what he says. I understand there are many good SEO people who only do SEO. I understand that completely. I also do think those SEO's understand when a site is built badly and will recommend the owner start over again. The SEO's I hate are the one's who don't recommend that at all and simply take the owner's money to do "SEO only" to a site that won't sell anything anyway.

I can see both sides clearly. I just happen to like a guy who stands firm for what he believes and does not care what other's think. Sounds familiar. :)

I'm willing to wait to see what happens.

[Irony]

Sports is one thing, Doug, and web properties is another. As much as I worship Michael Schumacher, if he starts claiming tomorrow that he has created a new search engine, invested all his millions in it and it is going to be a success, I'd be very skeptic about it. Especially if he builds it upon MediaWiki, and then starts publishing derogatory crap about SEOs in hope it will get all the bugs in his project fixed. LOL.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, but web properties is how Mark Cuban earned his early monies to build up to buying the NBA team. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban

[Quadrille]

I still don't get it, Doug.

I have my heroes, but I don't follow them blindly. And when they messup, I'm embarassed for them, and have no problem discussing their errors (see ME & Paris Hilton, everywhere :D ) but (usually) they remain my hero. Maybe more so for being only human.

You criticise people for unthinkingly following Sullivan and Whalen ... what's the difference?

[ihelpyou]

I don't get your comparison?

Sullivan and Whalen support spammers by not 'outing' them and allowing them to speak at conferences which gives them added credibility, and also allowing them to freely advertise their wares. Google allows the advertising as well, but they do not directly affect me. People who follow those two are saying that is just fine by them that they support spammers. Those two directly affect the industry I'm in. A search engine or directory of any kind does not do that at all.

That being said; Mahalo claims to not want spam in their directory. If they don't live up to that, I will rethink my stance on the "wait and see" attitude. :)

I did the "wait and see" already for sullivan and whalen. Neither one came through for me at all.

[ihelpyou]

It boils down to the fact I'm willing to give them time and others are not willing. It's that simple, really. Actually; I'm not sure why so many are so against them without any time given? I know about the SEO thing, but is that really it?


It's the same thing I did with that search engine, erm, what the hell is it's name? A guy named "Matt" was the owner, and it was listed on the front page of these forums for awhile until I decided it wasn't going anywhere. What's the name? It's the very same thing I'm doing now with Mahalo.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
I don't get your comparison? I'm not talking about the detail of what they say / do - just the fact that they have an over-loyal fan club!

If Joe Normal had submitted Mahalo to "Site Critique", you'd have ripped them to shreds, pointed out how badly designed the site was, and how poorly advised they had been. Even if you also said "but it's a great idea with potential"

That's the point. Usually, you talk about the site. With Mahalo, you constantly bring it back to the guy.

You haven't made one single criticism of the site - but have defended them (who are rich enough to defend themselves?), every single time someone else does.

I just don't get it.

[ihelpyou]

No? Sure I have in many posts in here and in private.

I've stated a few times how they hired people without thoroughly researching and they hired programmers without a clue. And how the site is badly coded, and how JC needs to make sure they FIX things to avoid the spam confusion stuff.

I think I've done lots of criticising. :)

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
I've stated a few times how they hired people without thoroughly researching and they hired programmers without a clue. And how the site is badly coded, and how JC needs to make sure they FIX things to avoid the spam confusion stuff. Sure you've said that.

But you've said it to excuse the crapola others have pointed out. :)

[ihelpyou]

I've also criticised some results like the term... search engine optimization. I feel the editor of that term simply went through the speaker lists of conferences and wrote down names. LOL

That's another thing that conferences are doing indirectly; They are telling the world that ALL conference speakers are somehow "GOOD" in our industry just because they speak. That's pure BS and very wrong. It's wrong for Mahalo to assume that is true as well, although they don't know any better.

There are many things I can criticise them for, but I still want to "wait and see" as results are being tweaked, and I also want to wait to see if "biases" of editors come out in the end, etc. The whole thing is a big risk to me,... no doubt about it, but I'm still willing to find out what happens.

