Anyone heard of Salsa or Top-Pile?

[Emilie]

Hi!

I recently received an email about a company, Top-Pile, and their "great" service, Salsa, which promises to put you on the first page of all major search engines (Yahoo!, AOL, MSN, inktomi etc...). It works like a PPC system, in the sense that you pay for every click-through, but the listings appear in the "normal" section on the listings (i.e. not under sponsored listings, as is the case of Overture).

They called me today and told me it would cost me 5 cents per click for the same keywords I pay Overture over $6.00 for.

What they do is they register a domain and create a mirror of our website which they customize to be ideal for search engines. This website automatically forwards to the real homepage.

I'm attaching their literature.

What do you think of this method? It seems almost too good to be true, which is why it gives me a queasy feeling. Would search engines consider this service to be spam?

How do you think this could affect my position on SE in the long term? Could it be at all harmful?

Thanks for letting me know what you think,

Emilie

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums Emilie! :hi:

You did REAL good by asking in here first! Here is a long thread about them:
http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4095&highlight=TopPile

One of the biggest spammers on the planet and should avoided at all costs. You should send them an email demanding they take you OFF their spam list immediately. They are a scam and a huge spammer.

[Emilie]

Thanks ihelpyou!

I figured as much. I hate these companies who take advantage of small companies who don't have the funds or time to properly research SEO.

Fortunately, we're big enough so that I spend a lot of time doing SEO and knew something was up here but imagine the number of people they're scamming out there. INcredible, some people really have no sense of morals.

I wrote to them this morning quoting (i think) your article that says that using doorways is spamming and asking them how they felt knowing they were scamming lots of people. I asked them to take me off their mailing lists.

Thanks for your answer.

Emilie

[big blue]

I've used Top-Pile for years, and have saved me a fortune, and we are a small company, Its much cheaper than Pay-per-click

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums big blue! :hi:

Yeah right. They get domains banned forever at every turn.

[projectphp]

LMAO. I had to read this forum simply because I wanted to see Doug fire up.

Top-pile have made a career out of doing stuff that is dangerous, risky or free, adn then charging exhorbitant prices for the priveledge.

IMHO, $0.05 is no better than $6 unless the ROI is better, plain and simple. Unless you can track what they do and prove it works, all you are getting is ripped off no matter what strategy an SEO employs.

Big Blue, I am happy it words for you, and if you understand teh risks, good luck to you. But when one day your site is banned or penalised, you will certainly know, i not why, where to strat looking!!!!

[big blue]

Infact your site is not banned from the SE's. Only the Salsa site would be banned ( I've Checked)

With the increased traffic and conversions, the ROI is much better, Also with a yearly price it is much easier to budget for as opposed to bidding etc.

In fact I think it is cheeky that we the consumers are being forced by SE's to use pay-per-click.

I get all the stats and tracking stats that you could possibly want, and they have proved it works. and whats more it is Very cheap, It is Effective and is all automated.

Hell I would'nt usually care, but it does work, so save some money like I did.

[MakeMeTop]

>Infact your site is not banned from the SE's.

Want to bet?

Theoretically, you are right - as it is the SALSA site that is doing the spamming. However, I know of at least two instances of people who have had their main site penalized as a result of "innapropriate redirect pages" linking to them. Both used SALSA.

Still, your business decision.

And who did you check with? Not SALSA, I hope.

I know for a fact that certain SEs will give you a very different answer.

[big blue]

You have to differentiate between your web site and any potentially offending gateway/ pages.. No web site will ever be banned because their page was linking to that site that the SE's did'nt like. I've Now checked with both Se's and salsa.

I would be very interested to chat with the ppl you mentioned that were banned.

[ihelpyou]

Putting it to you this way:

If you show me "your" url of the site that toppile is working for, ... one email is all it would take. :D

Trust me.... NO SE out there likes TP and NEVER will.

[MakeMeTop]

>I've Now checked with both Se's...

Really!

Now who at these SEs are you friendly enough to talk to I wonder? Surprisingly, I get a different response.

Mind you, I probably ask a different question. There is a lot of difference in asking if someone's spam linking to your site can affect your rankings and admitting you deliberately employ a spammer to boost your search engine visibility, are you likely to penalize my site if you find out? :D

> I would be very interested to chat with the ppl you mentioned that were banned.

I bet you would ;)

Probably easier to search the net for references to top-pile and SALSA, there are enough independent comments out there to draw your own conclusions.

[Alan Perkins]

big blue's IP address resolves to Paddy Bolger of Net Village. Net Village is the parent company of Top Pile and Paddy Bolger is the CEO of Top Pile.

[big blue]

However I know for a fact some of the largest companies in the world use this very system. We are being scammed by SE's to use bid or PPC

[ihelpyou]

Hey Paddy Bolger:

BUSTED! (name edited out by me.. Doug. There are ZERO names that accurately describe you.)

Get a life please.

Your company is the "why" many websites are very leary about our industry. One day you will be gone, and the internet in general will be a much safer and better place.

[MakeMeTop]

>big blue's IP address resolves to Paddy Bolger of Net Village...

Now, why doesn't that surprise me :)

[scisoft]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Putting it to you this way:

If you show me "your" url of the site that toppile is working for, ... one email is all it would take. :D

Trust me.... NO SE out there likes TP and NEVER will.

Hi.

I am not a SEO veteran, but with all due respect - this concept seems unlikely.

Otherwise, to ruin a competitor would cost just buying one domain, creating a over-optimised mirror and redirecting the mirror to them. Or even paying a true spammer company for the dirty work. Than wait a month and send a nice e-mail to Google.

[ihelpyou]

Very true. A client of TopPile's is who is going to be hurt. Why would a website wish to use another domain because their domain was banned or penalized?

TopPile is all about spamming the search engines using 1000's of machine generated 'garbage' pages that clog up the SERPS.

Competition? LOL No way could TopPile be considered a competitor of any legimate SEO company. TopPile has zero clue as to what real SEO is. He never will.

[ihelpyou]

Further:

http://www.jupiterevents.com/sew/winter04/agenda2.html

Read down the page at 'who' is speaking in one of the sessions. A tee-total disgrace to the SEO industry and Marketing industry. Pathetic. Astounding. Amazing. Unprecendented. Quite a joke and a spit in the face to all true Professional SEO's.

[scisoft]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Very true. A client of TopPile's is who is going to be hurt. Why would a website wish to use another domain because their domain was banned or penalized?

TopPile is all about spamming the search engines using 1000's of machine generated 'garbage' pages that clog up the SERPS.

Competition? LOL No way could TopPile be considered a competitor of any legimate SEO company. TopPile has zero clue as to what real SEO is. He never will.

Sorry.

I probably did not express myself exactly. What I mean is:

Let us imagine that I have a client selling vacuum cleaners who is No 2 but wants the No1 rankings. There is well SEOed No1 website before the client. Thus it should be possible to get rid of the No1 (the competitor) just by hiring spammer to mirror the No1 website (with redirect of course).

So I do not believe that having a spammer working for you (mirror and redirect) will hurt your website. Otherwise, everybody can ruin you by hiring a spammer to mirror your site.

I am NOT saying that I appreciate spammers.

Hope it is clear now.

[ihelpyou]

Oh, I agree with that.

Look at this. Read the whole thing. It's all about TopPile's Salsa program. This is the guy who was 'invited' to speak on "Organic SEO" at the SES conference in New York City that started "TODAY".

http://engine.solid8.com/solid8/Top-pile/article01.pdf

Go ahead, read the crap and all about the pathetic SPAM program. This is the guy who was asked to fly to New York To speak. Is this the best we can do for our industry? This guy has Never optimized a real website in his life. He cloaks. He Spams. He spits at the search engines and claims he has 5000 satisfied clients. Give me a break please. Our leaders let this guy speak at the most visible conference put on by the most visible people in our industry.

Pathetic.

[PaddyBolger]

Hi, this is Paddy Bolger here. I have had this thread brought to my attention.

First things first - I am not big blue, and I have no idea who big blue is. I assume it is an employee or ex-employee but so far my requests for the relevant member of staff to identify themselves has fallen on deaf ears. If I could have that IP address I would be very appreciative as I would like to get to the bottom of this.

I do not as a practice go on to forums anonymously. I do not approve of anyone going on to forums in this way as it is not in the spirit of what forums are about.

Barry, in answer to your post, it most certainly should surprise you - I thought you knew me better than that.

Enough of the apologies, on to the point - whether top-pile is a spammer is down to what you think spam is. If creating mini-sites that are purely there for the search engines is your definition, then in your eyes we are a spammer, and a very good one at that. There is no great point in going over old ground here but we do what we do, we do it very well and our clients are happy. We have developed a system that enables SME's to get more relevant traffic at a far lower cost than search engines or manual optimisers charge. To me it is a valuable service to a needy market, to you it is spam.

Secondly, if we get domains banned then that is our business. We own them , we operate them, they have a useful life and we discard them. End of story. Forget the fact that we have never in the history of SALSA got a domain banned by google, as an optimisation company whose job is to beat the search engines we absolutely realise that we could get domains banned that we operate by sailing too close to the wind and we are always prepared for that eventuality.

Thirdly, projectphp, you are absolutely right, 5 cents is no better than $6 unless you have ROI. I guess that is our point really, we have ROI, if we did not we would not have 5,000 clients.

Barry, I am very disappointed in you. There has never in the history of SALSA been a client who has had their site penalised in any way whatsoever due to SALSA, and I am afraid that I am being driven here to seeking legal action for your claim. At the very least you could start by emailing me (you know my address) with full details, but you have made a claim that is simply not true - if it was don't you think the client would have said something to us??? What you state here is damaging to top-pile and frankly untrue and you have to realise that this is something I must pursue. By the way, this thread was brought to my attention by a prospective client.

And now let me get to the important point in the message - ihelpyou, you state that one email is all it would take to get banned and I have no doubt that you in particular would use it. I sincerely hope that you are not actually in the optimisation business (your web site stating "we are now a full service search engine marketing and optimization company" suggests that you are a talker rather than a doer) because what all of you guys don't seem to realise is that every time you report a page to google etc you end up getting yourselves banned.

Barry, I know for a fact that you have lost a lot of positions in Google. Did it ever occur to you that you and all the other optimisers that seem to get some glee from this activity of reporting spam actually caused the problems you are now having? Because what you did not realise is that Google does not remove spam pages, it simply logs the spam and writes algorithms to delete them all in one go, and when that happens all your pages go as well because you are breaking the rules in the strictest sense of the words as well. In fact, most people are breaking the rules, they just don't realise it.

In fact, Google says, don't optimise full stop.

So why don't you guys think long and hard before you do rash things that are going to blow up in your face.

As for top-pile, the great benefit of software is the data analysis capabilities that go with it and I am very pleased to say that we have cracked the google changes 100% and have gained a huge competitive advantage from it. What you people would be far better off doing is keeping your mouths shut, getting on with your business and finding some serious competitive USPs over us.

Finally, ihelpyou (although help who is the question - it seems to me that with your attitude you help the search engines more than your clients) you have provided a link to an article that was written about us a good while back. Interestingly, you linked to this instead of our web site info - maybe because the article was closer to your argument. In other words you went to our site and found we do things quite differently to how we used to do them and resorted to the article to support your argument. It is called selective arguments and quite frankly is beneath me.

My recommendation to anyone who is serious about search engine optimisation is to get as far away as possible from this forum because it serves no useful purpose except to perpetuate a ridiculous myth that search engine optimisation is all about doing what the search engine tell you to do.

[ihelpyou]

You are a real prize Paddy.....

And yes, I can email Google right now. Show me just one client of yours and they will be banned today. That's a fact. Maybe you would like to test this?


because what all of you guys don't seem to realise is that every time you report a page to google etc you end up getting yourselves banned.
Let's find out dude. :green: Show me that client of yours and we shall see who gets banned today.

Further; trust me, we could easily find 'one' client who has been penalized using your scam software. Your livlihood depends on a the new webmaster/owner who does not get involved with the search engines. If it wasn't for the very nature of the internet, your business would not exist at all. If up to these forums, it won't exist for too long.

[PaddyBolger]

Sad

[ihelpyou]

Sad? You bet it's sad. Go ahead, show me one client. Just one.

[ihelpyou]

btw Paddy; Alan already answered your question about the member called 'big blue'.

big blue's IP address resolves to Paddy Bolger of Net Village. Net Village is the parent company of Top Pile and Paddy Bolger is the CEO of Top Pile.
I guess you did not read it? Alan does not lie about stuff like this.

[PaddyBolger]

Wow, what paranoia! Did I say anywhere whatsoever that I thought Alan was lying? Did I even suggest it? To help you along here, let me reproduce the relevant text:

I assume it is an employee or ex-employee but so far my requests for the relevant member of staff to identify themselves has fallen on deaf ears. If I could have that IP address I would be very appreciative as I would like to get to the bottom of this.

Now could someone, anyone, please tell me how such a request could merit the response I received.

Maybe you simply misunderstand, ihelpyou. I don't have an IP address, I have blocks of 250 IP addresses. The only way that I can find out who posted the message is for you to tell me WHICH IP address and then I can trace it to the poster.

[Kal]

Originally posted by PaddyBolger
There is no great point in going over old ground here but we do what we do, we do it very well and our clients are happy. Well keep doing what you're doing Paddy, because some of your "happy" clients end up hiring the rest of us to clean up the mess you cause. Good job! :thumb:

[PaddyBolger]

Ah, a sense of humour - how refreshing!

Interesting that our clients are pouring over to New Zealand to have their "mess" sorted out
;)

Actually, we have a couple of resellers in New Zealand - perhaps you would like to become one Kal?

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by PaddyBolger
we get domains banned then that is our business.Removed a little extrenuous ad text there but that does sums up your service quite well, in your own words no less! The callous manner in which you use public and SE resources is IMO, reprehensible, all are finite resources but you treat them like most treat toilet papper!

We own them , we operate them, they have a useful life and we discard them. End of story. Thanks you made my point above! Like decent domain names aren't a valuable commodity and in short supply! Geez pull your head out o' your anus the Internet is bigger then your desk!

Forget the fact that we have never in the history of SALSA got a domain banned by google, yes you have, your own domain comes to mind whether it was because of SALSA or not is not germaine to the question of whether you have never got a domain banned. you have admitted in other forums that this domain was banned for, once again, inappropriare use of a resource, namely remote queries of googles index which any one claiming to be what you say you are knows is one of the few reasons sites do get banned! You dance around the banned domains issue by claiming none have been banned and yet later you say you plan for that day. Which is it? SALSA doesn't get domains banned or not. Whether it is the client site or not is semantics. Sites are by your own admission being banned. Which site is only semantics...
Thirdly, projectphp, you are absolutely right, 5 cents is no better than $6 unless you have ROI. I guess that is our point really, we have ROI, if we did not we would not have 5,000 clients.IMO only prooves old PT was right! "there is a sucker born......"
And now let me get to the important point in the message - ihelpyou, you state that one email is all it would take to get banned and I have no doubt that you in particular would use it. I sincerely hope that you are not actually in the optimisation business (your web site stating "we are now a full service search engine marketing and optimization company" suggests that you are a talker rather than a doer) because what all of you guys don't seem to realise is that every time you report a page to google etc you end up getting yourselves banned.Then why is Dougs site still in the SERPs for search engine optimization and old toppile is not anywhere? Why isn't he banned, why isn't SeoPros? Just because you say it, doesn't make it so! Proove it!
As for top-pile, the great benefit of software is the data analysis capabilities that go with it and I am very pleased to say that we have cracked the google changes 100% and have gained a huge competitive advantage from it..Competitive advantage? How? your own site is banned! Creating what you do is neither cracking algos, or optimization for that matter, it is nothing but a house of cards that lasts as long as the suckers, excuse me, clients, pay! What you people would be far better off doing is keeping your mouths shut, getting on with your business and finding some serious competitive USPs over usThe day you can compete with me on longevity of solution and "real cost" is the day I pack up the computer and retire!!!!. I don't charge maintenance fees because quite simply there is nothing to maintain other then content additions and they don't need me for that. So in the long run since my clients can own the work I do and it lasts the "real cost" and ROI dwarfs anything you provide where the only way to maintain the traffic is to keep paying. All your points about SALSA are answers that only dupes would believe.

Finally, ihelpyou (although help who is the question - it seems to me that with your attitude you help the search engines more than your clients) you have provided a link to an article that was written about us a good while back. Interestingly, you linked to this instead of our web site info - maybe because the article was closer to your argument.Or he simply doesn't believe linking to toppileo'crap is in anyones best interest!
My recommendation to anyone who is serious about search engine optimisation is to get as far away as possible from this forum because it serves no useful purpose except to perpetuate a ridiculous myth that search engine optimisation is all about doing what the search engine tell you to do.If only you could follow your own advice! But if it's like the rest of your advice you don't follow it because you know from where it came!

Hope you find this amusing as well!:D

[Kal]

Originally posted by PaddyBolger
Actually, we have a couple of resellers in New Zealand Who do you think are our new clients? :rolleyes:

[ihelpyou]

Yeah Paddy, Why don't you go around to ALL the search engine forums? You can read different threads about "recent" clients of YOURS. Yes recent. Take a look around. Then come back here and tell us again how ALL your clients are happy. Go ahead, make my day.

One as we speak is going to do a "charge back" with his credit card bank for "YOUR" services. What do you think of them apples? Don't ever try to tell me or my members again how great you are, okay?

[episodesusdbz]

This exchange should be on TV! The evidence seems to suggest that the blue chip = Paddy Bolger. Mr Perkins has him cold with the ip thingie. The ex employee bit seems kind of lame.

But live and let live and spam no more please.

[ihelpyou]

This is on the Jupiter Media website:

Unlike some conferences, speaking slots on sessions at Search Engine Strategies are not sold or given in return for sponsorship of the event. Instead, the conference chair carefully plans sessions designed to cover all aspects of search engine marketing. He then personally invites speakers to take part in various sessions, based on the knowledge and experience they can bring to conference attendees.
The words have changed recently. Whoever the chairperson is of the particular SES conference has to 'personally' invite the speakers for each session. Knowing this, and knowing that any chairperson should be someone with lots of integrity and may be well-known as well, don't we all agree that any speakers who are asked to speak in front of the SES 'paid' attendees would be of the highest quality? Do we all agree that any speaker at such a high profile conference as SES is would be given LOTS of credibility if they are "ASKED" to speak at SES?

Given that, how is it that at MANY SES conferences around the world including those in the US and UK, etc, we can always find SPAMMERS who are asked by the "chairperson" to be speakers?

The above quote can be found on this page:
http://www.jupiterevents.com/sew/toronto04/sessions.html

One such speaker at a UK SES conference coming up can be seen here:
http://www.jupiterevents.com/sew/london04/agenda2.html

What does this say for our industry? Is anyone concerned by the lack of the understanding of the issues involved with SPAM? Is anyone concerned by the "leading" search engine conference "ASKING" spammers to speak? Is anyone concerned by these spammers who are given a HUGE boost in credibility because they are speaking on "search engine optimization", and are then seen as an authority with LOTS of credibility because they are speaking on the subject?

Does anyone else share my concerns about this?

Please click that link above and scroll down to the session on "Regular SEO", and then please tell me who in here is extremely mad about this? I sure am. Pathetic.

I would love for the 'chairperson' of the UK SES conference to actually tell us how he/she went about deciding on who would be a speaker on SEO at this conference. Please tell us the thought processes involved.

[peter_d]

Looks like a diverse and interesting group of speakers to me :)

[ihelpyou]

Yeah right Peter.

TOPPILE as a speaker? Have you not read the thread we are in? :green:

Give me a break already.

Anyone who thinks giving TopPile a way to get credibility and a way to get new business from unsuspecting website owners is a good thing, has got to be living in their own little world and does not give two shites about ANY website owner on the planet.

[peter_d]

Thanks for the welcome :)

I have indeed read the thread we are in. Given the variety of approaches there are to SEM, then it makes sense to offer a diverse range of views at an industry conference, no?

Wouldn't want to get too blinkered...

[ihelpyou]

yes, you believe in giving all website owners.. newbies and veterns alike, a speaker as a spammer. You don't care about the fact quite a few of those newbies will end up hiring this SES speaker only because he is a speaker.

You don't care about that, right? You believe in "buyer beware", right? All you ever seem to care about is embracing any and all spammers no matter what practices they use, right? You believe we all as an industry should equally love and embrace all forms of spam, right?

btw, you only seem to post in here when you can take the side of spammers. No welcome is necessary because of that.

[ihelpyou]

Believe me, o'l Paddy is "not" going to speak about 'his' spam techniques at the SES conference. He won't do that at all. He will be a good speaker.

You know that is not the point.

What he will do is talk to members before and after the fact about his services. That is the point.

[peter_d]

yes, you believe in giving all website owners.. newbies and veterns alike, a speaker as a spammer. You don't care about the fact quite a few of those newbies will end up hiring this SES speaker only because he is a speaker.

They might hire him because he's wearing a particularly nice tie :) Also, I haven't embraced anyone who sends unsolicited e-mail lately. I've embraced my wife, but I'm pretty sure she's not a bulk e-mail sender.

