In this case, no, there aren't. Or if there are they are not generating this content. You're right that it wouldn't be spam if it was just showing the same content, IMHO.
As a side note I've sent an email to G to see if they have anything to say about it. In view of the recent events, though, it's likely to take awhile for them to get back to me
I would hate to recommend a tactic that a major SE considered spam. I would also hate it if disabled users were unable to enjoy a website as well as possible because of an opinion that a coding tactic is spam when it's not.
Disabled users like to surf too. And find things when they search for them. It's too much to ask that everyone remove all content that a blind person can't enjoy from their sites, but you *should* provide alternate content where possible.
The important thing to note here is that at this point it's all opinion. Of course, even what G says is opinion too, but since most SE's at least consider G's opinion while forming their own (even if they disagree later) it's more "authoritative" than a few people in a forum or two.
I really do see the point that if there is no script then the <noscript> tag should be looked at carefully. But where the disagreement is, is the tag the start of the spam, or does it depend on the content in the tag? After all, I could have ANY script, and still use the <noscript> for content that was not in the script. The existence of a <script> tag does not suddenly make everything better, IMHO.
Be way easier if
Macromedia came up with a better way to do this themselves. Right now they stuff the URLS in a comment tag. Ouch. Like that's helpful to anyone. Frankly, since it's done ONLY for search engines, I'd be more inclined to call THAT spam...
Edited by mcanerin, 24 November 2003 - 02:59 PM.