[ihelpyou]

BTW: Let's assume that Jason Calacanis really does not know all the ins and outs of our industry. I think he would even admit that, right?

Now; we all know the total crap and BS out there in many, many forums and sites and blogs around the internet, and we know the crap that goes on at the conferences..... the back slapping and the SEO who recommends this SEO and that SEO just because they are buddies and hang out at the conferences, right?

We also know all the brown nosing that goes on with people following the sullivan's and the whalen's like little puppy dogs, right?

We also know the places where all the link mongers and SEO's who say that links is the "be all end all" for SEO, right?

We also know the great many sites out there selling SEO services and crap for $29, right?

We also know the great many sites out there who promote other type sites who sell all of these crap linking services and so-called SEO services that are bogus, right?

need I go on and on about this? :D

Okay fine;

Since we all know what goes on continually and does so on a daily basis without stopping, why would anyone think for one second that people who "don't" sit in our industry in a "DIRECT" way and actually sell SEO type services, or even design sites, or do anything like that all,.... why would they think anything other than their idea is that ....... SEO Bites?

Who's fault is it really that people out there in general have a bad taste in their mouth about SEO?

We can scream and rant and rave about others bashing the industry, etc, but what do we all really expect? Just look at the thousands and thousands of sites AND blogs out there that claim they are a SEO?

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=98931&page=16

That place is a busy place. It's hounded by SEO types who think "linking" IS SEO. LOL We know that is just not true, but we are also kind of savvy about SEO and the industry. People not as savvy as we are just kind of assume "wrongly" that SEO is bad. I mean Gosh, just read that silly thread. :green:

In here, we said a very long time ago, and even had a thread about that silly DP COOP link scheme. We all said that it would be found out eventually and taken care of by Google. Google has taken care of it nicely. :D

The thing is; we can sit here and see all the extremely bad stuff in our industry, but unless one finds "THIS PLACE" first, one will find the many other places first instead.

Oh sure; I have to agree with lots of what JC says about the industry, but I do so knowing full well why he comes to those conclusions. I feel it's the industry's OWN DAMN fault for the wrong reputations that are gleamed by others.


BTW: None of the above even mentions the Blackhats and search engine spammers who hurt their clients eventually, of which those clients tell others about their experience with "SEO", which leads to more bad reps about it, which leads people like JC to form his opinions.

I could go on and on about this subject. :)

[ihelpyou]

I can't let this go either:

http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30801

That place allows members to post looking for "hired" help. Read that post.

That poor member really thinks his/her site simply needs some incoming links to do well. That is FALSE. I'll bet big bucks that the site is a mess in many ways. A few links are not going to help it. The thing is, that place closes each of those type threads to where NO ONE can tell that poor member where they are doing very wrong. That member is going to hire some bogus joker to "build links". LOL That member even states that NO content can be wrote for his site. They just want links.

Where did that member come up with this crazy idea about what SEO is? Where does JC and many others come up with their thoughts and opinions on SEO?

It's very clear to me where the fault should fall.

[ihelpyou]

Another one: ... SEMPO.ORG

I noticed that Mahalo is listing that site at the top for the term of ... search engine optimization. LOL

Does JC really know what that org is all about? I doubt it. He just knows that the SES conference and now PubCon and SMX ALL support that silly organization. Does he know that all one has to have is $5000 and they are an instant "INNER CIRCLE" member of SEMPO? I doubt he knows that either.

Does he know that many members in there of many types are search engine spammers? I doubt he knows. That org is simply supported by the major conferences with mouths intertwined and noses of the extra brown color.

All the crap in our industry is OUR fault. No one else is to blame but us. I just cannot fault people who speak out against it as what they see on a daily basis is mostly crapola.




Boy; I sure can get on a roll.....

[Quadrille]

I agree with all of that.

I don't blame 'outsiders' for a second when they knock SEO; the 'industry' does stink, and I couldn't name an industry that's worse in self deception. It's really sad that so few will ever 'point the finger' when it needs pointing.