I feel that diversity of opinion helps lead to greater understanding. If you don't like a certain practice, don't engage in it. If the client isn't being mislead, then all approaches deserve a fair hearing at an industry conference.

[ihelpyou]

LOL That does not deserve a comment from me.

Others can chip in. We have had this debate toooo many times. Your view of the world is very odd. Your view of "others" is very odd as well.

[peter_d]

We have indeed been here before - I recognise an Ad Hominem attack when I see one :)

[ihelpyou]

There is a Doctor's conference. A few Doc's are invited to speak because of their great records and high acclaims and vast knowledge.

One Doc is chosen to speak. The others don't believe he is qualified at all and also know he has "hurt" patients in the past, not helped them.

Do you think those Doc's would allow this to happen?

Or it's a case in your opinion that anyone listening to this Doctor is on his own. It does not matter what techniques or practices he uses. We all should have a diverse and vast number of techiques to choose from, right?

[projectphp]

Do we all agree that any speaker at such a high profile conference as SES is would be given LOTS of credibility if they are "ASKED" to speak at SES
No, we don't all agree, because you haven't defined what "credibility" is. I don't think spamming is a good thing, but that doesn't change the fact that the option exists, and individuals have the right to access any product which is legal and for which no misleading or false advertising is conducted. So a very good spammer is ideal for a conference, as they have credibility within their own sphere.

I don't know how the three speakers will go in that section (I only know Barry from forums, and Mr Bolger from the odd post here and there), but surely diversity is good? We live in a democracy (Doug, Pete and Myself) in which freedom of speach is assurred (1st ammendment in America). Taking that right away for people's own good is a common theme, and one we should all fight hard to ensure never happens.

So, the only reason someone could and should be stopped froim speaking is if it was shown that they broke the law, and the only relevant law would be misleading advertising.

In Australia, we have the Trade Practises Act 1974 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/). The most relevant is section 53:( http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s53.html) These 5 points are the most relevant points in section 53 are:
False or misleading representations
A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connexion with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:

(bb) falsely represent that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services;
(c) represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;
(d) represent that the corporation has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation it does not have;
(e) make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services;
(f) make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services;
(my emphasis added)

So long as an advertiser doesn't misrepresent who they are affiliated with, need for or cost, or claim people have agreed to buy it that haven't, a company is legally sound.

I understand Alan's comments with regard spam being false advertising, and that may be an appropriate argument to deem a program misleading, but unless a government agency takes up such a case, it must be assummed that such programmes are legal, and that their proprietors are free to promote and discuss them.

Which returns me to credibility. How do we define this? Surely a person with lots of clients and a standing in the SEO community, whatever that is, can and should speak @ a conference. If you are going to offer differeing opinion, a very good spammer is better to get than a very bad one.

In many ways, that is exactly what such conferences are for. Not to protect the innocent, but to instead inform and educate them, so tha they can make their own informed decisions.

It is up to those that oppose such view points to reason with people as to why such an approach is not the most effective, ethical or appropriate approach. How effective any side is in presenting the arguments for their case is oft times far more important than what they actually say. That is why great leaders are always charismatic, as to convince the populace, you need to connect with them.

[ihelpyou]

Amazing.

Amazing even you projectphp don't see a problem with TopPile gaining brand new clients only because they are a speaker.

No words can aptly express my opinion.

You all see no problems with letting any and all website owners think that spamming is just damn fine. Amazing.

Not to mention that spamming the search engines is extremely unethical in every way imaginable.

[ihelpyou]

hmm. The same people who stuck up for SEMPO and the allowing of spammers as members are the same people who stick up for the SES conference and allowing spammers as speakers.

Do we see a patern here? :)

Ask the hundreds of websites who have got burnt by TopPile if that company should be a speaker.

It's attitudes like that which have ruled our industry since the beginning, and why our industry has been frowned upon for soooo damn long.

[ihelpyou]

Which returns me to credibility. How do we define this? Surely a person with lots of clients and a standing in the SEO community, whatever that is, can and should speak @ a conference. If you are going to offer differeing opinion, a very good spammer is better to get than a very bad one.
Now you are saying there are good spammers and bad spammers? LOL With that, you are saying Paddy is a good spammer? Ya got to be pulling my leg and the legs of every member in here, right?

So, you don't know what being given credibility means? I don't understand your statement at all.

[Kal]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
hmm. The same people who stuck up for SEMPO and the allowing of spammers as members are the same people who stick up for the SES conference and allowing spammers as speakers.
You're wrong there Doug. I personally don't see an advantage to joining SEMPO yet, for reasons we've all discussed before. However I do understand why SES Conferences offer a variety of speakers and SEM approaches, regardless of "black hat" or "white hat" methodologies used. I still think that's a buyer beware issue and a typical trade show approach.

[ihelpyou]

Again, not the point.

After Paddy speaks, what happens? Does he not sell his services to members who walk up and talk to him? Don't they walk up because in their eyes he is "the expert"? And is given credibility by SES because he is a speaker?

That's the point.

Is that still buyer beware? Or is the fact that the SES conference giving a spammer a big boost the issue? It's not a trade show at all. The speakers are chosen by people who are supposedly the leaders of our industry. That's far different than any trade show I have been to.

If that were my point, then these forums would never warn members about techniques and spammers, etc. We would simply say "you are on your own".

Allowing an Unprofessional to speak at any kind of conference, in any kind of industry is Unprofessional practices by the conference itself. I guess if you all see Paddy as being "Professional", then I can see your points.

This ain't about giving conference attendies different viewpoints. Trust me; Paddy is NOT going to speak about the techniques he uses in his business. Not. This has zero to do with allowing differing viewpoints and diversity.

This is only about a well known conference giving a boost of credibility in the eyes of attendies, and only doing so because that spammer was chosen by "our" leaders to be a speaker. Nothing to do with a different viewpoint at all.

[Kal]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Again, not the point.

After Paddy speaks, what happens? Does he not sell his services to members who walk up and talk to him? Don't they walk up because in their eyes he is "the expert"? And is given credibility by SES because he is a speaker? Nope. The sale of his services depends on how he deals direct with customers. His credibility and professionalism are determined via his actions and the quality of the service he provides to customers, NOT by his appearance at some conference. Apparently some of his customers are not happy with the services he provided, but even if those customers found him via an SES Conference, you must agree that the conference organizers cannot be held responsible for those services.

An industry conference cannot possibly start vetting people who want to be involved based on the opinions of *some* in the industry. That's when true bias comes into play and the motivations of organizers can be publicly questioned. If all approaches are discussed and the audience is alerted to all potential scenarios, (and you have to admit that most sessions lean towards avoiding spamdexing) then they are better prepared to make a purchasing decision.

<added>Professionalism is subjective. Just because you and I have a different view to Paddy of what it means to be "professional" doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to speak at a conference related to the industry he works in</added>

[ihelpyou]

Wow Kal, I could not disagree with you anymore than I do now.

You think it's strictly up to the consumer to understand all that is involved with the issues. I am shocked. So the SES conference just should not ever be responsible for giving any and all people the chance to gain credibility.

[ihelpyou]

His credibility and professionalism are determined via his actions and the quality of the service he provides to customers, NOT by his appearance at some conference.
In who's eyes? I'm not talking about what I or you think.

I AM talking about the credibility the conference is giving him in the eyes of the potential Client. Many forms of credibility are given waaaay ahead of the actual hiring. The SES conference is one of those times that truly gives any speaker added credibility for the simple fact they are a speaker.

This seems real simple to me. Why is this so hard to understand?

[polarmate]

I don't think I agree with you, Kal. Before I even heard about SEO, my boss did his research on SEO and SEO firms. He picked a company. They set up hyphenated domains in frames that mirrored the content of our web site; the noframes tags had keyword stuffed junk. They hosted these domains on their own servers and redirected the pages to our web site. We paid exorbitant rates for their services. Before we hired them we used to be at about #33. They dropped us like a rock to #100. I found out about this only when the deal soured.

When I first heard about them, my only fear was that they would break my code. But they never ONCE got access to my code or my web sites. They worked on their own servers on which they hosted these trash domains.

This company came out with flying colors in the MarketingSherpa Guide a few years ago. (Subsequently it has had bad feedback from its clients.) In that guide, they said they did not host domains on their own servers and replied in the negative to purchasing domains with keywords in it, purchasing multiple domains, multiple mirror pages, doorway pages or creating SE specific pages. They never explained nor informed our company that they would be employing the very tactics that they said they do not.

I see and understand where Doug is coming from. You need to be on the outside as a customer to really understand the impact that something like this can have. In our case, it was more direct - it was inclusion of the company in a reputed Buyer's Guide to SEO Firms. If the SES is a shopping ground for SEOs then yes, someone who takes the podium is without doubt being given a boost in the eyes of a potential customer.
The sale of his services depends on how he deals direct with customers. His credibility and professionalism are determined via his actions and the quality of the service he provides to customers, NOT by his appearance at some conference. In our case, the sales talk was very glib and convincing. We found out about the quality of the service only when they failed to deliver the results. When the deal soured, my boss asked for all materials developed to be returned to us. That is when I found out about the hyphenated-keyword domains. That is when I saw the crapload of HTML and content that we could have been sued for by our suppliers. That is when I decided I needed to know what SEO is and here I am.

[Kal]

Doug I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this issue and that's ok. Don't get tied up in knots trying to make me come around to your way of thinking, I DO understand your POV, I just don't agree with it. Remember, different points of view are a good thing ;)

One final point. In my opinion, a conference slot does not automatically equal an endorsement of the business practices used by the speaker. It may increase their public profile, but their credibility is ultimately determined by their service.

[Kal]

Originally posted by polarmate
This company came out with flying colors in the MarketingSherpa Guide a few years ago. (Subsequently it has had bad feedback from its clients.) In that guide, they said they did not host domains on their own servers and replied in the negative to purchasing domains with keywords in it, purchasing multiple domains, multiple mirror pages, doorway pages or creating SE specific pages. They never explained nor informed our company that they would be employing the very tactics that they said they do not. Well that's a different issue. The MS Guide purported to rate SEO firms based on methodologies and was published as a way to help companies avoid firms that used risky methods. SES has never represented itself as promoting one method over another or one company over another. The MS Guide did *exactly* that.

Originally posted by polarmate
In our case, the sales talk was very glib and convincing. We found out about the quality of the service only when they failed to deliver the results. Well I'm sorry that happened and it makes me angry that there are still firms like that around. I agree that the perceived credibility of that firm as outlined in the MS Guide probably unfairly influenced your decision. But I still think that it is the purchaser's responsibility to thoroughly research a potential provider and protect themselves by way of a guarantee or detailed contract. If a supplier calls a potential customer and lies about the service they are going to provide, you can hardly blame the phone company :)

[peter_d]

Doug, you're associating credibility with "following the search engine guidelines". That is because you have decided that is what credibility means.

However, imagine there is businesses XYZ. XYZ are very agressive players. They compete within the law, but they pull no punches and certainly won't be dictated to by third-parties. This type of client may not be well served by a gentle supplier. They want bottom line results, and if the supplier doesn't provide them, they will sue.

In other words, they don't care about search engine guidelines. Their notion of credibility is bottom line results. You may not like these clients, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[polarmate]

If a supplier calls a potential customer and lies about the service they are going to provide, you can hardly blame the phone company
I really don't see how a phone line can be used as an analogy to a highly respected industry specific conference where the speakers are hand-picked.
They compete within the law...<snip>...Their notion of credibility is bottom line results.Surely results such as these (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5851&perpage=20&pagenumber=2#post142081) are not bottom-line results :rolleyes:

[peter_d]

Surely results such as these are not bottom-line results

Anecdotal.

I'm not addressing any company specifically, I'm suggesting that diverse views deserve a hearing and help you reach greater understanding, even if all they do is help clarify your own position.

Shutting people up and calling them names isn't particularly constructive. Calling a reputable SE conference into disrepute is rather extreme and smacks of ulterior motive.

<edit>grammar</edit>

[projectphp]

You think it's strictly up to the consumer to understand all that is involved with the issues.
Doug, a people go to conferences specifically to understand all the issues involved. That is the goal. We aren't talking about people who can use ignorance as a defence, or shouldn't know the consequences of their actions. After a conference, people should be, at the very least, somewhat educated about all the issues. If not, it isn't the spammers who are to blame, but rather the conference for being ineffective.

An industry conference cannot possibly start vetting people who want to be involved based on the opinions of *some* in the industry. That's when true bias comes into play and the motivations of organizers can be publicly questioned.
100% agree. The issue isn't perceived credibility, it is about eductaional standards. If you censor who gets in based on the few, which few? Theoretically, the spammers could be the few that win, as tehre are probably as many of them as teh other.

Also, I like Kal's quote:
...doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to speak at a conference related to the industry he works in
I mean, if Paddy isn't in SEM, and therefore qualifiued to speak, what does he do?

Now, none of any of this means you should agree with the strategies employed. It doesn't mean you have to agree with what is said. It simply means he gets to speak, and others get to speak. And they can speak about why TopPile's strategies are not appropriate, the risks, why they don't do them etc etc.

If you keep posting in this thread Doug, you will certainly be doing your bit to push your perspective, and educate people in your own way. You just have to accept that your perspective wont be everyboby's,.

[Kal]

We're going around in circles. Some of us may not like Paddy's methods. Our definition of credibility or professionalism is almost certainly different to his. Personally, I think his methods place the long term viability of his client's sites at risk. But does that mean he should be prevented from speaking at a conference in case he misrepresents himself? No.

That is not our decision to make and not the conference organizer's either. As long as the material he presents is vetted by the organizers as being relevant to and suitable for the audience, whatever he discusses outside of his speaking slot is his business and ultimately his responsibility.

[Kal]

Originally posted by projectphp
Now, none of any of this means you should agree with the strategies employed. It doesn't mean you have to agree with what is said. It simply means he gets to speak, and others get to speak. Exactly :thumb:

[peter_d]

Agreed.

And who wouldn't like to see a debate between Paddy Bolger,
Mike Grehan, Barry Lloyd and another chap on the days agenda, Alan Perkins?

If you weren't aware of the issues after hearing that lot, then you really weren't paying attention :)

[projectphp]

If you weren't aware of the issues after hearing that lot, then you really weren't paying attention
If you spend all day at the pub instead of talks, cause you think the conference is an excuse to have fun, and sign someone simply cause they were there, aint much anyone can do to help you.

[Kal]

Originally posted by projectphp
If you spend all day at the pub Or you could simply combine fun and education via a WMW Pub Conference :cool:

[Daminc]

Originally posted by Kal
Some of us may not like Paddy's methods. Our definition of credibility or professionalism is almost certainly different to his. Personally, I think his methods place the long term viability of his client's sites at risk. But does that mean he should be prevented from speaking at a conference in case he misrepresents himself? No.
I agree with this also.

It's also a question of making an informed desision based on all the facts, not just the ones you agree with.

Example:

5 different types of government are trying to set up in a new land:

[list=1]
Communism
Democracy
Dictatorship
Anachy
Theocracy
[/list=1]

Out of these 5 there is only one that I agree with but that doesn't mean I wouldn't listen to what they all have to say before I voted.

Another thing I found which may be of interest to everyone here is:
Freedom of Speech (http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~in7504/Freedom_of_Speech.htm ) (with regards to the Internet).

[ihelpyou]

Wow.

You all love to give the SES conference a free pass for "ASKING and CHOOSING" a well known and the biggest and baddest spammer on the planet to speak at the "Organic SEO" session. He was ASKED to speak by OUR leaders at the highest profile conference our industry has.

Ya gotta be kidding me?

Why are there posts about free speech and such? Nothing to do with it. Why are there posts talking about different viewpoints? Nothing to do with viewpoints OR debates of any kind at the conference. Paddy is representing our SEO industry by talking about organic SEO.

He is seen as one of our industry leaders about SEO.

That's fine by you all, right?

[ihelpyou]

I personally think this is more about defending the SES conference and 'their' right to ask anyone to speak they wish than the actual 'who' is speaking.

And that is very true. The SES conference has every right in the world to ask anyone they want to ask to be a speaker. That still does not make it "right" or make it "Professional".

Both SEMPO and SES are extremely UnProfessional in their actions. No one can tell me otherwise. Sorry.


Peter: The SES conference is not about debating the issues and spam. No session is going to debate that at all. Barry, Paddy, and Alan will not sit there and give different viewpoints on whether to spam or not to spam. It's not like that.

Paddy will be on his best behavior, and he will give a good speech. This is not the point so get off that issue. That's not the issue at all.

You know, I think the bottom line is that I am always putting myself in the shoes of that new webmaster/owner who doesn't even really know what spam is.

I put myself into that room at SES and sit there and listen to someone speaking on SEO. I try to imagine what I would think about that speaker, knowing full well that he was "CHOSEN" to speak by the leaders of the conference. If I were looking for a SEO, I would certainly want to talk to that speaker after the session. Afterall, he must be an industry leader because the SES conference asked him to speak, right?

Don't you all see where I am coming from?

I think most people can only look at things from a 'conference' perspective, and only see the fact they want a diverse range of speakers. No one seems to want to acknowledge the actual website owner who may be looking to hire someone to help them.

[Daminc]

Don't you all see where I am coming from?
I do see where you are coming from it's just that I try and give the web site owners a bit of credit to do good research before they hire a company to do seo work for them.

If they don't research properly then they will learn the hard way by getting burnt. That's the hard fact of business. Because this industry is self-regulating then it relies on negative feedback to weed out the chaff (which includes allowing all people to tote their services).

[ihelpyou]

Nope. Not my point at all.

I guess many don't realize the speakers at a SES conference gain new clients because they are speakers. They gain them right at the conference. Why should a website owner do research about the SEO who is speaking when that SEO has been 'invited' to speak and is therefore assumed that the research has already been done by our industry leaders of SES on that SEO who is speaking?

[Daminc]

No one seems to want to acknowledge the actual website owner who may be looking to hire someone to help them.
I thought you were concerned that web site owners may believe that Paddy was a 'leader' in our field, due to his profile being 'elevated' at conferences, and may suffer as a consequence.

[ihelpyou]

If I move to a new area and need to find a Doctor, I hear about a Doctor's conference on the particular kind of Doctor I am looking for. I sit and listen to the Doc's who are the main speakers.

I simply assume those Doc's are the industry's best of the best, right? Why should I do any research when the industry has already very much said that 'this' Doc is very good because we have asked him to speak at the "Doctor's" conference? I also am already looking "up" to this speaker because he is a speaker. It's simply human nature to do that.

It's human nature to assume that the highest profile conference on the search engines is going to invite the best of the best to speak. This has nothing to do with giving any consumer more credit or the consumer doing his research. It's simply a fact of life. It's human nature.

[ihelpyou]

Yes Daminc, That is my whole point. It's human nature by default.

[Daminc]

Why should a website owner do research about the SEO who is speaking when that SEO has been 'invited' to speak and is therefore assumed that the research has already been done by our industry leaders of SES on that SEO who is speaking?
People shouldn't 'assume' anything. I've never assumed you were a professional seo. I read your posts, look at your examples, read what others say about you and form a conclusion that you're a professional seo.
It's simply a fact of life. It's human nature.
Maybe I'm just weird then :confused:

[ihelpyou]

Okay, let me try this then.

Who out there reading this thread would have invited TopPile to speak at the SES conference if "you" were in charge of setting up the speakers?

Anyone?

Out of the thousands of SEO's qualified to speak at the most high profile search engine marketing conference on the planet, who out there would have invited him of all the possibilities of speakers to choose from? Keep in mind TopPile is speaking in the session that is called "Organic SEO".

Anyone?

If not, why?

Could one reason be that anyone who speaks is viewed as an industry leader by the everyday JoeWebsite owner?

[peter_d]

Anyone?

Yep.

You want speakers vetted according to your approach. It should occur to you that not everyone in the SEM world agrees with your singular view. As such, the conference offers a diverse range of views.

Give the audience more credit. Most don't need to be saved from themselves :)

[polarmate]

As such, the conference offers a diverse range of views. I have no doubt that that is the reason for its success.

Would you say that speakers (like Paddy Bolger) present their view as represented, say, by the Salsa product? Now, that would be diverse. ;) From what I have gleaned, techniques promoted by Salsa are not discussed by Paddy Bolger. Certainly, not in his sessions. Why is that? Kind of really obvious, no?? :rolleyes:

[peter_d]

SEM is not all about technique. It would be a rather dull conference if it was, no?

Most people I talk to are concerned with performance and roi issues.

[JohnC]

Been trying to stay out of it, I couldn't help myself...

People shouldn't 'assume' anything.True, but some ALWAYS will. :)

Take me for instance. I have always assumed the speakers at conventions were leaders in thier fields. (I guess I was mistaken) Why would I want to pay to listen to someone who was not a leader in their field. I can get advice from everyday Joes almost anywhere.

I am leaning towards Doug on this one.

[ihelpyou]

Take me for instance. I have always assumed the speakers at conventions were leaders in thier fields. (I guess I was mistaken)
The actual people who are trying to learn, and who might be the ones that attend SES, are the exact ones who just might assume a speaker at SES means that speaker MUST be a leader and top-notch stuff.

