88 replies to this topic

[Scottie]

Well, I'll have to disagree with you all on the good writing part. I found it to be a little over-the-top that simply tried to be sensational. The basic coverage was true, but do we really need Goodman's slightly bitter reflections mixed in?

Alan Perkins, apparently a white-hatter,

Alan, who? A white paper on spam and highly publicized debates about spam? I had no idea he was a white hat...


Why did we need 2 paragraphs about AOL's advertising model in the middle of a session report?

But if my neighbor runs an illegal grow operation in his basement, I don't take the law into my own hands and poison him (or his weed) with dioxin, do I?

Straw man argument, since spamming search engines is not yet illegal.

Perkins, for his part, responded sweetly: "Florida didn't make much impact on my sites."

Scott, did his response sound particularly "sweet" to you? I simply heard a very clear point, subtly made. Andrew must have had different acoustics where he was sitting.

The only remaining question is which of them will someday go on to become governor of California. Surely not Whalen or Perkins.

Can someone explain this remark? Is it because they are not from Austria, bodybuilders, or film stars? I honestly don't get it.

The majority of the article was well-written, however I think he got a little too wrapped up in his own opinions of the subject. If it was meant to be an editorial as opposed to session coverage, he wasn't wrapped up in it enough, as he didn't share his own opinion on the "hats"; he just takes shots at all of them from a safe distance.

[Raphael]

Can someone explain this remark?  Is it because they are not from Austria, bodybuilders, or film stars?  I honestly don't get it.

Far as I can tell he's insinuating that white-hatters live in a fantasy world where everything is nice and pretty, and black-hatters live in the real world: The implication - A white-hatter wouldn't be able to survive and be successfull in that most ultimate of "real world" achievements, politics, because we simply aren't vicious and nasty enough.

I happen to think of that as a compliment.

[Scottie]

Nope, I still don't get it. Why does the Governor of Ca signify "the real world"? He won his seat as a popularity contest.

Is he saying black hatters would be more popular with the mass media? More likely to harass women? More likely to fall into the sea if a massive earthquake were to strike? More likely to speak with an accent or act in action movies?

[sweepthelegnate]

Nope, I still don't get it.  Why does the Governor of Ca signify "the real world"?  He won his seat as a popularity contest.

Is he saying black hatters would be more popular with the mass media?  More likely to harass women?  More likely to fall into the sea if a massive earthquake were to strike? More likely to speak with an accent or act in action movies?

it probably wasn't intended to be analyzed this deeply.

[Raphael]

Nope, I still don't get it.  Why does the Governor of Ca signify "the real world"?  He won his seat as a popularity contest.

Is he saying black hatters would be more popular with the mass media?  More likely to harass women?  More likely to fall into the sea if a massive earthquake were to strike? More likely to speak with an accent or act in action movies?

I don't think Ca is meant to be the focal point. I think you're reading a little too much into the specifics of the analogy.

He could have picked any state. He chose California, not becuse of Arnie, but simply because it was probably the first state that jumped to mind as he was writing the article.

Read the statement as:

"White hatters would be less likely to succeed in today's cut-throat political world."

(Of course, I have no real idea of what he meant - I'm not inside his head - But that's how I read it.

p.s. late breaking edit, since i r guud speeler

Edited by Raphael, 21 February 2005 - 11:13 AM.

[Alan Perkins]

Well, I'll have to disagree with you all on the good writing part.  I found it to be a little over-the-top  that simply tried to be sensational.  The basic coverage was true, but do we really need Goodman's slightly bitter reflections mixed in?

It's just his style. Clearly you don't like it much.

Straw man argument, since spamming search engines is not yet illegal.

My next article will argue that some forms of search engine spamming are illegal. Not on the same scale as poisoning your neighbour with dioxin, maybe...

[torka]

Not on the same scale as poisoning your neighbour with dioxin, maybe...

That's illegal?!?

Ooops...

--Torka

[Alan Perkins]

My next article will argue that some forms of search engine spamming are illegal.

This article is now available for public consumption:

Search Marketing Techniques, Deceptive Advertising Laws & Other Laws

[lisphacker]

Nice piece Alan.

The precedent set for paid inclusion or paid prominence is one thing, since it's so easy to understand. There are only two moving parts: the position of the link on a results page and the amount of money, possibly zero dollars, that it took to get there.

In terms of deceiving engines, and what constitutes deception, I wouldn't be expecting to see any case law for a while. In fact, I think technology and/or social networking or other accountability systems will render cloaking and, to a large extent, most spammy tecniques completely moot, just like the folks who perform those services.

[Jill]

I think technology and/or social networking or other accountability systems will render cloaking and, to a large extent, most spammy tecniques completely moot, just like the folks who perform those services.

Would be nice if that happened sooner, rather than later. Yet, I for one am not holding my breath!

[nuttakorn]

I still found the website which use the doorway page but there are still ranked well in some keyword. The usage of blackhat method may still use until the search engine could be controlled and filtered those website out from index. IMO, the blackhat technique would be short term technique, in the future search engine may filter those site out..

What do you think about this? Is this fair for the white hat seo?

[greatone]

This means that Black Hat strategy will work for a long period of time before google finds it.

[Jill]

Is this fair for the white hat seo?

What's fair got to do with SEO?

[Randy]

This means that Black Hat strategy will work for a long period of time before google finds it.

Not necessarily Greatone.

The engines are getting smarter every day at an exponential rate. And it takes time to develop those black hat strategies.

You've got to remember that Search is in its infancy. As it matures what is seen to work today may not work. Especially if there is any funny business involved.