On the brighter side, I've noticed that the blackhearts are a little less pushy these days, and I've heard from many that even at conferences, fewer speakers 'openly' support SE spam.

And, of course, while Google hasn't won, there is more and more evidence that many tired old tricks are no longer working.

What really makes me happy, however, is that in many forums where outspoken spammers still meet, they are frequently giving mixed messages and squabbling over trivia, because the ground under their feet is getting ever more slippery.

Having said all that, I'm still a little disappointed that someone planning to take the web by storm hasn't bothered to learn the difference between SEO - the legitimate activity - and SE spam.

But I blame the PR company; let's face it, anyone fool enough to organise massive publicity for an "Alpha" launch really doesn't know their ass from their elbow :D

[ihelpyou]

Yep agreed.

Speakers at those things never did 'openly' support se spam. The speakers are given credibility just because they speak though. That's the problem with it. Some of them are spammers themselves and others looking in are assuming they "must" be good, when that is just not true. It's the same thing with SEMPO and other orgs out there.

It's the very same thing in advertising. Anyone can advertise their wares on Google Adwords. Anyone can. Anyone can buy a link on the SEMPO site and ANYONE can buy an exhibit booth at ALL the conferences. ANYONE can. It makes no diff if they are bogus and full of scam and deceit or if they even have one clue about SEO or whatever. They can still buy that damn advertising.

It all stinks. I'm for doing something about it.

[Irony]

Doing something? Okay, great. I thought the purpose of this place was to create a proper knowledge base, the fundamental ideology of ethical SEO, and let everyone know what SEO is REALLY about. I've put a lot of effort into building this knowledge base via my articles, which are nothing but a summary of the philosophy of ethical SEO. They are written to prove that SEO can and should be good, and to show how.

Others here do basically the same through their articles and posts. Some of us run blogs, too, launched for the same purpose exactly. You've launched a newsletter for the same purpose. And then people like this Calacanis dude, who doesn't know how to build a basically search engine friendly site, goes and says "I hate SEOs", without bothering to make a difference between various types of SEOs. Others do more of this, and people get the idea: all SEO is bad and bullshit.

SEO is no bullshit, it's an integral part of quality website building, as is graphic design, code or usability. But the idea has been created. Doug, can't you see that it ruins all our efforts, not helps them?

I know the condition our industry is in, and have written a lot about it myself, as you know. I'm all for highlighting the issues, but not for bashing SEO as such. My goals are exactly opposite. I want us all to be proud of our profession, not ashamed of it, and that's what I work for.

If you are now too in the "I hate SEOs" camp, why don't you rename your forums? Instead of saying "SEO Best Practices Search Engine Forums", shouldn't it be "SEO sukkz folks, let's go have a burger!" What the hell are we all doing here? Why are you targeting SEO-related terms on your website?

Calacanis came up with a piece of poop, he claims it's a diamond, and bashes SEOs for not being willing to recognize a diamond. Sorry, but a piece of poop is a piece of poop. It can yet turn into a diamond one day, but not if Calacanis continues publicizing it and using dirty PR as he is doing now. He needs to get humble about it, and build it. Then I'll be the first to praise him.

This is my last one on the subject - simply because I'm not going to give the piece of poop more free PR.

Cheers.

[ihelpyou]

hmm. It appears you didn't read my posts completely. :) I'm not going to rehash them.

[Irony]

Rest assured I did.

[SEFL]

Irina: I believe that 98-99% of SEOs are about as useful as **** are on a bull. I also feel the same way about 98-99% of web designers. In fact, one of the reasons I got into web design is to provide an alternative to all of the lying and corruption that exists. Let's face it, for every person who thinks like you, me, Doug, Deb, Quad, Hawley, Connie, Bill, etc. there are at least 100 listening to someone like Scott or Boykin and following the voice that tells them what they want to hear like a bunch of lemmings.