It will take many more John's coming forward and expressing their opinion before the SES conference will finally get it.

Thanks John.

[ihelpyou]

Peter, There ya go again talking about some kind of "views" and different 'views', etc.

Show me where I am writing about anything that a speaker might talk about at the SES conference. You absolutely know what my point is, but you keep ignoring my point to drive home your political views on things.

You now claim you would personally invite TopPile as a speaker?

We all now know where your priorities are. Thanks!

[peter_d]

You absolutely know what my point is, but you keep ignoring my point to drive home your political views on things.

I know what your point is. I just don't agree with it :)

Who are you to say that a certain audience speaker should not speak at someone elses conference simply because that person does not follow your methodology?

You now claim you would personally invite TopPile as a speaker?

I would be interested to hear them, among many. All grist for the mill.

We all now know where your priorities are. Thanks!

I like to get to the truth.

[Kal]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
The SES conference has every right in the world to ask anyone they want to ask to be a speaker. That still does not make it "right" or make it "Professional".

Both SEMPO and SES are extremely UnProfessional in their actions. No one can tell me otherwise. Sorry. As I've stated before, professionalism is subjective. Just because you or I think a certain speaker doesn't meet our definition of "professional", does that give us the right to demand they not be heard? Does that give us the right to insist that a 3rd party conference organizer prevent them from speaking? Hardly.

Originally posted by ihelpyou
I think most people can only look at things from a 'conference' perspective, and only see the fact they want a diverse range of speakers. No one seems to want to acknowledge the actual website owner who may be looking to hire someone to help them. Yes. We are discussing the conference so of course we are looking at it from a traditional conference perspective. Organizers of such a conference cannot possibly be responsible for the audience's interpretation of content presented OR for the private business deals/discussions that may occur afterward.

Any one of those speakers could rip off a client they secured at the conference, whether they use SEO tactics that meet your definition of credible or not. Any one of them could take a client's deposit and skip town or overcharge them or steal their credit card numbers or whatever! Just because they speak at an industry conference doesn't guarantee they are squeaky clean.

Conference participants should be smart enough to do due diligence on anyone they hire, regardless of how impressive their flashy powerpoint presentation was. As Peter said, they don't need saving from themselves by the likes of us.

Besides Doug, what is the alternative?? How would you propose these Conference organizers choose their speakers? Let's hear the process you think they should use instead :)

[ihelpyou]

Hundreds of qualified SEO's in the UK and Europe, and you all are defending TopPile as a speaker who was "INVITED" to speak by one of OUR industry leaders.

No problem I guess.

People should read John's post again.

[medkraft]

I wasn't going to get in on this, but these comments got me fired a little fired up today.

Doug wrote: Your view of the world is very odd. Your view of "others" is very odd as well.

Ditto mate.

Now you are saying there are good spammers and bad spammers? LOL With that, you are saying Paddy is a good spammer? Ya got to be pulling my leg and the legs of every member in here, right?

That may be because we have an understanding of how business and the real world works and know that tolerance and diversity are good in life and business. Intolerance is not.

The world is not black and white (nor is it flat) as some in the forum would like others to believe. Please open your eyes and try to look it at from a different perspective. You might actually see something you didn't see before and maybe if you're lucky learn something a long the way.

Happy Easter everyone.

[Kal]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
People should read John's post again. No, you should read my post again. I am NOT defending TopPile (my feelings about them should be pretty clear early on in this thread). I am simply defending their right to speak at a conference that represents their industry.

Still waiting for your suggestions on how you think speakers should be chosen :)

[ihelpyou]

And my answer would be:

Anyone else but TopPile.

Hundreds of qualified SEO's in the UK and Europe but TopPile is the best we can come up with?

I can do a search on Google for "UK SEO" and certainly find a great many SEO's who would love to speak.

[medkraft]

I guess many don't realize the speakers at a SES conference gain new clients because they are speakers. They gain them right at the conference. Why should a website owner do research about the SEO who is speaking when that SEO has been 'invited' to speak and is therefore assumed that the research has already been done by our industry leaders of SES on that SEO who is speaking?

Doug have you ever spoke at a conference before? Just because you're allowed the opportunity to get up on soap box at a big event doesn't guarantee a quick and easy sale. In fact, if you're a terrible speaker just the opposite is true.

I've spoken at large marketing events (1500 plus delegates) in the past. While a conference may add credibility, it doesn't guarantee work. You still have to work your butt off and be able to back up what you say with referrals and case studies. Otherwise, you might as well throw the opportunity away.

In addition, the session with Top-Pile is a round table where others will be able to debate what is said. How can this not be good for the industry.

Personally, while I know you're not interested in speaking at SES (if I remember correctly), you'd make a good candidate because of your out-spoken views. It would definitely add some spice to the conference.

I can do a search on Google for "UK SEO" and certainly find a great many SEO's who would love to speak.

That doesn't mean they would make good speakers. Speaking is an art. If you pay $1200 for a conference you don't want to hear people say Umm every few words.

[Kal]

Ok, so your speaker requirements would be "Anyone but TopPile". So any other SEOs in the world would be welcome to speak at the conference, even those that use spammy methods, but TopPile would be discriminated against because of your personal bias against them. Is that right?

[ihelpyou]

Nope.

I think a leader should be able to choose a speaker wisely. He could use a system whereby the SEO practices techniques that follow the 'actual' search engine guidelines. Those guidelines are very clearly written on the se websites for everyone to read.

Some SEO's spit at those guidelines. Those are the types that don't need to be seen as a leader of our industry. TopPile 'SPITS" at those guidelines. Always has. Always will. That ain't the kind of Leader we need for our industry.

Obviously, the SES conference disagrees with me as they continue to "INVITE" these type of spammers as speakers.

This can and never will be a good thing. People like John in the post above automatically assume by default that a speaker is a leader. How do some people know any differently? It's the responsibility of a "Leader" to make sure the best foot is put forward. Greed should not be a part of the equation.

I could care less about the bottom line of Jupiter Media who puts on the SES conference. The conference itself should take some responsibility for it's actions. If it refuses to do so, something needs to be done about it. I'm here to make sure that "something" gets done. I'm very sick of appeasing spammers. Extremely sick of it. I don't know why it is soooo hard to find a Professional SEO to speak. It seems like it would be very easy to do. Weeding out any SEO who blatantly and admittedly spams the system should never be considered.

Spammers cheat the system. Spammers are UnProfessional. Spammers hide things so a browser does not see what the search engine spiders see. That is what is called "deception".

One of our leaders who chooses the SES conference speakers cannot find ANY other SEO to speak on "Organic SEO?"

[JohnC]

I am betting Mr. Bolger is sitting at his desk laughing hysterically at the tension that is happening here due to his speaking engagement. If he gets no business at all out of the SES conferences, this probably makes the whole thing worthwhile to him.

I don’t think most people here would disagree that this man’s company practices are wrong. I don’t think most people here would give this man’s company his or her credit card. I don’t think most people here would give an endorsement to that man or company for any reason. This thread has gotten so far from its original topic that I think the original point is being lost….

Top-Pile is not a company most people here would recommend doing business with.

I think most of you currently in this discussion have agreed to that. The current topic seems to be why does the SES conference do business with them. Sure they have the right to ask whom ever they want. But we have to ask ourselves; “If the industry is so against this man’s company practices, why do they justify his existence by giving him a public platform?” I don’t believe that is good for the industry as a whole, but it can be nothing but good for Mr. Bolger. It does not sound right to me, but that’s just my opinion.

[ihelpyou]

Yes why? That is the most important question that no one wants to directly answer.

[ihelpyou]

I have a solution. It's similar to what SEMPO is doing, although it still is Not good enough on their website.

Before Each session, the moderator of that session gives a short "disclaimer". He/she could say something like this:

The chairperson has chosen these speakers because of their knowledge. In no way is this a recommendation to hire these speakers. In no way does SES or Jupiter Media say that these speakers are industry leaders. You must do your research first before you hire anyone to help you.

That could be a way to satisfy EVERYONE, including me. If they insist on using a bad Spammer as a speaker, then they should have a disclaimer before "each" session starts. I don't think that is anything they cannot accomplish. I don't think it's unreasonable. They would avoid anyone being mislead.

[ihelpyou]

Thinking further; I would think Jupiter Media would want some kind of disclaimer before each session.

A site owner like John could have paid $1000 for a ticket to SES. He just might hire one of the speakers to help with his website. And sure, he might hire them strickly on the idea that a speaker must be a leader and highly recommended since the industry's leading conference is letting this speaker speak.

All the sudden, poor John's site is banned or penalized. He traces it back to something that this speaker did to his site or for his site. Who does John go after? Why of course, John just might go after the company with the deepest pockets; namely Jupiter Media. Afterall, John hired this company because they were a speaker.

So you see, having the moderator give a disclaimer at the start of each session can only be a good thing for all parties involved. A good thing for the attendees. A good thing for Jupiter Media as they would be protected. A good thing as well because it would get people like Doug Heil off their backs. :)

[JohnC]

Great... Now SES isn't going to sell me a ticket to the Fall show. It was going to be my first one. :)

[ihelpyou]

John, You can certainly go. Just remember that speakers are not an endorsement for their services. That does mean the speakers are not good speakers or that they don't have good knowledge. It just means you still have to research anyone you might hire.

The idea of a disclaimer is becoming more and more appealing to me as the minutes go by.

[ihelpyou]

Even further;

This disclaimer before any session should be extended to any and all "SEM conferences" held in the world.

The industry has NO set standards for companies. No standards like standards set by other industries. Because of this, I would think each and every conference owner would want some kind of disclaimer before 'each' speech or session. They are only protecting themselves in an industry where no standards for companies have to be meant. The only standards we have are what the search engines say is right and wrong. Nothing set for the actual companies themselves. We all choose to follow the search engine guidelines, or we don't choose to follow them. That's quite different than most industry's out there. Even 'marketing' associations have 'standards'.

Conferences need to do this. They need to have this disclaimer to protect themselves from lawsuits, and to protect each and every "PAID" attendee to the conference. And to completely know that their own conference is not misleading the very people they are trying to teach.

[peter_d]

I think you're getting methodology confused with performance.

The view espoused by Doug is that if you don't follow a narrow interpretation of search engine guidelines (Google's in particular) then you are a non-performer. That is a fallacious argument.

With regard to giving credibility to speakers....

Would I recommend company X? I don't know, I don't know enough about them or anything about the imaginary client who is asking the question. The imaginary client's needs might be "I want a way to reduce my ppc spend, but increase traffic levels by 200% within one month. I'm comfortable with risk". You wouldn't recommend a supplier who gave a rank report as a sole measurement of success, now would you?

Also, how do you know that other speakers don't do exactly what TP does? Perhaps TP are open about it, where others aren't. I'm not saying that's the case, but if they never talk methodology, or say one thing at the conference and do another in practice, then how would you, or the conference organiser, ever know?

[ihelpyou]

:green:

You are a piece of work peter-d. I'm not saying a good piece or bad piece. Just a piece.

I guess you did not read my disclaimer idea?

[ihelpyou]

btw, I did not say anything about being a non-performer. If you spam, then you don't abide by the search engine guidelines. Therefore, you are UnProfessional. Those are the only guidelines we have to go by. Why not follow them? Would you rather cheat the system? Would you rather deceive all search engine users including the search engines themselves?

Besides, you have stated a few times you don't do SEO at all. I'm not sure why you even bother to post in this thread? Or is it because you post in here when you can take the opposite point of view from Doug?

[peter_d]

This is what the conference is about:

http://www.jupiterevents.com/sew/winter04/sessions.html

If you hold a conference, I guess you can add your disclaimer.

[ihelpyou]

Now you are also against a disclaimer? Why would that be?

I made your link a 'live' one FYI.

[peter_d]

If you spam, then you don't abide by the search engine guidelines. Therefore, you are UnProfessional. Those are the only guidelines we have to go by. Why not follow them? Would you rather cheat the system? Would you rather deceive all search engine users including the search engines themselves?

I could argue that all SEO is "spam" (actually, I know one prominent web design company who thinks that way) because it isn't endorsed by the search engines. He thinks all SEO's are unprofessional. Is he right? Depends on one's point of view.

Besides, you have stated a few times you don't do SEO at all.

I do SEO. It's hardly difficult, is it. It's part of what I do, which could be more broadly categorised as SEM.

I'm not sure why you even bother to post in this thread? Or is it because you post in here when you can take the opposite point of view from Doug?

If you say something I agree with, then I'll agree with you.

[ihelpyou]

I could argue that all SEO is "spam" (actually, I know one prominent web design company who thinks that way) because it isn't endorsed by the search engines.
hmm. I'm pretty sure Google and others do say there are "good" SEO's.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

You should read the first paragraph. Other engines might not write it on their website, but all engines do believe that a SEO can help a website and also help the search engines.

If you say something I agree with, then I'll agree with you.
Oh really? I'm sure you have read many posts by me in here, but you did not post to agree, right? How about the good idea of ALL conferences giving a disclaimer before each session or speech? Don't you feel that would be extremely helpful for the conference owner and the conference attendees?

If not, why not?

[peter_d]

They don't endorse SEO's.

Overture endorse partners, but to my knowledge, no other engine does. Google say that some things that SEO's do can be useful. Which is true. But anyone who reads that document and thinks it's a ringing endorsement of SEO needs their head read.

I think it's fair to say that the search engines would prefer you paid them money. I'd prefer them to rank all my sites at #1 within the next hour, but no matter how many times I publish "guidelines for search engines" on my site demanding that they rank my sites accordingly, they never comply :) Guess we have different agendas.

Disclaimer: You'd have to ask the conference organiser why or why not. Personally, I don't think it's of much use. Ever read Microsofts disclaimer?

[ihelpyou]

Of course they don't endorse any.
SEO is an abbreviation for "search engine optimizer." Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.
Please note; "given the industry a black eye" and "unfairly manipulate search engine results"

They also call them "unethical SEO's"

Now, back to TopPile:

Tell me again why you don't think it's a good idea or of 'much use' for all conferences to have a disclaimer in regards to the speakers they choose?

[peter_d]

Tell me again why you don't think it's a good idea or of 'much use' for all conferences to have a disclaimer in regards to the speakers they choose?

Being an adult, I don't need to be baby sat.

I have a little sideline in commercial property. If you want to see a pool of sharks, get into that game. Nevertheless, they have associations, disclaimers, professional qualifications and standards, and all sorts of other legitimate sounding guff.

Means nothing to me. The only person I listen to in contractual negotiations is my lawyer.

A disclaimer won't prevent people being taken for a ride.

[medkraft]

How about the good idea of ALL conferences giving a disclaimer before each session or speech? Don't you feel that would be extremely helpful for the conference owner and the conference attendees?

How is this going to help a conference or the attendee. People aren't stupid. They don't need to hear the same message six times a day especially when they just paid $1000 plus to attend.

Think about what you're asking and then think again. It doesn't make any sense which is why no one here agrees with you. Simply put, it's not a good idea.

[ihelpyou]

No one? How about the ones who are not posting?

Not a good idea, huh? Tell us why please. What would you be afraid of? Ask John above if it would be a good idea. He's one who posted that he assumed ALL speakers were leaders.
How is this going to help a conference or the attendee?
I answered that when I posted my idea. Read the posts above if you missed it.

[sanity]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Allowing an Unprofessional to speak at any kind of conference, in any kind of industry is Unprofessional practices by the conference itself.
Unprofessional by whose definfition? Yours? You can't shove your definfitions and opinions down other people's throats. Most people can think, and decide, for themselves. :)

[medkraft]

No one? How about the ones who are not posting?

Huh! For everyone not posting, feel free to chime in.

When you've:

1) Spoken at a large conference
2) Organised a conference of any kind
3) Attended a large conference

then maybe you'll have a better idea that your idea is just not feasible or plausable for that matter.

[Blue]

Doug is a champion and those of you whom are disagreeing with him apparently don't have much moral fiber, or don't care to see the forest through the trees. Doug obviously sees the "bigger picture" and is willing to do something about it.

I believe in freedom of speech.

I believe, at the most basic level, there is simply "right" and "wrong". We ALL know the difference, with the exception of those with medical conditions that don't allow them to see it.

I believe that there are either those that are part of the problem or those that are part of the solution.

Anyone who cares to see the world, or any part of it, turn into a better place will be part of the solution. That means taking a stand, at whatever cost, to protect those without the knowledge to know the difference, or without the wits to know the difference (and there is no line of protection between those two), with respect to any injustice no matter how large or small.

There are plenty of instances where just because something is not deemed illegal it should not be allowed to go on.

By doing nothing to stop the injustices, you simply are feeding the fire, and are therefore part of the problem.

You folks should decide where you stand with respect to how you want the world to be, for yourself and for your children, even on the issues that only affect few, as that at least is a step in the right direction.

Keep on fighting the good fight Doug! :cheers:

[medkraft]

Doug is a champion and those of you whom are disagreeing with him apparently don't have much moral fiber, or don't care to see the forest through the trees. Doug obviously sees the "bigger picture" and is willing to do something about it.

So let me get this straight. Because we disagree with the Champion we have no moral fiber or can't see the big picture. How absolutely absurd.

Those of us who are debating with the Champion are arguing on the grounds of diversity and tolerance. In doing so, we're not saying that we agree with the methods they use (nor are we defaming them in the process because we don't agree). In fact, we're looking through the trees and around the city in an attempt to understand why they exist in the first place and accepting that they exist for a reason. After all, we're all fighting the same battles to win new business and have to deal with the same bad apples.

Being a Champion means treating others with respect whether you agree or disagree with what they do and accepting that others may have views that differ from your own. Being a Champion is showing tolerance for others and their opinions. Being a Champion is refusing to resort to name calling regardless of how right you believe you are. Being a Champion is leading by example in a professional manner that is respected by all your peers.

Fight the good fight, but be please show some tolerance and respect in the process. Otherwise, you may find that your fight defeats the cause.

I believe in freedom of speech.

Excellent. I'll dring to that. :cheers:

[Kal]

I actually agree with the idea of a disclaimer. But only if it is stated once, at the beginning of the conference and in the handout material. It might serve as a reminder to attendees that they need to be careful choosing a provider in this industry full of sharks. But I doubt Jupiter would go for it.

[ihelpyou]

But only if it is stated once, at the beginning of the conference and in the handout material. It might serve as a reminder to attendees that they need to be careful choosing a provider in this industry full of sharks.
I agree with that. They always have a 'starting' speech or welcome of some kind at the beginning of the session day. That could be where the disclaimer is. The handout material is a place as well.

And yes medkraft, I have been to Many type conferences, and I have helped organize them and participate in them. Remember, I'm 46 years young. Experience counts for something. :)

And yes, being a Professional should mean something. It means something in every other industry, and some don't want that term in our industry. Strange stuff. I would think if Google can state on their website that some people are 'unethical", then I can state that those same people are UnProfessional. Kind of makes a lot of common sense to me. Of course, that's just me.

[Rankenstein@Home]

I think I agree with Doug on this one - present people with the facts and let them decide for themselves - nothing should be hidden.

I made a presentation to a UK government department a couple of weeks ago - it was a six hour talk and I covered all the topics. I also made it pretty clear about what the engines consider good practice to be.

These (and some other) forums got a mention. Doug, I put yours down as (and I quote) "a perfect example of a white hat SEO forum" - I also told them where some "anything goes" forums are too. Let them see the whole picture - let them understand the methods - and if the engines don't like some of those methods, be the first to say so.

I think SEO is definitely an area where 'caveat emptor' should be the motto. If the client wants something unethical in SEO terms, it's not like they'll be going to jail, is it? Their site may be banned, and that can hit them badly in the pocket, but they won't be done for 'Aggravated Cloaking' and get five years in The Big House.

I think it's a bit more of a grey area than Doug suggests, but I broadly agree with the sentiments behind his diatribes - I don't like spam at all, but spam is often in the eye of the beholder.

[Steve Sardell]

Huh! For everyone not posting, feel free to chime in.

When you've:

1) Spoken at a large conference
2) Organised a conference of any kind
3) Attended a large conference

then maybe you'll have a better idea that your idea is just not feasible or plausable for that matter

Since I fit all the above characteristics perhaps I should "chime in."

Initially, by virtue of being allowed to speak, any speaker at any major authoritative conference is given instant credibility. Due to position he/she is automatically deemed by attendees to be an expert, if not an expert then they would not or should not be behind the podium. It is the duty of the conference organizer to select the best and most knowledgable speakers possible. Normally, people attend conferences to learn from the best and pay good money to hear the best available speaker. In this situation Jupiter Media gives every speaker a sterling recommendation.

At this conference not all attending are experts themselves, but rather many are new to the field of SEM. If Jupiter is not willing to stand by what its speakers proclaim then it should issue a disclaimer.

If it truly is a roundtable discussion, hopefully the harmful tactics will be dispelled and the good absorbed. Unfortunately, there are always some looking for short cuts or short term fixes and some who will take every word as the truth. It is the event organizers task to insure the best posssible information is disseminated, and if not the best then to disavow it.