These are the same people that Calacanis is, for lack of a better term, attacking. By alienating that crowd, he stands a better chance at succeeding since that same crowd will summarily dismiss any effort he makes and ignore him. Assuming that's what he intended to and based on his track record there's every reason to believe that's what he did intend to do, then that's a brilliant strategy.

As far as content vs. the layout issues are concerned, both are important to consider. I never once said that they weren't. And the idea of Mahalo using the Mediawiki script bugs me.. But the bugs in the Mediawiki software are minor bugs (and no, I'm not counting the printfooter thing as a bug because...well, it's not), a good programmer could probably find and fix them within a day, and the content will take a lot longer to "complete" to the point where they can launch fully.

Does that mean the layout issues shouldn't be fixed? No, that's not what it means at all. They should be fixed. But Mahalo has a much farther journey to take as it pertains to content. And I've always been a believer in doing the hardest thing first.

Like Doug said, "wait and see", and like I say now, evaluate the site as if it's "under construction". Give feedback, but do not judge. It's not finished yet.

[Connie]

First let me point out that the percentages Adam gives are his personal opinion. I think they are wrong.

Second I agree with Irina. I'm really surprised, especially with Doug's attitude about this.

If I had launched something like this, Doug would have torn me apart for the spam issues, and user friendly issues. I would say rightly so.

I agree with a lot of what Jason has said in his criticism of the industry. I disagree when he trys to make it appear that his opinion is a true representation of the industry as a whole.

I do not think, he did that by mistake. I think it was intentional. It was done to create buzz among those that don't like him.

Unfortunately, he is probably alienating good people that could help him. I know he has me, and I'm not directly involved in the industry.

If he cleans his house up, I am willing to reconsider.

In the mean time, he is nothing, but a loud mouth Spammer IMHO, who is seeking what ever kind of publicity he can get.

Why does he need a hidden link for print purposes? I can print any page using the browser file function, or using ctrl p. Neither require a hidden link.

Any one who has accomplished what Jason has is a lot more web savvy than Doug, or Adam seem to give him credit for IMHO.

Clean the star dust out of your eyes and look at the facts.

Jason and all his high powered investors get out of bed and put their pants on on leg at a time just like I do.

Their past achievements are no reason to ignore present mistakes IMHO.

Spam is Spam is Spam. Blame it on the software. It is still Spam. Blame it on ignorance. It is still Spam.

If you think someone like Jason is ignorant of the facts, I have some property I would like to sell you.

Any one who can achieve what he has accomplished is very knowledgeable.

[Dave Hawley]

It's SEOs who made Google what it is now, by noticing it for its benefits, and talking about it.Irina, sorry but that is false. Google is where it is Today mainly because they developed a SE that was super fast and super relevant. The word-of-mouth was from searchers, not SEOs.

[ihelpyou]

I would only trust a few SEO's in THIS PLACE, and just a few more that hang out at other places. I'm talking about a number of which I can count on two hands. That's it. ALL THE REST are simply not worthy IMO. So yes; I'm agreeing with Adam's figures. We are talking about SEO's ONLY here.

I revert back to my many posts about all of this to respond to the posts above. I've stated my opinions about it and I'm sticking to them. If Sony and other major large firms out there have sites that bite, many of you are saying that the owners should have known about all things spam and all things programming? I disagree with that totally.

And as I already stated in a prior post; all these owners know is what they see and hear at the silly conferences and at all the other places out there where spammers hang out and others hang out without a clue. What's an owner suppose to think? ONLY if the owners of sites find places "like this" do they actually get the real scoop.

[Dave Hawley]

I absolutely don't understand what exactly impressed you and Doug so much about this site that you keep seeing them as something special. I don't understand it because I know you both... or thought so.That I agree with! Something is causing both of you both to abandon your core principles, I'm not too sure why or what though?

This site is spamming IMO so when Adam states "At least now we know they're not intentionally spamming" I would like to know who Adam is speaking on behalf of? Also, spam doesn't have to intentional for it to be seen as such by SEs and their definition is the only one that counts. Having said that, I believe they are fully aware of what they are doing....spamming.

[ihelpyou]

Then the Wikipedia is spamming as well as they use the same software. Blame the owner of them as well as it must be search engine spam. :)

We'll have to agree to disagree with this totally. No use in discussing any further as we've all made our points.

[Dave Hawley]

Doug, you have both these quotes;
That being said; Mahalo claims to not want spam in their directory. If they don't live up to that, I will rethink my stance on the "wait and see" attitude.
I've also criticised some results like the term... search engine optimization. I feel the editor of that term simply went through the speaker lists of conferences and wrote down names.Isn't that promoting and condoning spammers??? They are being hand-picked and recommended by them.

[ihelpyou]

BTW ya all; Just a few weeks ago Danny Sullivan's site.. searchengineland.com was called out by another forums as spamming the se's.

Since you all know how much I like Danny, don't ya think I would have OUTED him in here if I truly thought he intentionally was spamming? His site was actually using a h tag inside with descriptive text that was hidden to most except to Google. I didn't call him out on it because I knew damn well he had no idea what the "Programmer" did, nor did he even look.

If I didn't out sullivan in here and call him a spammer, why would I call Calacanis a spammer who knows VERY little about SEO compared to Sullivan?

I only out people/sites in here when it's very clear as to the intent to spam the se's. You all know that about me in here for quite a few damn years now. You also know I would out sullivan in here in a heartbeat if I knew he was spamming. I don't call him a spammer, and I'm not calling Calacanis a spammer either.

Frankly; I'm fascinated by the interest about all of this. Bad programming by people who don't know how to fix off the shelf software is something I see almost every single day. I see this so-called spam every single day as well. I almost "never" fault the owner of the site, but simply let them know what their developer did and tell them to fix it. Why this is getting discussed like this is amazing stuff to me. :)

[ihelpyou]

Dave; I stated to give them time. I'm doing the "wait and see" thing.

If I were to simply do that, I would not be supporting Google either as Google Adwords supports spammers, right? LOL So does the DMOZ directory as you can find spam firms and site throughout it.

[Dave Hawley]

So Doug, you are saying ignorance IS a valid excuse for spamming?

Dave; I stated to give them time. I'm doing the "wait and see" thing.They are only 3 words with stating that attitude vastly outweighed by 1000's of words agreeing and condoning.

[WebSavvy]

hmmm ... if you hire an SEO that adds spam to your site, YOU as the SITE OWNER are still responsible for what lives on your pages, according to the Guidelines at Google -- which you always state should be followed, Doug. No?

If you use software that creates hidden links, regardless of their purpose (they are in fact HIDDEN) and Google says "hidden links are spam" (I don't see any exceptions to the rule printed there and I have looked!) -- what about this situation exonerates the site owner from any responsibility?

Isn't the onus on the site owner to make sure that whatever software, or SEO, or designer, (s)he elects to use, conforms and adheres to the guidelines that are suggested by all three search engines?

I'm sorry, but I don't think they deserve a free pass from spammer camp simply because they have heavy financial backing. That simply doesn't wash and doesn't imply that there should be an equal and fair playing field for all.

If little Mom & Pop sites hire Johnny Blackhat to work on their site, and he adds lots of stuff that no one can see -- whether Mom & Pop did it or not, they're still responsible.

Whether MediaWiki is creating the problems or not, sites using that software are still responsible.

Relate that to the directory search software and it's hidden links. No, the sites using it didn't have any ideas it was there, however, Google showed them no favors when it came time to drop the lot from their index because it was spam, even though it was created by the software.

I haven't looked at MediaWiki from the backend, so have no idea how bad the coding actually is. However, having said that, the problems that these sites are encountering due to sloppily programmed software, isn't hard to fix.

There are a few simple variables that could be added to the top of the page before any HTTP headers are passed, that will get the page location and then follow a PHP directive for what to do next -- sending the user and the SEs both to the desired (SAME) page.

I'm sure he can find someone to fix this problem for him because the fix would take a competent programmer less than 15 minutes to solve.