To take it to the absurd, does anyone think the AMA would allow a butcher to speak at a conference on plastic surgery methods?

[ihelpyou]

I actually think the discussion on SEMPO applies to this discussion as well.

http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=138428&highlight=professional#post138428

The same principals apply to both.

[ihelpyou]

To answer Sanity's question and the question of a few others, read this thread:

http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=77936&highlight=professional#post77936

We have discussed ethics and Professionalism MANY times in here. Do a search. All of my answers in all other threads still apply to this thread.

Of course there are Professional SEO's and UnProfessional SEO's.

Please tell the world if you think TopPile is Professional. Please tell the world if you think a program that generates thousands of spam pages with one click is Professional. Tell the world please. :)

[Bernard]

Nice post Molson/Steve.

I have no personal experience with TopPile/Paddy, but from what I have read, there should be plenty of their former clients out there who should be furious at this situation. The day that they become vocal with their displeasure is the day that Jupiter will take notice IMO.

[ihelpyou]

Yes. I highly doubt the type of clients who TopPile has even know this ses conference exists, or that these forums exist.

Some of you say something like this:

"A SEO is a Professional as long as he/she explains all the risks involved with the techniques used".

Many problems with that thinking.

First; you are assuming a client knows exactly how to judge and gage those risks. You assume a client is armed with all the knowledge necessary to make a good decision on that technique. How many clients have you all talked to that know the first thing about spam or it's ramifications?

Do you honestly believe a Professional is born as long as he explains the risks of his services? Come on now. Shouldn't a Professional actually teach that client as to the ethical ways of making their site the best it can be? That's a Professional. It's not enough to simply explain the risks, and then proceed to perform that technique despite the risks involved. That's UnProfessional in every way.

[sanity]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
To answer Sanity's question and the question of a few others, read this thread:

http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=77936&highlight=professional#post77936

We have discussed ethics and Professionalism MANY times in here. Do a search. All of my answers in all other threads still apply to this thread.

Of course there are Professional SEO's and UnProfessional SEO's.

Doug I know your thougts on this. My point is it's your opinion not anyone elses. Who are you to tell me what I should think is professional or unprofessional. I'm old enough to decide for myself.

[ihelpyou]

My point is it's your opinion not anyone elses.
huh? Not anyone else's opinion either? Not.

You are very able to give your opinion in here. Please give it then. Do you think of TopPile as Professional or don't you?

Or, do you not have an opinion?

[jeep]

Originally posted by sanity
Doug I know your thougts on this. My point is it's your opinion not anyone elses. Who are you to tell me what I should think is professional or unprofessional. I'm old enough to decide for myself.

One ringee dingee. Hi Sanity just testing my cookies and the ability to post.

Well that work okay.

"Who are you to tell me what I should think is professional or unprofessional. I'm old enough to decide for myself."

I think the definition of "profession" does. A group of people who
self manage, self regulate themselves to achieve the title "profession" or "professional." These groups have standards, norms, codes etc . One example is the society of mechanical engineers. Engineering companies will cut each others throats in competition. The engineers though will follow their professional standards and say make all their drawings and schematics using common drawing standards. This is so all companies can read them without error, even competitors. Keeps bridges and skyscapers from falling down.

So... the SEO "profession" is telling you how to think. Websites and links that serve no purpose for humans only to get a higher listing are unprofessional. One could make a pretty good argument that Doug is speaking for the SEO profession.

But being "unprofessional" may not be a negative. For example I read that it took the guy that made the Heimlich maneuver you know squeeze someone when they are choking thingie, ELEVEN YEARS to get it accepted by the medical "profession."

So stay frosty...

[sanity]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
huh? Not anyone else's opinion either? Not.

You are very able to give your opinion in here. Please give it then. Do you think of TopPile as Professional or don't you?

Or, do you not have an opinion?
I am talking about unprofessionalism. Your opinion of who is unprofessional or not is yours not mine. And whilst I am sure many agree with you many do not. So why should your definition of unprofessionalism be a yardstick by which we measure things?

As for Top Pile I don't know them enough to comment. Perhaps if I heard Paddy speak I would be more able to make an opinion. ;)

[polarmate]

Originally posted by sanity
Perhaps if I heard Paddy speak I would be more able to make an opinion. ;)
But that's just the point, Sophie. He does not speak about Salsa or how he practices SEO at conferences. At conferences, he speaks about 'Organic SEO.' You will probably form an opinion but, more likely than not, it will be the same opinion formed by anyone else who listens to him. And your that opinion does not concur with what his (ex-)client think of him. That is part of Doug's point.

If you want to know what his ex-clients think of him, ask Kal. She has heard it first hand.

[sanity]

The last part of my post was meant to be a joke. Let me qualify it now: if I'm looking for a company to do anything for me I will research that company - I'm a strong believer in "let the buyer beware". Whether that be conferences, websites, articles, references, current/past customers or whatever.

[ihelpyou]

Yes Sanity, researching a company in our industry is something that those of us who are involved know clearly that is what people should do.

The issue is however that most website owners out there in internet land do 'not' know that. If they sit and listen to a TopPile speak at the largest, most well known, most highly regarded conference in the world about search engine marketing, those people immediately form an opinion about that speaker. What is that opinion and immediate impression?

That's easy. The speaker must be a leader, and must be Professional, as if he was not, he surely would not have been asked to be a speaker, right?

You decide.

[peter_d]

Granted that a person standing at the podium will enjoy the validation of selection.

Tell me: Do clients hand out their credit card to the first person they see on the podium? The third person? The last person? How do they choose?

When you buy something, do you conduct research first? If you don't conduct much research, and it turns out that while the product/service was sold as described, but didn't suit your purpose, whose fault is that?

Disclaimer or not, anyone who hands money to someone just because they are standing at the podium at a conference is an idiot. It's just lucky that the boys from Nigeria (http://home.rica.net/alphae/419coal/) don't hold conferences :)

[ihelpyou]

Yes, you assume it's always the responsibility of the consumer to make sure they don't get their own site penalized or banned.

I take the other side; It's the fault of the Unprofessional SEO who does not teach that consumer the right way to build a better website. Only a Professional SEO does this, and looks to the future of that website and long-term success.

Our views of the industry are very different. You don't feel a SEO has any reponsibility to that client at all. I feel they do. You also feel a high profile conference does not have any responsibility at all to that same consumer. I feel they do. Hence, why I feel they need a disclaimer.

[peter_d]

Yes, you assume it's always the responsibility of the consumer to make sure they don't get their own site penalized or banned.

With choice comes responsibility. You are, of course, assuming that a site will be banned as a result of hiring a conference speaker. You are also assuming that is the worst thing that can happen to it.

Our views of the industry are very different. You don't feel a SEO has any reponsibility to that client at all.

<cough>You should retract that, good sir.

You also feel a high profile conference does not have any responsibility at all to that same consumer. I feel they do.

Where did I say that?

Hence, why I feel they need a disclaimer.

If you feel so strongly about it, then why not ask Danny?

[ihelpyou]

Where did I say that?
The way you post makes it certainly seem that way. Why else would you be defending the conference and the person who chooses TopPile as a speaker? That alone tells me that you don't feel the conference feels any responsibility to the people who are attending. If they did, they would be more careful when choosing the speakers.

[medkraft]

Molson wrote: To take it to the absurd, does anyone think the AMA would allow a butcher to speak at a conference on plastic surgery methods?

Of course not. But SES is not AMA. AMA operates for members. (SES does not). the AMA is a professional association (SES is not). The AMA has been around for six decades (SES has not). AMA has a responsibility to members (SES does not).

On the other hand, Jupiter operates SES, in large part, because of its popularity. The topic is hot and there's money to be made. As soon as the popularity of SEM/SEO subsides, the conferences will likely be replaced by some other hot topic (marketing to seniors via SMS, etc.). It's all part of the life cycle in the (technology) conference game.

SES and the AMA are two different beasts with different agendas.

Doug wrote: The way you post makes it certainly seem that way. Why else would you be defending the conference and the person who chooses TopPile as a speaker?

Diversity. Tolerance.

As I said above, SES is not a standards group or a professional association. It's a marketing forum pure and simple (one that probably won't be around in five years). If you understand this then it's a bit easier to understand the other side.

Doug wrote: If they sit and listen to a TopPile speak at the largest, most well known, most highly regarded conference in the world about search engine marketing, those people immediately form an opinion about that speaker. What is that opinion and immediate impression?

One has to have some faith that they also have the good sense to do some research. And if they did, I'm sure they'd be able to find enough information on the so called unprofessional SEO to make an informed decision. While I do believe clients can be lazy (which is one of the reasons they look to outsourcers in the first place), I don't believe they are all naive.

I can't speak for others, but I rarely come across clients who fail to do any research these days. In fact, most of the new projects I've landed in the past twelve months have come from those who have researched and interviewed a number of other SEO/SEM companies.

[ihelpyou]

Nice post medkraft.

You fail to acknowledge the main and most important issue however. :)

The fact is, no matter how you wish to spin things, being a speaker at such a well known and respected conference as SES, gives you a boost of credibility and gives you a sterling recommendation from both SES and Jupiter Media.

That's the thought that seems to get lost in all of this as no one wants to acknowledge it or say it's oh sooooo true. By default and by common sense, AND by human nature it's true.

[JohnC]

I hope everyone had a nice Easter Weekend.

Doug has made reference to one of my earlier posts a number of times and I stand by that post. I do want to point out that a number of people have mentioned that a person should do “Their Research” before making a decision about SEO. I agree entirely, however, I am also of the belief that 90-100% of the people (who are not in the SEO industry themselves) are attending conferences such as SES for exactly that reason, to do their research. Why come to a conference to do research? Because the conference organizers have also done research and only the best of the best should be presenting their ideas and techniques. At least that is the way it should work.

peter_d mentioned “With choice comes responsibility” in regards to the results of the SEO on their sites. In some instances I would agree, however when there is potential gross negligence such as the examples mentioned earlier in this thread, at some point it has to turn back on the SOE firm. Keeping with the medical theme of other industry examples, If a person does research and gets a couple of opinions then decide to go with Dr. A for their surgery, is it their fault that Dr. A forgets and leaves a sponge inside their body cavity? What if Dr. A does this much more frequently than any other Dr. but was able to avoid the issue at a recent conference he was speaking at? Is it still the patient’s fault for not doing better research? BTW… this happens over 1500 times a year in the US, is it entirely patient’s fault.

I am not doing SEO for hire, so all of my efforts are directed to one company and I alone am responsible for the outcome. Just a curiosity, those of you who do SEO for hire, what level of responsibility to you accept for your client’s success and failures? Have any of you ever explained a failure as “Well you didn’t do your research, so it’s your fault.”

[medkraft]

You fail to acknowledge the main and most important issue however.

Actually I haven't failed to understand the issue.

I know from experience that you still have to sell yourself to get the work. And if you can't back it up with experience then it doesn't matter how much credibility the conference infers on you, you're not going to get the job. And that's a fact.

The fact is, no matter how you wish to spin things, being a speaker at such a well known and respected conference as SES, gives you a boost of credibility and gives you a sterling recommendation from both SES and Jupiter Media.

Call it what you want. Unlike your opinion, my spin is actually based on knowledge of speaking at large conferences (as well as helping to promote them), attending SES events and having a strong understanding of how the real business world works.

[polarmate]

Have any of you ever explained a failure as “Well you didn’t do your research, so it’s your fault.”
We never hear of any failures, John.

We were told by our ex-SEO when the project crumbled that the keyword phrases were too competitive. I also forgot to mention in my earlier post that the research done by my boss did not throw up any alarm signals. The SEO company was endorsed and recommended by WPG, which is a 'trusted' product for SEOs.

My company did however accept all responsibility for the 'poor' decision. We really had no choice. We are now #1 for the same keyword phrase that was too competitive - with in-house SEO. :rolleyes:

[ihelpyou]

Unlike your opinion, my spin is actually based on knowledge of speaking at large conferences (as well as helping to promote them), attending SES events and having a strong understanding of how the real business world works.
Unlike my opinion, huh? Get your facts straight first off medkraft. You don't know anything about my life prior to 1996. Remember my friend, I ran and operated "many" retail stores and participated in quite a few conferences as a speaker and a voluntary helper. Please don't assume I don't know what I speak about, okay? I don't assume you don't know what you speak about. Afterall my friend, I am 46 years young.
I also forgot to mention in my earlier post that the research done by my boss did not throw up any alarm signals. The SEO company was endorsed and recommended by WPG, which is a 'trusted' product for SEOs.
That brings up another great point. You all say "research", but when you have LARGE conferences and LARGE well known products giving their hearty endorsements of different SEO's, it makes it kind of tough to research, don't ya think? MANY partnerships are out there in spite of what the heck kind of services are performed. It's all about the dollar and greed. Also note that MANY SEO's claim a potential client 'cannot' contact a current client because of 'privacy' issues. That bullcrap. Most clients would love to talk to others regarding the SEO. I know this is fact first hand. Do you honestly believe TopPile would give the names of their clients? I asked that guy straight up in this thread to give me the url of ONE client. Did he? Hell no. So how can you do any research on SEO's?

You decide.

You can spin this all you wish. Facts are facts. The fact is, ANY speaker of a large conference is given an endorsement by that conference. That's the bottom line. Say what you wish but that is a pure and simple fact.

medkraft, I notice you don't give a birthday in your profile? Since you say you have all of this knowledge with business, and I don't, please tell me how old you are so I can gage all of this business experience you must have?

[JohnC]

We never hear of any failures, John.

We were told by our ex-SEO when the project crumbled that the keyword phrases were too competitive. I also forgot to mention in my earlier post that the research done by my boss did not throw up any alarm signals.Sorry to hear that, I know those kind of set backs are a pain. But essentially, I think you are saying this company told you, "you" picked keywords that were to competitive.... ie: "It was your fault." ... Interesting.
The SEO company was endorsed and recommended by WPG, which is a 'trusted' product for SEOs. Do you still think as highly of WPG as a company? The product stands on it's own, but do you still trust WPG after they recommended this SEO? Out of curiosity, what other research did you do before selecting this company/person and how much did WPG's recommendation play in your choice?
My company did however accept all responsibility for the 'poor' decision. We really had no choice. We are now #1 for the same keyword phrase that was too competitive - with in-house SEO. :rolleyes: [/B] Great! And you are correct we have to live with our decisions and learn from them. But companies like WPG and events like SES effect our decision making process. In a perfect world they would put the SEO industry as a higher priority than the dollar. As we all know, it's not a perfect world, but we can try to make it a better one with great conversations like this one. :cheers:

[Rankenstein@Home]

"Have any of you ever explained a failure as “Well you didn’t do your research, so it’s your fault.” "

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. You mean, would I blame the client for myself not hitting an agreed target? Has it happened at some time that I haven't hit an agreed target? Of course. Whose fault is it? If it's my responsibility, it's my fault.

Doug: Don't you think that the Google advice for webmasters goes far enough? Surely, if you read about that, then see what SALSA are doing, you know it's not right. Or is that not right?
Also, do you think the solutions you advocate are actually possible? Or is this more an ideally speaking kind of thing?

"Do you honestly believe TopPile would give the names of their clients? I asked that guy straight up in this thread to give me the url of ONE client. Did he? Hell no."
Yeah, but that's hardly surprising in itself...considering you already have him nailed down as a bad character and, rightly or wrongly, are gunning for him heavily.

At the moment I'm not too sure what this thread is aiming at. Salsa is bad? Jupiter shouldn't let Bolger speak about organic SEO? Maybe he's bery knowledgeable about it (I really don't know, he could be very good at it). Jupiter should tell everyone at the conference about what they consider to be ethical? Anyone who cloaks shouldn't be allowed to speak about SEO at all? It's a little confusing at this point.

[medkraft]

Unlike my opinion, huh? Get your facts straight first off medkraft. You don't know anything about my life prior to 1996. Remember my friend, I ran and operated "many" retail stores and participated in quite a few conferences as a speaker and a voluntary helper. Please don't assume I don't know what I speak about, okay? I don't assume you don't know what you speak about. Afterall my friend, I am 46 years young.

Yes, I said opinion. Because that's all you say you have to offer. At least, until it suits your needs.

If you have facts to offer then I suggest again that you change your signature and quit misleading all the folks who come here looking for advice. After all, these are the people you're claiming to fight for.

I for one am tired of you thrashing SES, SEMPO, Overture and other organizations because you feel hurt by their presence or they don't live up to your level of professionalism.

You talk a lot about professionalism and how important it is in our industry yet your approach to dealing with many of these so called unprofessional organizations is anything but. And it doesn't help your cause when you berate people like the president of SEMPO (who I respect), especially after inviting them to the debate in the first place. Where's the professionalism in that my friend?

Note: Here's an example of some of the unprofessional attitude towards other SEO professionals I'm referring to.

Webmama Comments (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11014&perpage=10&highlight=webmamma&pagenumber=22)

Now, please excuse me while I go look for some moral fiber.

[medkraft]

At the moment I'm not too sure what this thread is aiming at. Salsa is bad? Jupiter shouldn't let Bolger speak about organic SEO? Maybe he's bery knowledgeable about it (I really don't know, he could be very good at it). Jupiter should tell everyone at the conference about what they consider to be ethical? Anyone who cloaks shouldn't be allowed to speak about SEO at all? It's a little confusing at this point.

Yeah I agree.

[jeep]

Originally posted by medkraft
..snip..

Diversity. Tolerance. .snip..

As I said above, SES is not a standards group or a professional association.

"Diversity. Tolerance" We are all butterflies! There are no rules!!!
Wheeee!!!! Fly Peter Pan Fly!!!

"As I said above, SES is not a standards group or a professional association. "

But it could be. And Doug is advocating that. Making it a professional forum. With dogma, ethics, credo, and standards.
"We follow search engine guidelines Jane Q. Customer. Why? Because it is good for you."

Allowing whatizname to speak would be an endorsement of him, thus against your credo and bad for Jane Q.

[ihelpyou]

Doug: Don't you think that the Google advice for webmasters goes far enough? Surely, if you read about that, then see what SALSA are doing, you know it's not right. Or is that not right?
How many site owners even know that guidelines page even exists? Do we actually think TopPile is going to point out that page to a potential client when trying to sell their services?
Also, do you think the solutions you advocate are actually possible?
Of course. It would seem that giving a quick couple of sentences disclaimer at the start of each session day would be something extremely easy to implement.

It would also seem that choosing SEO's to speak on a session entitled "organic SEO", would make that 'chooser' much more careful when choosing that speaker.

This all seems to be lots of common sense to me. It also seems to be very straight forward to me.

I go back to the fact that there are thousands of SEO's out there who might love to speak at the SES conference. Choosing one would seem to be an easy task.

Again, the whole point is the 'sterling recommendation' that is given "by default" to any speaker of the conference. This recommendation is "inherent" by default no matter what kind of industry we are talking about. This is called "common sense". It's also called "human nature".

[polarmate]

Hey medkraft, you may want to edit that link you placed to webmama's post cos the anchor text is being used as the URL.

Take a look at the SEMPO FAQ that is now there on their site. Some wheels were put into motion - whether here or elsewhere...it happened. :cheers:

[ihelpyou]

I for one am tired of you thrashing SES, SEMPO, Overture and other organizations because you feel hurt by their presence or they don't live up to your level of professionalism.
Well guess what medkraft?

I am tired of organizations and such not wanting to take any responsibility for their actions or lack there of. I'm also tired of others sticking up for these organizations who stick up for spammers no matter what.

I guess we are even and at a block in the road.

It's a known fact as well that a group and discussion in the public can do MUCH more than one email from one person in private. Do you really think SEMPO would have put a disclaimer of any kind if I had simply sent them a personal email? LOL

It's a debate such as this that enable changes to actually happen. I am hopeful that SES will add a disclaimer OR be more careful when choosing their speakers.

[medkraft]

It's a known fact as well that a group and discussion in the public can do MUCH more than one email from one person in private.

I agree. We just disagree on the way to go about it.

[peter_d]

Doug:

That alone tells me that you don't feel the conference feels any responsibility to the people who are attending. If they did, they would be more careful when choosing the speakers.

What you're saying is that if others don't meet your conditions and standards, then they are acting irresponsibly.

Perhaps others are acting responsibly, they just don't agree with your narrow definition of same.

Let's turn this round.

SEO X offers the following service:
asks client what line of business they are in
runs a few terms through wordtracker
optimises a few pages for a short list of keywords that the seo thinks might fit
runs a rank checker to see if those words are ranking
charges client

SEO Y offers the following service:
Researches clients line of business. Researches industry. If the SEO feels there's a gap, the SEO takes the client on.
SEO runs PPC campaign to test effectiveness of keyword terms
SEO performs A/B testing on adcopy to test if keyword terms help achieve desired result
Based on the results of the step above, optimise accordingly
Measure and track roi based on comparible offline benchmarks

Two different approaches, both within the guidelines.

The first approach is, IMHO, unprofessional. It doesn't tie the keyword terms into a marketing strategy or provide adequate benchmarks. It's a shot in the dark as to whether the former campaign will generate real benefit for the client, although the SEO will still get paid.