[Connie]

If I didn't out sullivan in here and call him a spammer, why would I call Calacanis a spammer who knows VERY little about SEO compared to Sullivan?
I didn't call him out either. If I had I doubt that you would have defended him like you have Jason and Malaho.

There is a difference in what happened on Danny's site and Malaho.

As soon as Danny was called out he corrected the mistake.

After looking at Mahalo over several days, they are not correcting the mistake. They just keep on producing more spam as far as I can see.

Doug you are not comparing apples to apples IMHO.

You are making all kind of excuses for Jason and Malaho, that you would not make for any other site.

[Dave Hawley]

If I were to simply do that, I would not be supporting Google either as Google Adwords supports spammers, right? LOL So does the DMOZ directory as you can find spam firms and site throughout it.DMOZ does condone spammers IMO. Google, like most SEs, is objective in their listings and unbias for the large part.

There is no comparison here.

[ihelpyou]

Sorry, I disagree totally and completely.
I didn't call him out either. If I had I doubt that you would have defended him like you have Jason and Malaho.
Nope. Read the webproworld thread who OUTED sullivan for spam. I posted in it saying he knew nothing about it and it was his clueless programmers.

I'm the same damn man I've always been in here and will continue to be. I feel "and so do others" that you all are going too far on this for reasons I can't understand. So I guess we are at a deadend. I'm not replying anymore to this thread as you know my stance. :)

I better keep trying to find all the mistakes my programmers have made on MY NEW site as you all will find them and call me a spammer next.

If I thought that hidden "interior" links was a big deal, we would have thread upon thread of outings in here on a daily basis eventhough the owners would not know a thing about it, nor the programmers. And I thought I cut string long-ways in half at times. :)

[Dave Hawley]

I'm not replying anymore to this thread as you know my stance.That's part of the issue though Doug, we thought we knew your stance and thought is was unbias.

[SEFL]

Dave, all you have to do to figure out whether Mahalo is guilty of spamming (which, as Quad quite rightly pointed out, boils down to intent) is to compare a page on Mahalo to a similar page on Wikipedia.

And before you go off all half-****ed, take a good, hard, and objective look at the pages I'm about to post and compare them.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_floyd

http://www.mahalo.com/Pink_Floyd
http://www.mahalo.com/Pink_floyd

Issue #1: The lowercase floyd leads to the same page with the same content as uppercase Floyd...in both cases.

Issue #2: The printfooter div appears (for print purposes)...in both cases.

Now, if we accuse Mahalo of spamming, we also must accuse Wikipedia of spamming. Furthermore, we must accuse anyone using the Mediawiki script of spamming. Let's face it, not everyone can be guilty of that...it's nothing more than an idiot programmer, or programming team in all likelihood, who installed a script without having full knowledge of its flaws.

The two situations above are situations the Google guidelines won't cover, because the one thing is a bug and the other thing is a print feature (done for the users, and probably with no forethought given to search engines whatsoever).

DMOZ not only condones spammers, it supports them openly, but that's another story.

[WebSavvy]

Adam, I de-linked those live URLs for the simple reason that if they are trying to fix the issue linking to those URLs from here will only create more problems for them.

[SEFL]

Okay, I'm cool with that. I just wanted to make life easier for the people reading this thread, that's all. 'Sall gravy.

[Dave Hawley]

Adam, it is yourself that has already gone off half-****ed. You also apparently haven't read all my posts or answered my questions to you.

Spam is NOT defined by intent, it's defined by the SEs. There has been umpteen cases where Google and other SE's have held ignorant site owners accountable for unknowingly using software, or hired a SEO that caused spam.

It sounds like both yourself and Doug all of a sudden believe ignorance is now an 'out' for spamming. That's one very slippery slope my friend!

[WebSavvy]

Dave, do you ever check your PMs, buddy? :) Sent you one about a week ago. LOL

[SEFL]

Originally posted by Dave Hawley
Spam is NOT defined by intent, it's defined by the SEs. There has been umpteen cases where Google and other SE's have held ignorant site owners accountable for unknowingly using software, or hired a SEO that caused spam.

It sounds like both yourself and Doug all of a sudden believe ignorance is now an 'out' for spamming. That's one very slippery slope my friend!

First off, I never said that ignorance is an out for anything. I said ignorance implies lack of intent, which is clearly the case here. You're right about Google holding site owners accountable for unknowingly using software, as well they should be. In fact, both Doug and I have said that Mahalo should fix the problems with the Mediawiki software, or better yet get rid of it outright. Like most third-party "CMSes", it has significant issues. Give them time to do it, though, and then bitch if they don't.

As far as intent goes...


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.

(Excerpt taken from http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353 ... I added the italics to highlight the pertinent piece).

So intent is a factor in determining the nature of a hidden link or hidden text by at least one of the SEs (probably the rest too), and therefore spam is at least partly determined by intent. It's right there. So the only thing that really matters isn't whether or not spam is defined by intent, but what the intent of the section is.

And the intent is for print purposes. The link shows up on print. Visitors can still see it. No one's getting any different content, other than that based on their choice of medium (screen or print in this case). So I don't understand why most of you have the pitchforks and the torches happening.

[Connie]

I can only say I'm disappointed in Doug's position about this.

I learned about the webmaster guidelines from this forum. I learned a large part of what I know about Spam in this forum.

Now Doug is supporting a Spammer IMHO, and I am disappointed.

I have no financial involvement in the SEO, Webdesign industry. I'm not directly involved.

I do know what Spam is, and at this time Malaho is a spam site for what ever reason.

If they clean it up, I'll change my mind.

Wait and see. What choice do we have? I will be watching to see if they clean the Spam up.

As a business venture I wish them good luck. As long as they are Spamming I will speak out against them.

[Connie]

First off, I never said that ignorance is an out for anything. I said ignorance implies lack of intent, which is clearly the case here.
Tell a cop you were ignorant of the speed zone. Some might let you off. Many will give you a ticket.

How do you know that Jason is ignorant of his Spam?

I don't think he is. I don't think he cares.

[WebSavvy]

Connie's written a "food for thought" type of piece at Spam Whackers (http://www.spam-whackers.com/) where he states his opinions about Mahalo, and then allows the reader to draw their own conclusions from the article. Nicely outlined, and points well-made.

Is Mahalo Spamming? (http://www.spam-whackers.com/blog/2007/06/20/is-mahalocom-spamming/)

[Dave Hawley]

First off, I never said that ignorance is an out for anything. I said ignorance implies lack of intent, which is clearly the case here. You're right about Google holding site owners accountable for unknowingly using software, as well they should be. In fact, both Doug and I have said that Mahalo should fix the problems with the Mediawiki software, or better yet get rid of it outright. Like most third-party "CMSes", it has significant issues. Give them time to do it, though, and then bitch if they don't. You never said those exact words, no. If you had I would have used quotes. You are however playing semantics in defense of Mahalo and making many excuses on their behalf!

And the intent is for print purposes. The link shows up on print. Visitors can still see it. No one's getting any different content, other than that based on their choice of medium (screen or print in this case). So I don't understand why most of you have the pitchforks and the torches happening.Because there is no benefit to humans having these links hidden. You are looking through rose colored glasses Adam and using terms that spammers normally use in their defense. I.e pitchforks and the torches That's VERY rich coming from someone like yourself Adam.

BTW, the page you cherry picked from is used by Google to determine if a site is to be banned from their Index, not to determine if the link is spam. Google VERY rarely ban sites as their algo can neutralize most spam on the fly.

[Connie]

Because there is no benefit to humans having these links hidden.
I agree Dave. Those hidden links do not have to be there for a user to print the page. To say they are there for print purposes is ludicrous. Is that the word I'm looking for? Just looked it up, and yes that is the word.
Laughable or hilarious because of obvious absurdity or incongruity

[Connie]

Thanks Deb.

[ihelpyou]

I am closing this thread. Continue on here please:

http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24413