Ethical? Professional?

Are you going to publish a disclaimer on this forum against advice given by those SEOs who practice the former because I think their approach may be unprofessional? (not that I think this should happen, I'm simply illustrating my argument)

Who has the authority to define what is or what isn't professional? In the absence of a standards body, then it is surely a matter of opinion.

[ihelpyou]

Neither of those is Unprofessional, although the rank check part is against the TOS of all engines. I don't do rank check reports.

Spamming is Unprofessional. Spam as defined by the search engines and written clearly on "all" their websites.

You are very good at trying to change the subject Peter. I'll give you lots of credit for that.

[peter_d]

You're very good at ignoring my argument, Doug :)

I'm not sure I can refine my argument any further. Your definition of professionalism is just that. Your definition.

You're making a mistake in calling others unprofessional because they don't fit your definition. Your definition may be wrong.

You let the search engines define how you behave. That does not therefore make you a professional, merely someone who follows search engine guidelines.

[ihelpyou]

Great.

If you don't follow the stated guidelines, what does that make you?

UnProfessional and Unethical

as stated by Google themselves. "We" "don't" have set standards so all we have are the search engines, right?

The issue Peter is if there should be better screening when it comes to 'choosing' ses speakers.

I say yes. You say no.

End of story.

I've also read your posts elsewhere about this and you are the same way. No problem at all. It's just we will never see eye to eye on ANY issue so what's the point? You are in my house. You can debate all you wish, but I will hold steadfast to my definition of a Professional and my feelings in regards to choosing the worse spammer in history as a speaker.

That's the bottom line no matter how you wish to spin it. You can spin other places all day long if you want, but I don't take to spin very well. :)

[ihelpyou]

btw, I don't do PPC campaigns at all. I hire out for that. Does that make me not a Professional also? Not.

You don't do SEO campaigns but you do "push" strongly PPC campaigns. Does that make you not a Professional also? Not.

That has zero to do with things and you certainly know it.

[peter_d]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish don't know they've been shot :)

If you don't follow the stated guidelines, what does that make you?

If person X doesn't follow the stated guidelines, that makes person x someone who doesn't follow the stated guidelines.

You're making a jump in logic to associate that with professionalism, or the lack thereof. That may make someone unprofessional, but not necessarily.

You cannot therefore say person X is unprofessional because they don't follow third-party guidelines which they had no say in devising.

You don't do SEO campaigns but you do "push" strongly PPC campaigns. Does that make you not a Professional also? Not.

You make statements with nothing to back them up. I do SEO, which is a subset of SEM, which is a subset of internet marketing.

I do internet marketing.

You seem incapable of constructing a logical argument, therefore there is little point to a debate. You hold an irrational viewpoint.

[ihelpyou]

huh?

I said 'does that make you not a Professional also? Not."

That's what I said. In other words, I called you a Professional.

Most members of any group or organization "with" a set of standards, don't actually have input as to what those standards are. You said this:
You cannot therefore say person X is unprofessional because they don't follow third-party guidelines which they had no say in devising.
When has any member of anything had a say in devising? They still have to follow the guidelines, otherwise they would be deemed "unprofessional." What's wrong with following the set of guidelines put out there by the search engines?

What's the diff?

[peter_d]

That's what I said. In other words, I called you a Professional.

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick and misrepresented your statement. However, you appear to be agreeing with me, then? Being "a professional seo" is a matter of opinion.

What's wrong with following the set of guidelines put out there by the search engines?

Nothing at all. But to say someone who doesn't is therefore unprofessional isn't correct.

[projectphp]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish don't know they've been shot
Too funny.

I had to get back on this bandwagon, I feel cheated I missed 10 pages wortn of such a debate.

I have an example that I want to mention, that is in fact very relevant: ADs on walls and telegraph poles (power poles?? Dunno what Yanks call em. The thing electricity wires hang from).

Now, in many cases, such ads are pulled down or pasted over in a very short time frame, in the same way a website is banned by SE. Similarly, they cost a lot to produce. But many people decide to use them anyway. They choose to use such a service, even though they know the posters wont last more than a few days, at the very best. It is an inherently short term solution.

But so what? Such advertisers accept the risk, understand the cost, expect a positive ROI and on this basis proceed.

For some, Salsa and the risks associated may justify the expense and the short term exposure. That is their personal choice. Stopping people that put up ads on walls speaking at an advertising convention serves no one well, and in fact makes the conference poorer. Ditto Salsa. It is an option, it breaks no law I can find (and certainly no ruling ever handed out) and the makers aren't known to break any advertising laws when promoting the product.

Now, I don't agree with the approach for most site owners. In fact, I would counsel against it. That I don't think it is a sound marketing strategy, doesn't mean people don't have the right to hear about it.

To go to teh heart of Doug's argument: consumer advocacy and protection, if someone is stupid enough to hire TopPile and NOT, at the very least, go to google and type in salsa top pile (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=salsa+top+pile&spell=1) (guess whio is number one) then who could have protected them really?

[ihelpyou]

You could type in anything that has to do with toppile for that matter:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=toppile

You know why? Because the toppile site has been banned for along time now.

Yes, we all know how easy it is to find the information needed. It's easy to post and say that the consumer can also find this. Can they really? Is it truly the consumers fault that they are not armed with ALL the knowledge they need to make a wise decision?

Is it truly up to them to decide? Even if they sit and see and listen to toppile speak at the world's largest and trusted search engine conference on the planet, is it still truly simply up to them to make the good choice? Don't we as "Professionals" see the need to have disclaimers on sites who sign up members and promote them, and at conferences who choose speakers and promote them?

You decide.

[Steve Sardell]

Of course not. But SES is not AMA. AMA operates for members. (SES does not). the AMA is a professional association (SES is not). The AMA has been around for six decades (SES has not). AMA has a responsibility to members (SES does not).
Hi MedK,

There was a reason I stated take to the absurd, and knowingly or not you have grasped it and restated it it very well indeed. As you state SES is not a professional organization, does not operate for its memebrs (attendees), and has no responsibility to its members (attendees) Now I ask you, as one who has much experience in the conducting and organizing of conferences and events, is this a proper and professional philosophy. It appears to me at least, Jupiter Media is holding themselves out as professional,and if they do not back what they are presenting then they should openly state that fact. There is nothing damaging about a disclaimer, in fact, it makes excellent legal sence to do so.

Much has been promulgated about the old term caveat emptor whether it be articles, conferences, or selectiong a SEO or SEM firm. Personally I do attempt to accomplish due diligence in the majority of my selections, however, I did get stuck with World Comp and yet I had studied everything available. I, like many, was stuck because not all pertinent data was revealed. Did I learn from it- certainly. Will I make the same mistake again--maybe. The mistake , however, was not because I did not do my homework, but rather because all the material was not made available.

In my businesses, I do not adhere to the philosophy of *buyer beware*. I have built my busineses on trust and credibility and will continue so. Do I lose some clients-yes-do I gain more in the long term-yes.

In the States there are some avocations that have been fighting a black eye for years. Did they cause the stigma-not necessarily. It was caused by some unscrupulous individuals who came before them. As an example; timeshare sales persons have been fighting an image problem much like the car sales person. Not because they currently have done anything wrong, but they fight the image created by those previously in the profession.

We are in an industry that has no apparent standards, and it will be what we make it. As an anology, there are the short term fixes like the old mechanic's trick of putting sawdust into the transmission box to make it run until the driver is 500 miles away, or there are the longer term more time consuming methods of tearing down and rebuilding. Either will work, just one longer than the other. I simply prefer the longer, although, I know there are some who would prefer the quicker.

SEM is here to stay and it will become what we as individual practitioners do--the choice is ours to make.

"That's my opinion, and I am out of here" at least for a bit of lunch.

[ihelpyou]

Very good post Steve! :up:

[projectphp]

In my businesses, I do not adhere to the philosophy of *buyer beware*. I have built my busineses on trust and credibility and will continue so.
And kudos to you. But so what? I fail to see how that links back to a conferences decision to provide a wide ranging conference on a topic for which there is, as we all agree, no standard and no absolutes.

It isn't about caveat emptor, or responsibility to people, it is education. Education must be wide reaching to be effective. There is no other way, and this is an area that a lot of people simply do not get.

As examples, there are multiple cases of issues taught that we don't want people to do, or know about. Biology leads to an understanding of microbes, and potentially bilogical warfare agents. Do we ban Biology? What about sex education? Drug education? Were does any society draw the educational line?

IMHO, SES has a duty to provide a wide range of opinions on topics for which there is no right or wrong. There is no standard, ergo nothing can be considered "wrong" absolutely. This is very different to a conference in which a speaker openly discussing an illegal product or service.

SEM is here to stay and it will become what we as individual practitioners do--the choice is ours to make.
Absolutely. 100% agree. But that doesn't justify censorship of a firm or technique that is not illegal, and for which no advertising law is broken. The logical leap from "Professional responsibility" to censorship is flawed and not logically sequential.

I understand your point of view, but to paraphrase the immortal words of Noam Chomsky: Free speach isn't allowing people to speak I agree with, it is sitting and listening to someone say something that makes your blood boil, and then turning around and defending their right to say it. Jewish lawyers have defended the Klan's right to speach, Feminists have defended the rights of sexists to speak, ditto here.

Besides which, SES stands for "Search Engine Strategies", and surely Salsa is a strategy, if nothing else.

[peter_d]

That was a good post, Steve, as was projectphp's regarding bills.

It's not safe to assume that because a supplier adheres to an arbitrary set of standards, that the client will then be protected i.e. a supplier says they follow search engine guidelines.

It is also not safe to assume because a firm has been bad-mouthed, that that firm is therefore bad.

A disclaimer may offer some level of protection to those who a) read it and b) be under the impression that a speaker has been pre-validated in some way. I'm of the opinion that supplier selection requires a lot more than that, but then that's how I go about it.

People looking to choose a SEM supplier would do well to consider the arguments raised in this thread :)

[Kal]

Sorry John, but I just couldn't let this one slip by:
Originally posted by JohnC
Keeping with the medical theme of other industry examples, If a person does research and gets a couple of opinions then decide to go with Dr. A for their surgery, is it their fault that Dr. A forgets and leaves a sponge inside their body cavity? This could be life threatening. Poor SEO can be risky but not that risky :). Comparing medical malpractice with SEO is illogical, IMO.

[Blue]

There would surely be a lot of happier folks out there, and a lot fewer untrusting folks out there, if organizations like these took responsibility.

It could only be of benefit to all concerned, with of course the exception of those using less than best practice methods.

Further, there's nothing in it that would be prohibiting those using less than best practice methods from touting their wares elsewhere. They would still retain their power of free speech and the conference could still offer a wide selection of variety.

Education is a great way to instill confidence in the industry, but why not have it be taught by speakers that use best practices and have knowledge about less than best practices?

Freedom of speech, tolerance, and diversity are all great .... until that point in time wherein they become harmful or are used for deciept.

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by projectphp
And kudos to you. But so what? I fail to see how that links back to a conferences decision to provide a wide ranging conference on a topic for which there is, as we all agree, no standard and no absolutes.Why? because of this sort of attitude. This Industry will never be taken seriously by business until this attitude changes. I spent over twenty years in Telemarketing I can say categorically this industry will end up with the same reputation if this attitude continues to pervade the industry, I see the exact same pattern of abuse and the exact same arguments defending them, it's a shame that arguments like censorship and equal opportunuity are the excuses used to defend the Industry Members who are scamming and spamming. It's pathetic that somone calling themselves a professional would tolerate them! I agree with Doug's stance I can't say I like his methods but I agree with the philosophy.

It isn't about caveat emptor, or responsibility to people, it is education. Education must be wide reaching to be effective. There is no other way, and this is an area that a lot of people simply do not get.So your saying drug education should also include demonstrations of how to purchase and inject heroin, or cook your own crack? I don't know many parents who would agree with that.
IMHO, SES has a duty to provide a wide range of opinions on topics for which there is no right or wrong. There is no standard, ergo nothing can be considered "wrong" absolutely. This is very different to a conference in which a speaker openly discussing an illegal product or service.Most of the attendees are consumers, they wouldn't know SE spam from the type in a can! I deal with this every day and I can say without a doubt Organizations and conferences are attended and contacted because consumers trust that the information they receive will be sans "BS"! They use these services because they know they don't know enough to make an informed choice and they are looking for help. IMO, the responsibility lies with those representing themselves in that capacity to be cognizant of this and make choices that protect consumers.Absolutely. 100% agree. But that doesn't justify censorship of a firm or technique that is not illegal, and for which no advertising law is broken. The logical leap from "Professional responsibility" to censorship is flawed and not logically sequential.This censorship argument is a crock! It isn't an inalienable right to speak at this conference it is by invitation only so calling it censorship is just deflecting "the responsibility" the conference has to its patrons and the Industry which it claims to represent! They chose to represent the industry with this Conference they owe it to the Industry to be responsible about who they ask to speak if that speaker has the potential to be a problem do you think only SES is affected? No, everyone in the industry gets painted with that brush and the next guy who tries to sell them services has to start by removing that mistrust.
Besides which, SES stands for "Search Engine Strategies", and surely Salsa is a strategy, if nothing else.However the underlying problem is that Salsa will not see the light of day. TopPile will not float that at the conference because it would get shot down and cause them a great deal of embarassment. They will likely just float the non spam part of the strategy (using that term in its loosest definition) which if anyone hires them as a result of that presentation will have bought a false bill of goods. People go to these conferences for a reason, and it isn't why you would go they are there looking for a strategy and so the presenters have a real advantage in gaining that business. In fact that is one of the points Jupiter makes when they are selling sponsorships and SEO's on the benefits of sponsoring or attending the event!

[projectphp]

And kudos to you. But so what? I fail to see how that links back to a conferences decision to provide a wide ranging conference on a topic for which there is, as we all agree, no standard and no absolutes.
Why? because of this sort of attitude. This Industry will never be taken seriously by business until this attitude changes.
Pray tell, what attitude is that? You extrapolate a lot from very little. Business takes PPC VERY seriously. Maybe small business doesn't, but lumping everyone in together is counter productive.

Education must be wide reaching to be effective...
So your saying drug education should also include demonstrations of how to purchase and inject heroin, or cook your own crack? I don't know many parents who would agree with that.
Straw man argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html).

Most of the attendees are consumers, they wouldn't know SE spam from the type in a can...They use these services because they know they don't know enough to make an informed choice and they are looking for help
My emphasis added
Untrue. You don't need to know how a brain works to pick a surgeon. Ditto knowing how cars work to pick a mechanic. There are plenty of one page "how to hire" guides in the world, from employees to lawyers and stock brokers. SEM is no more difficult than any of these.

To claim people can't make an informed decision is unfair, if not insulting to people's intelligence. That they wont make informed deciusions is inevitable and regretable, but not the issue. The goal is informing as many people as possible, so that they can make an informed decision.

Howevcer, it also can't be asumed that two people making an informed decision will reach the same answer. Not everyone, even with a specific level of knowledge, will reach the same conclusion as a collegue, not in any industry, not ever. Look at lots0. He decided, with all the information, to go down a certain path, and still locks horns with Doug regularly. He was, and is, very well informed, but made a conscious, informed decision.

This censorship argument is a crock! It isn't an inalienable right to speak at this conference it is by invitation only so calling it censorship is just deflecting "the responsibility" the conference has to its patrons and the Industry which it claims to represent! They chose to represent the industry with this Conference they owe it to the Industry to be responsible about who they ask to speak if that speaker has the potential to be a problem do you think only SES is affected? No, everyone in the industry gets painted with that brush and the next guy who tries to sell them services has to start by removing that mistrust.
Ahh, but by dictating who a third party has the right to invite to their conference, you are censoring that third party, are you not? The moral imperative not to invite a certain person is censorship. As far as I can ascertain, there is no legal reason why any of the parties listed can't be invited, only perceived moral reasons. As we all have different opinions on the issue of what professional is, I fail to see what else it can be called when one group tries to tell another what to do but censorship.

To take a step back, a lot of what you talk about revolves around "the Industry". But what is this "The Industry" you speak of, and who makes it up? Is it SEOs? SEMs? Interent Marketers? Is a media buying agency part of "the Industry"? If not, @ what % of total spend dedicated to SEM does a media buyer become part of "the Industry"? Is Top-Pile part of "The Industry" or is it not? Who decides?

To take up the medical analogy, is a naturopath, Chiropractor, massuer or chemist a health care worker? If not, what sector do they workl in? Medicine has a similar "fringe" element, many of whom they don't like. But this dislike surely doesn't change the fact that massuers, reflexologists, chemists and Surgeons all work in the same area / industry, if defined broadly enough.

I hope you see my trouble in understanding your position on this issue of Industry which is so central to your argument. With no delineation of where a grpoup of SE strategy practitioners become part of an industry, claiming one person's method is "wrong" absolutely is a irrelevant. We need to seperate strategies and ethics. A conference about strategies needs variety, or it would be the Search Engine Strategy conference, and a wee bit boring.

A lot of what you say has merit. A lot of it is stuff I agree with, in terms of personal outlook and perspective. But you take it one step too far. Top-Pile, for better or worse, is part of the SE world, particularly the SE Strategies world. Thsi si also true of Fantomister and their cloaking speciality, the thousands of people that sell products many of us don't want to be associated with, as well as Doug and his Best Practice stance. A Search Engine Strategies conference isn't an SEO conference. It isn't an SEM conference. It is a place in which people discuss various strategies, and learn how it all works.

Arguing that Top-Pile wont discuss EXY is also irrelevant. If you don't like a sterategy, ask a question. If you think people need to hear about it, discuss it. That is the only way to geta message accross.

[MakeMeTop]

My 2 cents:

Top-Pile will be in attendance at SES regardless of if they speak or not. They are an exhibitor. This means that they are in the position of being able to sell their services to attendees in any event.

Paddy believes that his methods of SEM are totally valid and he has a product that is useable by any form of company. He couldn't really care less what SEs think of his methods - he feels that his priority is getting results for his clients and damn what SEs say! Forget what you or I may think of his methods, or if we believe they will work long-term - he believes firmly that he is right, is totally upfront on what he does (unlike many others out there who do the same thing) and is proud of it, proud of his company and proud of their products.

Now, I would say that his attitude is so far removed from a significant number of SEOs that, given Top-Pile are going to be in attendance in any case, his participation in a discussion on Organic SEO is a very good choice. Rather than have 3 "me-too" panel members you will have IProspect (don't expect to get anything from SEM unless you spend $20K per month), me - representing the "standard SEO" ground and Paddy representing an entirely different view. Out of the 3 speakers, I would have thought I was the one who could be the most easily replaced as I will be reflecting the more mainstream aproach to organic SEO - as can many of the people here - possibly even better.

Surely this will allow potential SEM clients, who will probably have been given a sales pitch from vendors on the previous day, the opportunity to ask questions (this is an open panel) and get a pretty diverse range of answers leading to (hopefully) a healthy debate on the issues, strengths and weaknesses of the various strategies.

Whilst I agree on the fact that SES speakers are perceived to have some credibility/status by attendees - I think it is a little unfair to attempt to have Paddy blackballed from speaking. He is the most vociferous and possibly best known exponent of a particular method of SEM that SEs and a large number of SEOs love to hate. Rightly or wrongly, I personally think that having him as part of any open discussion on SEO so that participants can make their own judgements is a good thing.

I'm really looking forward to the panel :D

Anyway, I'm ready to have my logic shot down in flames!

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by projectphp
Untrue. You don't need to know how a brain works to pick a surgeon. Ditto knowing how cars work to pick a mechanic. There are plenty of one page "how to hire" guides in the world, from employees to lawyers and stock brokers. SEM is no more difficult than any of these.Why don't you,? simply because every example you gave has a "governing body" or is gov't regulated. Not to say that is good, however, it drastically reduces the degree of knowledge required to make an informed choice. Do lawyers and stockbrokers tolerate bad elements in the profession? Ask yourself why? That's the attitude that I was referring to. I don't think it necessary to remove them just make it so they don't tarnish everyone in the SEO industry, I agree it is a lot less of an issue with PPC, but on the other hand, AFAIK sites aren't banned for PPC methodology.
To claim people can't make an informed decision is unfair,Can't? Never did I say or imply that theycan't make an informed decision, I said" they know, they don't know enough to make an informed choice" because that is what I've been told countless times by consumers looking for an SEO, that's why they call and email the Organization and attend these conferences isn't it.?
if not insulting to people's intelligence. That they wont make informed deciusions is inevitable and regretable, but not the issue. The goal is informing as many people as possible, so that they can make an informed decision.

emphasis in bold is mine.That's your opinion I believe it is an issue because it is inevitable and regrettable. That is where responsibility to the attendees comes in. As Barry mentioned it would be great if TP discusses their methodology, they never have in the past but... I've seen stranger things happen and IMO, that makes this discussion moot, at the very least some brave sole may stand up and question TP about how they really do it if so then... full disclosure about the methods used has been achieved. Everyone seems to think Doug wants to dictate, I'm convinced he is just looking out for consumers, can't say I would voice that concern in the same way but... I read between the lines and know it is passion fuelled rhetoric.;)
Ahh, but by dictating who a third party has the right to invite to their conference, you are censoring that third party, are you not? AHHH, Neither was I dictating anything. I'm not the one who said they are.... I simply stated my opinion that a conference, any conference, has a responsibility to the attendees and the profession it represents. :confused:

I stated my opinion, one, by the way which I gave to someone at Jupiter so... don't lump me in with that dictatatorial crew. Sure I think it would be great if SES agreed with my opinion but I don't think it dictating anything to express that opinion. I agree it's their conference, it's their call, but neither do I have to agree with them or you, and most of all I have just as much right to voice that opinion as you or anyone else for that manner. Actually I couldn't give a rats a**e either way, so long as consumers know that Salsa is risky, and AFAIK the client isn't in control of the domains so there is nothing to stop TP from taking that traffic and selling it to the highest bidder, then heay, let the debate begin. That would be a reason to go, I've yet to see any other reason to attend.
To take a step back, a lot of what you talk about revolves around "the Industry". But what is this "The Industry" you speak of, and who makes it up? Is it SEOs? SEMs? Interent Marketers? Pretty obvious isn't it? it is an organic SEO roundtable that is being discussed here so...
A lot of what you say has merit. A lot of it is stuff I agree with, in terms of personal outlook and perspective. But you take it one step too far. I don't think it is going too far to post my opinion. In other private discussions I've vehemently supported SES's right to ask who they want, even though I don't agree that this is a good choice, for consumers or the SEO Industry. So that is your assumption that I support anything remotely dictatorial in nature. Like you, I see both sides of the coin and privately have questioned the tone of parts of this thread. In some ways I think SES is great for the whole Industry, IMO, with that comes a responsibility to the attendees, what you need to really decide is whether a consumer needs to hear from a professional who may, or may not, get domains banned, do you think that is what they expected when they paid for it? Walk a mile in their shoes... you might have a different tune.

[JohnC]

Originally posted by Kal
Sorry John, but I just couldn't let this one slip by:
This could be life threatening. Poor SEO can be risky but not that risky :). Comparing medical malpractice with SEO is illogical, IMO. hehe ... I was hoping someone would take the bait. :) Thanks Kal...

What if I am a small mom and pop Website and I make just enough money to pay my rent and keep food on the table. (I personally know a couple of people who are in this situation) I have a better than average month and decide to invest in SEO to help make my site do better in the engines. In the extreme, bad SEO practices could actually leave me homeless and unable to care for my children.

I know this example is hyper dramatic, but allot of people in this thread are making some rather broad assumptions about the people all of this affects. Sure a mistake by a Dr. is going to cause more harm than a mistake by an SEO, but with the Dr. is was a "mistake". SEO firms who do this deliberately seem to care less about how it affects the lives/livelihoods of their customers.

Ok.. so the example is extreme I know, sorry. Please try and look at the underlying point I am trying to make. Companies who practice SEO in a manner that may cause actual harm to their customers should be stopped, not encouraged. Giving them a voice of any kind is encouragement.

[I am putting on my Flame retardant suit before I hit the Submit button anyway]

btw Kal... someone else started the analogy using the medical profession, I was just taking is a bit further... :)

[JohnC]

I found this online and thought I would share, it may answer a question or two, it may not...

HTML Version of the Top-Pile TOS .pdf (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:vIcIie1gHiYJ:www.freecom.net/filestore/toppileterms.pdf+top+pile&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[ihelpyou]

That TOS was one mile long, so I will not bother. I am "very" sure he is protecting himself from any client lawsuit with a iron-clad TOS. No need to read it. I could care less.

Ok.. so the example is extreme I know, sorry. Please try and look at the underlying point I am trying to make. Companies who practice SEO in a manner that may cause actual harm to their customers should be stopped, not encouraged. Giving them a voice of any kind is encouragement.
That's the bottom line and the whole point and issue. Period.

Barry, I think you are simply suc king up to Paddy simply because you have to fact him in two months. No problem.

I cannot disagree with some posts in here any more than what I do. Anytime an industry gives anyone the podium, that person is seen in a different light by ALL members, no matter what techniques they practice in whatever industry they are in.

If you all think that is SES being responsible and being Professional, I certainly don't think you truly believe that, and are simply sticking up for the spammers.

It seems the SAME people who disagree with me in here, are the same people who disagreed with me in the SEMPO thread. If you remember, SEMPO made changes to their website "because" of discussion forum threads. A disclaimer was added, etc. Not good enough yet, but changes were made.

[MakeMeTop]

suc king up to Paddy

Oooo - ouch!

Does it really look like I was doing that?

Not my style - and I wasn't.

Just giving an opinion on who should be speakers on a panel at SES. If it were FantoMaster - I'd say the same thing.

[ihelpyou]

Oh okay.

I am surprised you think a new website owner should be subjected to UnProfessional SEO's. You have to know a speaker at a high profile conference is seen as a leader.

I'd love to be in the audience at the organic SEO session. On second thought, maybe not. I'd be VERY outspoken with questions.

So why is your domain banned by ALL the search engines TopPile? Do you understand the consequences of 'any' website using your services? Do you understand the harm you can cause any domain of a client? Let me hear the spin you give any potential client who asked you about your services please. Do you have a list of your clients that new website owners can contact? Can I attend the little meetings you may have with potential clients at this SES conference? You know, the meetings that 'do' occur immediately after the session is over? I'd like to sit in on your conversation and get a feel as to how you sell your spam services to a client. Thanks!

[MakeMeTop]

>I'd love to be in the audience at the organic SEO session..

Believe me, people with the same opinions as you WILL be in the audience asking questions.

That's why I'm looking forward to it.

[ihelpyou]

I doubt they ask the questions I did in the post above. I truly doubt that.

Besides, the underlaying issue is why do conferences put up these people as leaders? AND, if they insist on doing so, why not have a disclaimer? Doesn't that protect the conference from lawsuits? Isn't that in the best interest of the conference and of the conference attendees AND of our industry?

This is all so much of common sense to me. I can't understand why it's sooo hard to understand. It's cut and dry.

[peter_d]

There is a lot of fog in this thread.

Nobody wants people taken for a ride by unscrupulous operators.

Should the public be protected? Yes, of course.

Should "the industry" move to protect itself from gaining a poor reputation? Yes, of course.

How much should consumers be protected? Are the existing levels of consumer protection enough, or should there be more? Is operator x that bad, really? Who says he is any worse that operator y? Who has the authority to say that?

I'm not for or against a disclaimer - I just don't think it offers much in the way of protection. And where does it end? Big flashing lights above every presenter saying "Warning: this speaker may be talking bollocks!" ?

I'm of the opinion that existing consumer laws, coupled with due diligence, research and free speech allow for far greater consumer protection.

This is nothing new, and has been the case ever since Ob tried to sell some dodgy cave "art" to his cousin Ug, and Ug decided to ask around first :)

[projectphp]

Webmaster T said
Everyone seems to think Doug wants to dictate, I'm convinced he is just looking out for consumers,
Which is pretty well answered by this:

Peter_d said:
I'm of the opinion that existing consumer laws, coupled with due diligence, research and free speech allow for far greater consumer protection.

Webmater T said:
... simply because every example you gave has a "governing body" or is gov't regulated. Not to say that is good, however, it drastically reduces the degree of knowledge required to make an informed choice
T, Stockbrokers can lose all your money, Lawyers can lose your case. There are no guarantees. None. You still need to know that when your stockbroker recommends you buy shares in Small Internet Startup XYZ that this recommendation is more risky than buying Microsoft shares. You still need to understand something about the market. I fail to see how SEM is any different. If you searched on the internet a nd read a few articles for 30 minutes, you would have at least a baseline understanding, and enough knowledge to make a somewhat informed decision. If one doesn't, how can we possibly protect these people?

I think that this debate all revolves around where to draw the line. How much do we protect consumers? How much do we stop people with legitimate products we don't agree with speaking at a conference in an industry in which they participate?

It also revolves around the assumptiuon is made that an SES conference is full of innocent newbies, who don't know a search engine from a V8. I don't know that is accurate or true.

MakeMeTop said:
I would have thought I was the one who could be the most easily replaced
LOL. I can't believe you actually posted that MakeMeTop!!! Surely you are irreplaceable ;)

[Blue]

Originally posted by projectphp
....
I fail to see how SEM is any different. If you searched on the internet a nd read a few articles for 30 minutes, you would have at least a baseline understanding, and enough knowledge to make a somewhat informed decision. If one doesn't, how can we possibly protect these people?
The 'how' is the easy part. We can all figure that out. The real question is why wouldn't you want to protect these people?

And there stands the line drawn in this thread IMO - between those whom are willing to do so and are actively taking a stand to help it be so, and those who don't seem to care, or aren't willing, for whatever reason, to do so.

[peter_d]

between those whom are willing to do so and are actively taking a stand to help it be so, and those who don't seem to care, or aren't willing, for whatever reason, to do so.

You're misrepresenting the argument.

The point is there are many ways to protect consumers. Projectphp, myself, mmt and others are saying that one good way of doing that is through research.

actively taking a stand

Great. Talk is cheap, so put your money where your mouth is.

Why aren't you standards people forming a standards body and holding high profile, well advertised conferences of your own? Don't you need to actively take your message to the consumers you're trying to protect i.e. those too stupid or too lazy to conduct their own basic research using that Google thingamy?

Hmmm?

[projectphp]

<added>And what Peter said as well</added>

The 'how' is the easy part. We can all figure that out.
So not true. How do you protect the ignorant, who don't want to learn? How do you give advice to people that never ask for it? The only way to protect consumers absolutely, 100% is to lock them in their houses or impose communist / fascist style choice reduction. There is no other way. With freeedom of chhoice comes responsibility. A harsh lesson, but one we all learn at some point.

My country (Australia) has the Trade Practises Act to protect consumers. This dictates what any business that operates in Australia can and can not do. What makes anyone think there is a higher law than that? No one has the right to decide that the proprietors of a legal product should not be permitted to speak at a conference that relates directly to their product and services except lawmakers and the organisers.

And there stands the line drawn in this thread IMO - between those whom are willing to do so and are actively taking a stand to help it be so, and those who don't seem to care, or aren't willing, for whatever reason, to do so.
I can not disagree more, both with the high and mighty moralistic sentiment and the logic. You are taking an illogical, poorly argued, emotive moral high ground, and wrap it all up with a closing statement for which you provide no evidence.

Where is the proof anyone on the side of the line opossed to your own, a line which you just invented and doesn't exist, does nothing to protect consumers? Show me that there isn't one thread in which any Newbie asked about a spamming technique in which none of people on the side you proclaim "don't seem to care, or aren't willing" haven't posted advice that was helpful to making an informed decision. I bet you would struggle to find even one. Heck, re-read this thread, from go to wo, and prove to me that there is one righteous side that cares, and another that doesn't, and that this directly correllates to the two sides you just invented.

As a nice quick example, Kal often posts about spammy techniques, yet she is not on the side of the line you proclaim "are willing to do so". Nor is MakeMeTop on that side, despite both being mods here.

You need to be very careful how wide you draw your brush, Blue, and how heroic you paint your own actions. You will not only alienate many that agree with part of your sentiment, but also reduce the validity of your position by making it a doctrine, rather than a well reasoned view. There are more than two views on any topic, and to split the world into two camps is simply divisive, simplistic and problematic.

Look, I understand the crux of your argument, Doug's and Webmater T's: we need to protect consumers. Right on. Both sides of the imaginary line agree on that 100%. Where the differencs stem, and I want to make this perfectly clear, is in the delivery, the how to that you think is so obvious.

One side believes that protection of consumers can only be acheived by keeping them away from people that don't agree with their personal morals. I believe (I will only speak for myself) that there is plenty of information for any potential client that does due dilligence, and that there are existing places where consumers can get recourse if their SEO / SEM / lawyer lies oto or cheats them.

An SE Strategies conference has every moral, legal and ethical right to invite whomever they see fit to speak, especially if the perspective tahyt person brings is unique and / or different. Education is about breadth of knowledge, and this is never derived from uniformaity of opinion.

[rankforsales]

This is getting to be quite a long post and I sense a strong urge to answer this thread!

As a professional SEO, I seriously believe we need to act fast to protect both the public and the honest SEO's that work hard for the true benefit of their clients.

Like most 'real SEO's' I know and respect in this industry, I am fed up of hearing and reading outrageous claims like this questionable company and their SALSA software or whatever it is they are promoting, to sometimes innocent people in the public that don't know much about search engines or SEO.

A really honest and knowledgeable SEO firm can make serious long-term improvements to a site, that will translate into a much improved ROI and increased targeted traffic.

Let's all work together as a real team in a professional industry, in an effort to completely eliminate these dishonest people that claim to be SEO's when they are really just a bunch of spammers, nothing more.

Like many of you, I get daily emails promising me number One rankings for a cent a click (or something closely impossible to that), when we all know it won't happen. Such claims are only a pipe dream and the public needs to stop falling for such things.

SEO is like building a business. It's a long-term process that takes time, hard work, dedication and love of our work. If you have all that, you will succeed. There are no shortcuts. Only the real ones will survive. If anything, the Florida and Austin updates were good reminders of that.

On that note, I need to go back to my clients!

I'm glad I got this off my chest today!

Serge Thibodeau,
Professional SEO & president,
Rank for $ales

http://www.rankforsales.com/

My blog:
http://www.sergethibodeau.com/

[Blue]

Originally posted by peter_d
You're misrepresenting the argument. On the contrary. Doug pointed out that SES invites speakers whom personaly gain through deceipt. This is the argument. Clear and simple. The ONLY person whom it would NOT benefit, by not inviting them to speak at SES, is the deceiptful one.

Originally posted by peter_d
The point is there are many ways to protect consumers. Projectphp, myself, mmt and others are saying that one good way of doing that is through research. It's a good point, though not the one Doug and I are arguing, and I agree.

Originally posted by peter_d
Great. Talk is cheap, so put your money where your mouth is.

Why aren't you standards people forming a standards body and holding high profile, well advertised conferences of your own? Don't you need to actively take your message to the consumers you're trying to protect i.e. those too stupid or too lazy to conduct their own basic research using that Google thingamy?

Hmmm? The action of posting here in these forums, though it's not specifically forming a standards body nor holding a conference, is at least a step in the right direction.

[Blue]

Originally posted by projectphp
So not true. How do you protect the ignorant, who don't want to learn? How do you give advice to people that never ask for it? The only way to protect consumers absolutely, 100% is to lock them in their houses or impose communist / fascist style choice reduction. There is no other way. With freeedom of chhoice comes responsibility. A harsh lesson, but one we all learn at some point.

....

....

....

I certainly don't call letting a speaker (with the perceived 'status' implied by just being a speaker) speak whom stands to gain through deceipt, and whom's methods may harm folks responsible. Do you?

Right and wrong are moral issues, true, but just because an act is not illegal, doesn't make it right, now does it? That may be a harsh reality, but there's no reason it can't be addressed.

If you take away the methods by which scammers can prey upon the innocent (or as Peter calls them, the "too stupid and too lazy"), you've at least added a layer of protection, and hey, as an added bonus, you've helped your own industry overcome some of the negativity it's garnered because of the scammers within it.

As to the rest of your statements/responses, I'm just not one of those whom says "oh well, so a few innocent people get hurt .... at least we got to hear both sides of the story".

I certainly see your point about the "wideness of my brushstrokes", but I just feel that this is an issue where one must simply choose which "side" they're on. Sometimes it simply comes down to that. And THERE'S a harsh reality.

Whether that actually happens or not, and whether it would do any good reamins to be seen.

It is certainly not my intention to cast aspersions on ANYone here, other than those whom are taking advantage, and I fully realize that we're all really on the same team, and are all here to help those with less knowledge, and do so on a dialy basis.

[peter_d]

invites speakers whom personaly gain through deceipt

You're assuming the moral high ground, and that supplier x is being deceitful.

For example, it is a fact that one traditional model of SEO embraced by many, so-called ethical operators, no longer works. Wonder when that little truth will come out? That on-page tweaking of a few pages will do little or nothing to enhance your position in Google because most of the algo weight has shifted to other factors? Should these operators be outed in order to protect the general public?


The action of posting here in these forums, though it's not specifically forming a standards body nor holding a conference, is at least a step in the right direction.

Maybe so, but the people you claim to be trying to protect don't do any research. They just throw their credit cards wildly at the first person who takes the stage.

You need to take it to them in order to protect them, don't you? And if you don't, then it would appear that you fall on the wrong side of the line you have yourself drawn ;)

[projectphp]

Blue said
Doug pointed out that SES invites speakers whom personaly gain through deceipt
That is risky, risky talk. You are very close to breaking a law making statements like that. To "personaly gain by deceipt" (sic) you are making a very stong statement indeed.

So, where is the proof for this statement? Do you know of any case in which lies were told or deceit used involving any SES speaker? If you make strong statements, you need to be prepared to back them up.

As I mentioned, in Australia we have The Trade Practices Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/). This protects customers from deceitful advertising and conduct in business, in specific section 52 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s52.html) and section 53 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s53.html).

So, in this country, it is my understanding that to "personaly gain by deceipt" (sic) is illegal. If any SEO, SEM or even milkman ever used deceit to sell a product or service, they would be breaking a law.

That is very, very, very different to selling a product that is not illegal, but may be morally questionable to some. As long as a person does not "represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;" (my emphasis added) then no law is broken.

Blue, you need to be very careful before you make statements like this one, especially as a "Super Moderator" of this forum.

rankforsales said:
SEO is like building a business. It's a long-term process that takes time, hard work, dedication and love of our work.
This makes inviting a speaker to a conference wrong because....? Nice sentiment, not really relevant.

[medkraft]

Steve Sardell wrote: It appears to me at least, Jupiter Media is holding themselves out as professional...

As do I, Peter, Doug, Barry, and I'm sure you yourself do. But as a professional, do you have a disclaimer that states your services are just, moral, and will not harm others. I don't, but then again the success of my business depends on how I treat my clients, not a disclaimer. If I do the wrong thing or don't perform, at the end of the day the client has no reason to keep me around.

Steve Sardell wrote: There is nothing damaging about a disclaimer, in fact, it makes excellent legal sence to do so.

As SEM/SEO seems to be in such a stage of chaos, I personally agree with you here. What I don't agree with is the view that SES or SEMPO have to include a disclaimer or censor the bad apples or they're immoral which is clearly the view of some of the folks in this discussion.

SES and SEMPO are what they are. If you want something different then you should get off your backside and do something about it. Join SEMPO and volunteer to form industry standards. Put together your own conference and have a disclaimer to protect the innocent.

Note: I'm not referring to you personally Steve when I refer to you or your in the above paragraph.

It seems the SAME people who disagree with me in here, are the same people who disagreed with me in the SEMPO thread. If you remember, SEMPO made changes to their website "because" of discussion forum threads. A disclaimer was added, etc. Not good enough yet, but changes were made.

Doug, are you referring to the statement SEMPO has under A Note to Site Visitors on the home page? According to Danny Sullivan, that statement was actually on the site (at the bottom of the home page) prior to the latest SEMPO bashing thread.

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7143&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=sempo&start=60

Doug wrote: It seems the SAME people who disagree with me in here, are the same people who disagreed with me in the SEMPO thread. If you remember, SEMPO made changes to their website "because" of discussion forum threads. A disclaimer was added, etc. Not good enough yet, but changes were made.

Knowing that SEMPO is not standards body, is there anything else that SEMPO could do to win you over (besides censoring certain members that is)?

Actually, don't answer that. I just came across the following post.

Doug wrote: Only the seos/sems who 'follow' like puppy dogs will join. Not me. I'm not a follower as I believe everyone knows.

Barry, are you enjoying the fruits of your latest SEMPO win yet?

[ihelpyou]

For example, it is a fact that one traditional model of SEO embraced by many, so-called ethical operators, no longer works. Wonder when that little truth will come out? That on-page tweaking of a few pages will do little or nothing to enhance your position in Google because most of the algo weight has shifted to other factors? Should these operators be outed in order to protect the general public?
hmm Peter. I don't recall that "my" services and they way I make a website the best it can be do not work anymore? Since when? Show me please? What's soooo damn different now than before? Show me please. I'm interested in why I have retained top ten for almost ALL clients thru all of the latest changes. I'm also truly interested in your statement since I have not changed much of anything as to how I help my clients.

Show me please.

I honestly believe your posting is to sway people away from SEO and towards PPC. It's almost obvious looking. :)

As to the other posts in here, I'm astonished as to you all don't see the harm in a spammer as a speaker. It's amazing. Astonishing. And frankly, very UnProfessional...... and that's IMO.

Welcome to the forums rankforsales! :hi:

I agree with your post.... obviously. :)

[ihelpyou]

medkraft wrote:
Doug, are you referring to the statement SEMPO has under A Note to Site Visitors on the home page? According to Danny Sullivan, that statement was actually on the site (at the bottom of the home page) prior to the latest SEMPO bashing thread.
I did not see where he said that at all. If he did, well he is simply wrong. That disclaimer was "only" added "after" the discussion forums started debating it.

And now, Jupiter Media should certainly consider doing the same disclaimer thing before each day of the ses conference.

Well, let me restate that: As a "Professional" company, Jupiter Media should refrain from allowing "UnProfessional" companies to speak anyhoo. It can "never" be a good thing for our industry. Period. Not in anyone's world. Period.

[Blue]

Originally posted by peter_d
.....Maybe so, but the people you claim to be trying to protect don't do any research. They just throw their credit cards wildly at the first person who takes the stage.

You need to take it to them in order to protect them, don't you? And if you don't, then it would appear that you fall on the wrong side of the line you have yourself drawn ;) Nice try Peter. :) That would certainly be one approach but it's not really the thrust of this debate.

In this thread, we're attempting to alleviate the problem through higher channels.

[Steve Sardell]

In regards to discaimers it appears JM takes it very seriously as exemplified by the long legalese stated on its own site
...ANY MERCHANDISE INFORMATION OR SERVICE PROVIDED THROUGH THE SERVICE OR ON THE INTERNET GENERALLY, AND JUPM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY COST OR DAMAGE ARISING EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM ANY SUCH TRANSACTION. IT IS SOLELY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EVALUATE THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS AND USEFULNESS OF ALL OPINIONS, ADVICE, SERVICES, MERCHANDISE AND OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED THROUGH THE SERVICE OR ON THE INTERNET GENERALLY...
If you want boring, the context was taken from the JM legal page (http://www.internet.com/corporate/legal.html)

On the SES page it states succinctly Jupitermedia Corporation assumes no liability for the acts of their suppliers If I were their lawyer, I would definitely rec expanding that statement.

The use of the disclaimer is not necessarily only to warn, but rather to protect the corporate entity. I am sure all have heard radio and TV announce "the opinions of the speakers are not those expressed or endorced by this station" There is a reason for this and it is primarily protection.

[Blue]

Originally posted by projectphp
....

....

....

So, in this country, it is my understanding that to "personaly gain by deceipt" (sic) is illegal. If any SEO, SEM or even milkman ever used deceit to sell a product or service, they would be breaking a law.

That is very, very, very different to selling a product that is not illegal, but may be morally questionable to some. As long as a person does not "represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;" (my emphasis added) then no law is broken.

We all know that just because there ARE laws doesn't mean people still don't get burned by scammers. It happens every day, everywhere.

And just because someone breaks a law doesn't mean they automatically get caught and held liable for their actions.

[peter_d]

hmm Peter. I don't recall that "my" services and they way I make a website the best it can be do not work anymore? Since when? Show me please? What's soooo damn different now than before? Show me please. I'm interested in why I have retained top ten for almost ALL clients thru all of the latest changes. I'm also truly interested in your statement since I have not changed much of anything as to how I help my clients.

Why did you think I was talking about you? You sound rather defensive, good sir.

I honestly believe your posting is to sway people away from SEO and towards PPC. It's almost obvious looking

Believe what you like. I belive that this debate is not about protecting consumers at all, rather an attempt to to reduce competition.

don't see the harm in a spammer as a speaker

They don't have any spammers as speakers. To my knowledge, not one of them advocates sending unsolicited email.

Once again, why are you sitting round this forum talking? Shouldn't you be out there protecting people? These people don't do any research, so won't find this place.

All talk, no action :)

[ihelpyou]

Believe what you like. I belive that this debate is not about protecting consumers at all, rather an attempt to to reduce competition.
Competition? The thought of a spammer as competition is extremely laughable Peter. The point is that ANY Professional would not think that a spammer should be a speaker. Period.

They don't have any spammers as speakers. To my knowledge, not one of them advocates sending unsolicited email.
That seems to be a common answer for you in this thread and in other forums on the internet. You should come up with a better one than that. :)

[ihelpyou]

Further:

Don't think that Yahoo, MSN, Inktomi, Google or any other major engine who may attend that ses conference, thinks for ONE second that "inviting" a spammer to speak is a good thing. You can realistically gather that they think it shows extreme irresponsibility on the part of Jupiter Media to even ask a spammer to speak.

Believe me. I know that is a fact.

[peter_d]

<deleted by poster - off-topic, really>

[medkraft]

Doug wrote: I did not see where he said that at all. If he did, well he is simply wrong. That disclaimer was "only" added "after" the discussion forums started debating it.

Let me help clarify then. In the 9th post on the 6th page, of the following Cre8site forum posted on Wed Mar 17, 2004 at 1:07 pm, Danny Sullivan wrote:

"This is the paragraph Ammon's referring to. Thought it would be helpful for everyone to see:

SEMPO is an industry organization designed to promote search engine marketing in general, not an accreditation body for SEM firms. Membership in SEMPO is not a guarantee of a particular firm's capabilities, nor does it signify industry approval or disapproval of their practices. Potential SEM customers should carefully research any SEM firm they are considering, SEMPO member or not, before establishing a business relationship."

This got added last year after the SEMPO launch, when similar concerns were raised on a different forum.

Currently, it's posted at the bottom of the SEMPO home page. After going through this thread yesterday, I passed along a suggestion to SEMPO that perhaps this should be made more prominent on the home page and in perhaps some other areas, such as above the members directory page and on the request for quote page.

That's something the board will have to decide -- I'm just on the advisory board. However, the fact you see that paragraph at all is a sign that SEMPO recognized early on they didn't want members to suggest SEMPO was providing some type of endorsement.

I think the paragraph was higher on the home page right after the SEMPO launch for the simple reason that when SEMPO was new, there wasn't much other material on the page.

So, hopefully you'll see that more prominent. But I thought it important to stress that this has long been part of the site and came directly out of discussions just like the one happening here."

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7143&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=sempo&start=60

Furthermore, try reading a few of the other posts on Cre8asite Forums. The changes SEMPO made were most likely a direct result of the professional and intelligent debate that took place on Cre8asite, rather than any of the abusive comments spewed from this forum. The fact that you're now taking credit for the improvements SEMPO made is quite astonishing indeed.

Your claim that Mr Sullivan is wrong is ill founded. In fact, it's insulting and unprofessional.

Doug wrote: Believe me. I know that is a fact.

Huh! I thought your motto was:

"Everything I post in here is my opinion only. Nothing more and nothing less. I have zero facts for you, just opinions from a few years of experience with the search engines."

Please quit misleading all the innocent people you're trying to protect.

[sanity]

Originally posted by medkraft
Furthermore, try reading a few of the other posts on Cre8asite Forums. The changes SEMPO made were most likely a direct result of the professional and intelligent debate that took place on Cre8asite, rather than any of the abusive comments spewed from this forum. The fact that you're now taking credit for the improvements SEMPO made is quite astonishing indeed.

Your claim that Mr Sullivan is wrong is ill founded. In fact, it's insulting and unprofessional.
You make some great points medkraft. The irony I find is that the person that pushes this "professional" stuff so strongly behaves so unprofessionally himself. :rolleyes:

[medkraft]

I honestly believe your posting is to sway people away from SEO and towards PPC. It's almost obvious looking.

Professionals like myself, Peter, Sophie, and others who use PPC do it because it's beneficial for our clients (not to mention a few other very good reasons). It's just one of a complimentary suite of services that we provide our clients. Those who continue to focus on only one service, whether it be SEO of PPC will find themselves sitting on the unemployment line in the next 2-3 years, mot to mention, whinging the loudest the next time Google decides to make a few changes to their results.

[Steve Sardell]

Hi Medkraft,

I did not read that Doug was in any way claiming credit for SEMPO making their disclaimer more prominent, but rather that it was derived from discussions on fora. Perhaps I missed it, but I did not read a mention of any particular forum.

Doug wrote: I did not see where he said that at all. If he did, well he is simply wrong. That disclaimer was "only" added "after" the discussion forums started debating it

Danny Sullivan wrote in the Cre8site Forum
...This got added last year after the SEMPO launch, when similar concerns were raised on a different forum...But I thought it important to stress that this has long been part of the site and came directly out of discussions just like the one happening here."

I have added the emphasis.

Discussions like this are great and as seen can get some things accomplished. It can also be accomplished without disparaging one another.

[ihelpyou]

Thanks Steve.

It appears about 3 posters in this thread have their own agenda. They should actually 'read' what I post first. IN NO WAY was I crediting these forums for anything. I said something like "forums" out there.

Yes Sanity. Call me UnProfessional if you wish. :rolleyes:

And no medkraft, I'm not the one who looks Unprofessional in this thread. Not even a close call. Try again.

[projectphp]

Blue said
We all know that just because there ARE laws doesn't mean people still don't get burned by scammers. It happens every day, everywhere...And just because someone breaks a law doesn't mean they automatically get caught and held liable for their actions.
peter_d said
Once again, why are you sitting round this forum talking? Shouldn't you be out there protecting people? These people don't do any research, so won't find this place.
So what are you going to do about it, Blue? If you honestly believe that laws were broken, and in protecting the truly, utterly ignorant, you can´t just post here. In fact, the whole crux of your argument has been that that isn´t enough.

If people that provide software that you believe is wrong are not allowed to speak at a conference, a conference that is litterred with people wanting to learn about Search Engine Strategies, how on Earth can you protect the huddled masses that don´t do any research, simply with a few posts here?

There is more you can do, and as a practical an example of useful action, Commercialalert sent a letter to the FTC regarding Paid Inclusion, in all its forms. The FTC responded (http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/commercialalertletter.htm). If you were fair dinkum about protecting consumers, surely a better approach would be to write letters to official law enforcement agencies about what you believe are laws that have been broken (deceit for personal gain breaks laws in at least my coutry).

Otherwise, your moral stance is just postering, and your desire to stop a speaker at a conference merely censorhip at best, or as Peter points out, an attempt to reduce competition at worst.

Don't think that Yahoo, MSN, Inktomi, Google or any other major engine who may attend that ses conference, thinks for ONE second that "inviting" a spammer to speak is a good thing...Believe me. I know that is a fact.
(my emphasis added)
Are you quoting a source here Doug? Facts are things you can verify, such as with an attributable quote or written confirmation. Everything else is speculation.

[ihelpyou]

I did not quote because I don't remember his exact words. Ask him if you wish. Write to Google. They will tell you whether or not they think it's a good thing for "SPAMMERS" to be invited to speak. Trust me, they "DON'T".

Ask any knowledgeable and Professional SEM for that matter. They will all tell you the exact same thing. All these people in here who don't think it's a great idea are NO rookies, nor are they UnProfessional. They all have an opinion, ... the right one. Others out there who are Not posting have the same opinion. You can count on it.

I doubt if there are many out there that think inviting TopPile to speak is a good thing. Even other spammers. LOL

[ihelpyou]

projectphp wrote:
If you were fair dinkum about protecting consumers, surely a better approach would be to write letters to official law enforcement agencies about what you believe are laws that have been broken (deceit for personal gain breaks laws in at least my coutry.
And guess what? We are planning on doing "just" that very thing. Before tooo long, all spamming might just be deemed as "unfair advertising practices", of which it certainly is just that. My goal is to put ALL spammers out of business for good. If they could not spam, they could not be in business. They have NO clue as to how to achieve good presence the ethical way. They would not know how.

[projectphp]

I did not quote because I don't remember his exact words. Ask him if you wish. Write to Google. They will tell you whether or not they think it's a good thing for "SPAMMERS" to be invited to speak. Trust me, they "DON'T".
Doug, a fact is: (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact&r=67)
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:
Now, if you have a quote, not just from Google (you quoted three others: Yahoo, MSN and Inktomi), then you have a fact. Otherwise, it is either speculation, or a belief.

You may have evidence Google don't like it, that isn't the issue. But to claim it is a fct is a stretch, unless you can support the statement. As for Inktomi et al think, it is pure speculation.

So, rather than fact, try something less absolute. Try "I remember an email from XYZ from company ABC where it was mentioned that (and I am paraphrasing)...." A poorly supported argument is just so much easier to dismiss.

Ask any knowledgeable and Professional SEM for that matter. They will all tell you the exact same thing. All these people in here who don't think it's a great idea are NO rookies, nor are they UnProfessional.
That is an argumentative fallacy: An appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html). It also depends upon definition: is MakeMeTop not knowledgable? Peter_d? I also object to teh use of "all". This debate wouldn't be occurring if everyone agreed.

They all have an opinion, ... the right one.
There are very few right opinions, in fact, that is what an opinion is - a beilief that can't be proven. You can't prove that brocolli is better than Spinach, but that is my opinion.

I doubt if there are many out there that think inviting TopPile to speak is a good thing. Even other spammers.
Why, because they are scared they'll take their business, or because Paddy is a bad speaker? Those are the only two reasons I can think of that they wouldn't want them there, unless there was a legal reason that no one has yet actually presented.

[medkraft]

Steve to clarify I asked:

"Doug, are you referring to the statement SEMPO has under A Note to Site Visitors on the home page? According to Danny Sullivan, that statement was actually on the site (at the bottom of the home page) prior to the latest SEMPO bashing thread."

To which Doug responded:

"I did not see where he said that at all. If he did, well he is simply wrong. That disclaimer was "only" added "after" the discussion forums started debating it."

These comments lend weight to my argument that he was inferring that the recent debate was responsible for the SEMPO changes. His further comments about Danny being wrong only support this point.

If he, in fact, was referring to earlier threads, then why would he say the following on March 3, 2004 (in the SEMPO thread):

Doug wrote: SEMPO 'does' promote it's members. It does so with no disclaimer to "warn" unsuspecting owners about "some of it's members".

According to Danny, the message was there shortly after the initial launch:

Danny Sullivan wrote in Cre8asite Forums: This got added last year after the SEMPO launch, when similar concerns were raised on a different forum.

Now to Doug's credit (which I'm not above giving), it's possible that this forum was in fact somewhat responsible for the initial disclaimer (based on the very beginning of the SEMPO thread which started in August 2003 -- I have no proof to back up or refute this point though). However, when his recent comments contradict earlier ones it's easy to see why confusion arises.

Discussions like this are great and as seen can get some things accomplished. It can also be accomplished without disparaging one another.

I fully agree Steve. And to start, I strongly believe moderators and forum owners alike should heed your suggestion and lead by example.

Please for everyone's sake, stop disparaging others because you disagree with their methods or opinions. It's fine to come out and say that a certain technique is wrong but to then berate or defame others in a public forum is just wrong. It's unprofessional, unethical and defeats the message you're trying so desperately to get across. From one professional to another, please use best forum practices.

[medkraft]

Doug wrote: It appears about 3 posters in this thread have their own agenda.

You're right. One of the reasons I joined this forum was to professionally and ethically debate irrational view points. So, yes I'm guilty, I have an agenda.

Doug wrote: They should actually 'read' what I post first.

Yikes, not another contradiction? Obviously, if you had read Danny's comments you wouldn't have said he was wrong.

[ihelpyou]

projectphp:

Have you ever been to the Googleplex? I have. That's what "they" said. Ask them. I won't quote them because I can't remember "EXACTLY" what they said. Take it or leave it. Believe me or not. I could truly care less. Your postings in here have been rude and certainly ridiculous in nature.

You of anyone else in here has been the worse. Blue is far more Professional and moral and nobel than you could ever be. Being rude to a truly nice guy is uncalled for. Trust me Bud, many are not happy with you.

Further: Your posts don't make any sense whatsoever. You are disagreeing with things you don't even know what you are disagreeing about. It's hard to believe you would even believe what you post?
Why, because they are scared they'll take their business, or because Paddy is a bad speaker? Those are the only two reasons I can think of that they wouldn't want them there, unless there was a legal reason that no one has yet actually presented.
I guess you have not read any of this thread?

[qwerty]

Medkraft, the SEMPO disclaimer was posted on their site 28 August of last year. If you do a search at the HR forum for SEMPO on that date you'll see where a SEMPO board member responded to a request for the disclaimer.

But that disclaimer doesn't expressly warn anyone about anything. It just says that membership in SEMPO shouldn't be construed as an endorsement.

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by medkraft
Please for everyone's sake, stop disparaging others because you disagree with their methods or opinions. It's fine to come out and say that a certain technique is wrong but to then berate or defame others in a public forum is just wrong. It's unprofessional, unethical and defeats the message you're trying so desperately to get across. From one professional to another, please use best forum practices.I don't think Doug is alone in this and certain people are just pushing his buttons. Which IMO, is no great feat, and no more professional. I might add that you all are likely wrong (can't be bothered to check, but am reasonably sure)about where and when a SEMPO disclaimer was discussed. I personally think this thread is a joke and long past any useful purpose or value added. It's become name calling nothing more nothing less. Doug it's a disgrace wrap it up!

[Blue]

Originally posted by projectphp
So what are you going to do about it, Blue? ... blah blah blah...Otherwise, your moral stance is just postering, and your desire to stop a speaker at a conference merely censorhip at best, or as Peter points out, an attempt to reduce competition at worst. Um .... I swear to you that I havent postered in a long time! :D (Sorry projectphp, couldn't resist, and this thread could use even a lame attempt at humor like that).

But honestly, what do you expect me to do? Say that I am going to announce tomorrow that I have an alternate conference wherein only ethical speakers are going to be invited? That I am going on an advocacy rampage and am starting a worldwide movement to ban unethical speakers from conferences? Or perhaps you would like me to just get out my gun and shoot the bastages!

In reality, what you call posturing (here) is what I call "planting a seed". There are probably many that will take note of this thread and just elect to not listen to the panel that has an unethical speaker, and also not to visit certain booths.

Others may decide to take action in other ways.

The net effect (no pun intended) might be to accomplish what we are setting out to accomplish. :)

My desire to stop a speaker at a conference is in no way censorship. In fact, that's not my desire at all. My desire is to get conferences to only invite to speak those whom don't deceive. And that is not censorship either. How is it censorship when a speaker is not invited to speak?

Conferences can invite who they wish. If not invited to speak at one conference a speaker can go speak at another until they run out of invitations and have to organize their own conference. They have many alternatives.

I'm just suggesting that industry leaders should take responsibility for their ultimate customers.

There's nothing illegal, immoral, censoring, posturing, or paraniod about it. If someone wants to play dirty, they should expect to get dirt on their face.

Tell me ..... where is the harm in playing nice? Who does it hurt? The bad guy? Ask me if I care about the bad guy. Really projectphp, who would it hurt by not inviting an unethical speaker to speak at a conference? Who?

I know somebody will say that I'm living in a fantasy world, and that in the real world it'll never happen. Maybe so and maybe not, but at least I've gone down in record making my opinion on the matter known.

[Kal]

Personal jibes aside, I actually think it's turned out to be one of the more interesting threads in here lately :). It's always interesting when you find yourself agreeing with posters you don't usually agree with.

[Kal]

Originally posted by Blue
My desire is to get conferences to only invite to speak those whom don't deceive. And that is not censorship either. How is it censorship when a speaker is not invited to speak? IMO it's blatant censorship because you are making a conscious decision to prevent certain persons from participating in an event on the basis of your own personal bias.

[Kal]

Originally posted by Blue
If someone wants to play dirty, they should expect to get dirt on their face. And they are, believe me! But that dirt has been exposed by their own actions and the ripple effect of client dissatisfaction. Preventing them from speaking at an event would do little harm to their already tarnished reputation, IMO.

Originally posted by Blue
Tell me ..... where is the harm in playing nice? Who does it hurt? The bad guy? Ask me if I care about the bad guy. Really projectphp, who would it hurt by not inviting an unethical speaker to speak at a conference? Who? Blue, the problem is that "playing nice" and "ethical" are subjective. To use an extreme example, I'm sure anti-abortionists who blow up people at clinics believe that what they are doing is ethical because they do it in the name of their God, but few people agree with them. Moral righteousness does not = law, thank goodness :)

[sanity]

Deleted by Sanity.

[projectphp]

Trust me Bud, many are not happy with you.
(My Emphasis added)
Doug, you have often said you don't mind what people think of you. If it doesn't bother you, it wont bother me :)

Your postings in here have been rude and certainly ridiculous in nature...You of anyone else in here has been the worse. Blue is far more Professional and moral and nobel than you could ever be. Being rude to a truly nice guy is uncalled for. .....You are disagreeing with things you don't even know what you are disagreeing about.
That post is just plain personal. I thought you were above that (at least I hoped you were).

People need to understand the difference between attacking the person and attacking their arguments and facts. There is a big difference, and I always stick to the latter. I don't believe my posts have been either rude nor ridiculous, but I respect your right to hold that opinion (had to get that in :))

Moving on:

Doug said
Have you ever been to the Googleplex? I have. That's what "they" said.
Doug, that isn't the issue. Even if Google said, for a fact XY or Z, there is still Inktomi, MSN and Yahoo. They were all part of the quoted fact. When did they speak to you and what did they say?

When trying to constuct an argument, if the facts you cite are faulty, the conclusion is likely to be as well. That is why many innocent people have been convicted of crimes, because the evidence was faulty, incomplete or wrong. I am sincerely not trying to be rude, just asking for proof of an absolute statement of fact.

Besides, if a person does make a mistake, or in haste writes more than they meant to, and we all do that on occasion (http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4439&hl=flag), it is customary to retract or ammend the statement, not defend the mistake. Sometimes, the mistake is merely in how absolute we are (see link). It shouldn't matter. Ammendments are not an admission of failure, but rather the ethical thing to do.

Blue said
Um .... I swear to you that I havent postered in a long time! (Sorry projectphp, couldn't resist, and this thread could use even a lame attempt at humor like that).
LOL. Nice one. Disagreements of opinion are often taken personally. Humour is appreciated and very welcomed!!! I used to play rugby, and after every game we had a BBQ and beer with our opponents. Hated their guts on the field, even knocked out a few, but after the game we are all mates. That's pretty much how I still see any conflict / debate / disagreement.

Kal pretty much summed up my thoughts on Blue's post, with the following additions:
In reality, what you call posturing (here) is what I call "planting a seed".
Which is what you originally claimed wasn't enough. As I said, many of the people disagreeing with you actually plant many seeds as well. If consumer protection of the ignorant is the goal, more is needed.

...who would it hurt by not inviting an unethical speaker to speak at a conference
Me, if your definition of unethical and mine differed :) Like I said, unethical is very different to illegal. I support not allowing law breakers to speak, fraudsters and the like who lie to make money, or sell an illegal product, but perveyors of products that are not to my taste have every right to speak.

Its kinda like having a Pinot Noir conference, and only letting French wine makers exhibit (cause foreign wines don't classify, just ask the French, they'll tell you).

[peter_d]

Blue said:

There are probably many that will take note of this thread and just elect to not listen to the panel that has an unethical speaker, and also not to visit certain booths.

You mean people actually conduct research before going to the conferences? Weren't you suggesting they didn't, and therefore needed saving from themselves?

And I ask again, what are you doing to save those who don't conduct any research - those who are so enamored by someone standing on a stage that they feel the overwhelming urge to thrust 100K at them RIGHT NOW!!? Are you at least going to go to the conference to help save them?

I'm beginning to think you're not even remotely serious about protecting the innocent.... :)

[ihelpyou]

I think this thread is done.

If someone wants to start a thread about the subject of conferences in general inviting spammers to speak, feel free.

This particular thread is no longer really talking about the topic of it. Fact is, the topic was TopPile. Most of you don't want to talk about TopPile at all it seems.

[ihelpyou]

Revitalized thread.

This bit of news is now "public". We got ahold of it a few days ago and have been discussing in private. Now that it's public, I find it "very" relavant to this thread.
It is with great regret that I have to inform you that Top-pile.com Ltd has no alternative but to cease trading with immediate effect. It is intended to place the company into voluntary liquidation immediately aftera shareholders meeting in 3 weeks time.

This situation has arisen as a result of very poor trading in the last 12 months, which in turn was primarily caused by the probelms we have encountered with search engines during that time.

Our problems began with the SALSA system in February, 2004. In the month prior to that we achieved record traffic through the SALSA system of over 90,000 visitors per day and client satisfaction was at an all-time high. Then in February we lost approximately half of our positions in Google and traffic dropped to about 50,000 visitors per day. We spent the following month conducting extensive analysis of the Google changes and trying to understand why one half of the SALSA sites had disappeared and the other half were still performing. This exercise became academic when, in mid-March 2004, we lost the remaining positions in Google and traffic dropped to 15,000 visitors per day.

The situation was worsened by the fact that Yahoo had just launched a new index and search engine and we had yet to feature prominently in it and inktomi's abandonment of Paid Inclusion meant that we were also suffering in MSN.

The combination of these three factors led to a very real threat of the domesday scenario of haing to refund all SALSA sites sold in January, February and March as a result of their failing to achieve the guarantee, a total potential refund of some £350,000 that would have been catastrophic for the company.

As it was, our analysis of Google led us to the predominance of well rated sites in the results simply because they had a page that mentioned the search term, and from this we took a number of well rated sites and built large directories off them related to the search terms being promoted in the SALSA system. This had a dramatic effect on our positions in Google and saved us from a refund situation that would almost certainly have bankrupted the company back then, although we did still refund approximately £100,000 over the course of the following months.

From this experience we created top4clicks and partnered with well rated sites to create large directories of search terms and we would share the income. Top4clicks started off very well and within a few months we had 400 accounts open spending a peak of £3,700 per day. The sitiuation looked very good and we were well on course to achieve £10,000 income per day by January. This also gave us the opportunity to discontinue SALSA which could best be described as limping along but absorbing significant customer support resources (although many established SALSA sites continued to achieve good traffic levels from Yahoo and MSN).

Unfortunately, it proved to be a false dawn. Despite these directories complying in all respects with Google's guidelines, from November onwards Google's algorithms appeared to shift and the directories started gradually disappearing, to the point where we have gone in 4 months from 400 clients spending in total £3,700 per day to 1,050 accounts spending in total £300 per day.

Throughout the last year our cashflow has steadily deteriorated and we are now in a situation that even if we could fix the issues with SALSA / top4clicks we no longer have the time or resources to do so. We have cut the staffing levels down from nearly 40 to just 5 in the last few weeks and the turnover just keeps on getting worse. We now have no prospect of paying off the debts that have accumulated and we have no alternative but to cease trading.

I cannot over-emphasize how sorry I personally am that this situation has arisen. We had a great team here at top-pile and it has been heart-breaking to see it torn apart over the last few months. We prided ourselves on the fact that we represented one of the only realistic alternatives for SMEs who wanted success on the Internet but the search engines are determined to ensure that that is not the case and that ultimately all companies will need to do business with them if tehy want to succeed on the Internet. I continue to believe that this is not fair and that SMEs are entitled to a fairer slice of the search engine pie considering it is their content that has made the search engines successful in the first place. But I will not dwell too long on that thorny subject here!

As a result of the company ceasing trading, all services will cease with immediate effect.

The following additional comments apply to the specific products:

top-pile Submit

We will speak to the company's insolvency practitioner about resurrecting this service as it is very much a standalone service and capable of being relaunched. Service will no matter what happens cease for a few weeks but should we be successful we will continue to honour client's contractual periods.

SALSA

SALSA is a complex solution in terms of creation, hosting and maintenance of the sites. We will again speak to the Insolvency Practitioner about the possibility of taking over existing SALSA contracts, but please note that the service will stop for at least a few weeks and when and if re-launched may exclude certain aspects of the previous service (for instance guarantees and rank tracking).

top4clicks

As mentioned above, there are 1,050 active accounts in top4clicks. All of these clients have balances remaining in their accounts and as such will become creditors of the company in liquidation. Due to the priority rules governing insolvency, I regret to say that there is no prospect of clients receiving any refund whatsoever. However, I personally still believe that top4clicks can be made to perform again in the search engines and it is my hope that a new company will express an interest in taking over these deposits and deliver the traffic until each account reaches zero. I hope you understand that I cannot guarantee anything and there will be no refunds given, but if we can deliver the related traffic over any length of time that is a better situation than currently.

Other services

All other ancillary services will cease immediately and will be dealt with by the Provisional Liquidator.

Please once again accept my apologies for this situation. I sincerely hope that we will all meet up again under better circumstances.

Regards

Paddy Bolger
CEO
There ya go.

Bottom line; It never pays to spam in the long-term. Success might be short if you spam, but eventually it catches up to you.

{added}I give him credit for being forthright and upfront about this to his clients. At least he's not a "traffic power" type. The letter was to a client. Spam never works long-term is the big lesson with this. Maybe he can re-emerge with a new business and new outlook of the search engines?

[Quadrille]

Yes, all credit to him for a full - and sad - confession.

The tragedy is that he learned much too late that he was following poor methods with yet poorer methods; too bad he didn't change his hat before it was too late.

Google is certainly winning many battles that have been unwinnable for too long; will the others learn from this, or wait to be flushed out next? [no prizes]

[ihelpyou]

Yes but this statement tells me he still does not 'get it'.
We prided ourselves on the fact that we represented one of the only realistic alternatives for SMEs who wanted success on the Internet but the search engines are determined to ensure that that is not the case and that ultimately all companies will need to do business with them if tehy want to succeed on the Internet. I continue to believe that this is not fair and that SMEs are entitled to a fairer slice of the search engine pie considering it is their content that has made the search engines successful in the first place.
I hope over time he eventually "gets it".

[Quadrille]

Depressing that he understands "doing business" with SEs, but has zero concept of simply 'working with them', for the benefit of clients, searchers and anyone else.

Seeing SEs as "The Enemy" - one of Mr Perkins' Points (http://www.silverdisc.co.uk/articles/seohats/) :) - is almost diagnostic, it seems.

[big blue]

Well Its been a while since I first got banned from this forum, due to your thinking I was the actual owner of Top-Pile instead of just a lowly employee. Which incidently lead to my dismissal from Top-Pile.
However I have just learnt They
(Top-pile) have gone into liquidation. What a shame a couple months back.


This was a truly innovative, forward thinking company, that proved very successful for the majority of it's clients.

It is just a shame that they were given such bad press by the SEO community. The ethos of the company was to provide a way to avoid paying exhorbitant SE prices and a greater ROI as a whole. Good for any company trying to get ahead in the e com world.



Anyway c'est la vive.

vive Top-Pile

and best of luck Paddy.


Big Blue

[Quadrille]

And you see no 'down side' to their activities at all?

What about people who were not their clients? Would they agree that top-pile was "Good for any company trying to get ahead in the e com world."?

I guess you had to be in it to win it?

[ihelpyou]

Hi big blue; I actually feel sorry for people like you who buy into this kind of stuff.

I hope one day someone can sit you down and explain exactly why search engine spam is bad for the internet as a whole. The internet is much bigger than you or paddy or toppile ever was or will ever be. When you can grasp that concept, maybe then you will understand.

Good luck.

[big blue]

Thats competition. Just as plumbers advertise as Aaaa plumbers in classified adds, or large neon signs etc etc

[big blue]

Hehehe and as fortune has it. I now work for the 2nd largest classified web page in the U.K. As the Bus Dev Mngr. To bad Paddy isn't around to get us even more traffic :D

[Dave Hawley]

Thats competitionBut not fair competition. Even if a bricks and motar business DOES use underhanded tactics, how does that justify spamming the SE?

[Connie]

To bad Paddy isn't around to get us even more traffic
I'd say that says it all about you.

Ethics apply in the brick and mortar world just like they apply on the Internet. Because one person in unethical does not give you license to be unethical. When you get caught you price the price.

Your free to do what you want to do. Don't expect support for unethical practices in this forum.

[g1smd]

Actually, many commercial directories provide disinformation and a diservice to surfers. They hide information, not provide it. They hold sites to ransom.

I have a friend whose site used to be #1 for their business name, but now the first two or three pages of results contain only directories that mention the business name.

When you visit the directory page, they have the name and the address of the business and their telephone number. - but there is no link to the business web site.

In fact, most of those directories also have a notice saying that it is a free listing, and that the website owner can upgrade to a premium listing - which can then include a web URL (and that is usually a jump link, not a true link)... but that upgraded listing comes at a price.

As a searcher, those directory sites are mostly useless (even the really big ones). I end up having to telephone the business to ask what their web URL is, rather than being able to find it deirectly from a search.

Many business directories hold businesses to ransom: pay us money or we make sure your website is harder to find.

[big blue]

Very good point g1.

Top-Pile took the side of the end user rather than the SE.

All surfers prefer 1 click through directly to the required url. rather than 2 or 3 clicks via a directory.

That is exactly what SALSA provided. using optimized mirror pages per keyword, based on location and relivance.
your search would be met with a very relivant result. be it via a miror page or not. you would be directed to what you are looking for...... is that spam?
as an end user I say NOT. as a SE ...yes I might consider it spam. If that client could have been paying the SE for listings at exhorbitant costs and low ROI.

Top-Pile pressed its point further by producing a small SE "GO bango" with a neglagible listing cost.

I have no idea why any SEO would not praise Top-Pile for providing what clients want. rather than what the SE wants... the client pays your wages ?? :/

It was unfortunate that the Google spiders changed to favour Directories... bad for the Surfer, bad for the clients. But what the hey... SE's only trying to get money out of the 8 billion pages the list. lets hope another SE comes along and works for the client rather than the SE. I'd pay them if they did.

Personal digs at a persons personality is something I'd expect in a games forum not a serious professionals forum. Rather reply with something intelligent and worthy of debate. not personal slurs. This is not the house of commons!

[big blue]

Just to clarify, so you understand where I am comming from.

The site I work for has over 10 MILLION unique uses / month.
1 in 2 people in the U.K are aware of the brand.
1 in 3 people have used it to purchase products.

I manage a combined marketing budget of £8 MILLION, spead over all media from sports events. TV, radio, print and the web.
With a overall company marketing budget of nearly £30 MILLION.

How do we get traffic ???????
We buy it. its that easy.

Would you look to buy traffic cheaper if you could??

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by big blue
Top-Pile took the side of the end user rather than the SE. A spammer is not an end user; the searcher is the end user.

The spammer distorts the serps; of course they'd argue they're 'improving it', but that is none of their business.

You can dress up spam any way you like; it's still spam.

Looks like you've learned zip from your (and Top-Pile's) experience.; you still twist the facts to suit your own ends.

Spam SEO takes the side of the client, right or wrong, against all others; and anyone that claims otherwise is a knave - or a fool.

[ihelpyou]

I have no idea why any SEO would not praise Top-Pile for providing what clients want. rather than what the SE wants... the client pays your wages ?? :/
LOL Classic spammer spin and talk. I'm also disgusted about how you or anyone could still stand by a firm that WENT OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES.

Are you really this stupid?

And yeah sure; You know how many times I've heard from people like you claiming a kazillion visitors a day to your sites? LOTS.

Funny you don't post your url in your profile. What are you hiding?

[big blue]

O.K.... lets see if you can grasp this.

I am a MAJOR potential client. Who spends millions of pounds to S.E's and S.E.O's.

I am not happy with the ROI on ppc etc.
Likewise I know of many blue chip companies who feel the same.

I don't care about what the S.E considers spam.
I don't consider getting relivant results from a mirror page spam.. so long as it is relivant.

Searchers don't consider getting relivant results from a mirror page spam either...
So long as it is relivant!

O.K so now we have established 2 sectors the in the industry, who agree that relivant results via mirror pages is NOT spam. being Companies and customers.

Who is more important in this equation???

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by big blue
Searchers don't consider getting relivant results from a mirror page spam either... Grow up.
Users don't object to spam, purely because they don't know about it.

Remember the bank thief who stole a few cents apiece from thousands of bank accounts? No-one complained, because no-one knew. Does that make it right? Of course not.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by big blue
O.K so now we have established 2 sectors the in the industry, who agree that relivant results via mirror pages is NOT spam. being Companies and customers.But not searchers, not SEs, and not the poor schmucks pushed down the serps by your spam.

Originally posted by big blue
I don't care about what the S.E considers spam. So it would seem.

We do. Please take your BS elswhere :bs: :bs:

[big blue]

why I don't post my URL.

1) last time I became involved in this very conversation I lost my job.

2) We are a major brand, owned by the 4 largest media groups in the world.
I dont want to be liable.

3) I'm not here to have a mud throwing match or to make false claims. just intelligent debate

[big blue]

Exactly my point. you care about the S.E not your clients or the surfer.

Sure I will close the page if you can't have a conversation without accusing people of being dishonest or childish.

But my last word will be to any other S.E.O
Who is willing to debate the defintion of spam, web marketing and how to improve R.O.I with out it., Please continue with this discussion. I may be in contact with you.

Although, I would be suprised if any one has the balls to stand up and be an s.e.O
instead of an S.E cabin boy

[qwerty]

That's the part of your equation that doesn't work: if you're a major brand, then you'd better care about what the search engines consider spam, because you have something to lose. If your domain were to get banned (unlikely, but possible), your situation would be very different from those who use disposable domains and just start over again when they have to.

[ihelpyou]

I don't call what a spammer is or does and their talk.... as being "intelligent" at all. I call it short-sighted, very foolish, and just waiting to get banned by the se's.

Show me ALL your urls and I can guarantee a ban for you. How's that?

Potential client? You could not beg me to help you..... even for 100,000 cash. I would refuse. You are the type of people that give our industry the bad reputation.

I'm sorry, nothing personal at all. I'm sick and tired of the toppiles and people like you corrupting new people on the internet who don't know any better. You should know better.

[JohnC]

Originally posted by g1smd
I have a friend whose site used to be #1 for their business name, but now the first two or three pages of results contain only directories that mention the business name.Yes some of these directories are lame. However, this sounds more like your friends website needs some help. If pages that just mention the business name are ranking higher, he needs to work on his site and not worry so much about what the directories are doing.

[big blue]

Thank you qwerty. a spark of intelligence at last.

Yes you are right. I have to consider the dire consiquenses of our url being banned.. hence we don't use mirror pages.

which is why I feel it necessary to have a debate on why relivant mirror pages are considerd an offence.
Although it was only Google's terms that deemed it a bannable offence. they never banned the actual url but just the temp ones.

we are number 1 for all our keywords in all S.E's anyway. so placement isnt a major concern ( although I would be if we lost any ) My main concern is R.O.I. and the amount we pay/keyword. Cars, Homes and Jobs, along those lines.
The price increases constantly and is very difficult to budget for.

And their isn't any other viable option besides being held to ransom by S.E's

Hence looking for a viable way to reduce R.O.I

[ihelpyou]

well sure John, but spammy directories are a big problem. They spam their way to the top in the short term, and hurt those sites who do things ethically. Yes, you should worry about your own site, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with getting those types of spam sites banned and out of there as quick as possible.

[big blue]

ihelpyou.... is that supposed to be ironic

[JohnC]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
well sure John, but spammy directories are a big problem. They spam their way to the top in the short term, and hurt those sites who do things ethically. Yes, you should worry about your own site, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with getting those types of spam sites banned and out of there as quick as possible. Oh ...I agree completely. I was just commenting on this specific instance, "was #1" "now 3-4 pages of directory spam in front"... just sounded like more than a directory problem.

[ihelpyou]

we are number 1 for all our keywords in all S.E's anyway. so placement isnt a major concern ( although I would be if we lost any )
But isn't that the issue? Why should anyone have to worry about being banned? What mindset does it take to have a short sighted view of the internet? Don't you realize the day "will come" eventually when your site/sites are penalized or banned? What will do then? You start over at that point with a new domain. That's what you will do. It ain't a pretty thing.
And their isn't any other viable option besides being held to ransom by S.E's.
Held ransom? You want free traffic from Google, right? Why do you expect to not have to follow their guidelines then? Why do you feel you are above the law... so to speak? And why do you think it's up to you to claim your site is more relevant than any other site? You are pre-empting Google's right to judge your site based on it's own algos. It's Google's site, not your site. If you want free traffic from Google, you have to play by their rules. Isn't this simply common sense?

Do you visit your friend's house and dictate to them how you do things when there? If not, why do you feel it's different in this case?

[big blue]

Furthermore..... that is the only line you have managed to come up with Ihelpyou being: " tell me your url's and i will garantee you a ban"

Are you so inflexable and stuck in your ways that you can't manage a discussion about innovative ways to get ahead?
You run a Forum for heavens sake. a place for open conversation. a place to find out from others, develop new ways .. S.E.O work is very innovative by its very nature. but you just sing the same old S.E song.
Blissfully unaware that the web .... the peoples web. does not care about your pettiness and bitterness. we are just trying to get some ideas .

I can see this degenerating into a childish slagging match. so I will log out Now , Let you get the last word in and feel better about yourself.





p.s. have original thought

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by big blue
Exactly my point. you care about the S.E not your clients or the surfer.Please don't put words in my mouth; if reading what I actually said is too much effort, then please do not respond.

The reason I care about SEs is precisely because I do care about the surfer - and I want them to have an honest serp, not one that gives relevant results that happen to favour your client.

And if it were my client, I'd encourage them to be honest too; not just for honesty's sake (I know how greedy some clients can be), but because an honest serp makes for a better internet - and I want my client to BE the best, not just (however briefly) LOOK the best.

Anything you spammers can do, honesty can do as well or better; sure you can boast of your spam achievements - and I can remind you what happened to top-shite and regularly happens to many other spammers.

Don't believe all the boasts (compare them with your own), and look at the bottom of the serps, as well as the top.

It doesn't take me to abuse you - you are a self confessed con artist, with a history of failure behind you, as well as in front.

No wonder you daren't reveal your employer!

[ihelpyou]

Blissfully unaware that the web .... the peoples web. does not care about your pettiness and bitterness. we are just trying to get some ideas
pettiness? bitterness? I've got eight years of history behind me of success that proves your statement as false.

You want ideas? Tell ya what; Spend about a few months reading ALL the good info in this place. It's full of ideas you are saying you want. Why do you think this place exists? It's to help people like you who have a distorted view of right and wrong.

[big blue]

petty very petty. you obviously can't read moron. go through it all over again and then come back with a mature response.

Infact don't bother.
I don't argue with fools.

[big blue]

ihelpyou. you think abusing people over the internet is helpful

Think abuse will help change peoples mind?


enough now

[ihelpyou]

LOL Nice response "jerk".

At least I'm an informed "moron". It's much better than being an uninformed "jerk".

[big blue]

last word..

your mums fat :P