However, there are a few points in this thread that I would like to clear up. I'm not going to address the 2 main points (lack of proof and whether or not the "eye-opening example" is Jill, because I've done that in the addendum. It's the smaller points that I want to comment on.
Angry? Sometimes. Little? No. [removed flame] Man? Yes.
....angry little man, isn't he?
A few people have stated various possibilities as to my motive for writing the article (marketing ploy, personal agenda, etc). None of the suggestions were correct. I've held the views expressed in the article for a very long time, and I've debated them in forums for long time - Jill can vouch for that. The article was prompted when I received an email one day from an SEO (a stranger to me) who 'preaches' anti-spam seo on his site. He asked me how much I would charge for doing SEO on two search terms which were in a competitive area. His techniques clearly couldn't do anything for them or he wouldn't have written to me. I didn't reply to the email but it did prompt me to write my long held thoughts and views in this area - hence the article.
That's the only reason that I wrote it. I enjoy writing my thoughts and views. It was nothing to do with self-promotion because I don't need to do that - truly. It wasn't written about the "example" - it was written about the topic and the example merely served to back it up.
Absolutely! And I do like your suggestion. I hope it catches on. I have always had issues with the use of the word 'ethical' as used by compliant SEOs. It sometimes angers me (deborah2002) because the intended implication is that non-compliant seo in unethical - wrong in a moral sense. That's why I have such a big issue with the use of that word.
He certainly has issues with the use of the word 'ethical' to describe optimizing a web site within the guidelines provided by the major search engines. Maybe Search Engine Compliant SEO would be a better term?
That's a common misconception brought about, I believe, by some people stating it in public, and others believing it because it was stated. If you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to oblige.
plus an SE algorithm tweak
= You lose!
You are very much mistaken. Hidden text hurts nobody and surfers aren't affected in any way. If you would like to discuss it in some detail, I'd be happy to oblige. Please note that I personally draw the line at negatively affecting surfers. It is possible to use any so-called spam technique in ways that affect surfers. I don't approve of that at all, as is clear from the articles on my site.
He make the agument that it's ok to use hidden text because it doesnt' hurt anyone, the surfer or the engine. He's wrong though, it does hust the engine in that the surfer will go somewhere else to search. It hurts the surfer by wasting their time looking at useless information.
There are other small points but I think that will do for now. I've no idea if anyone here wants to discuss the article with me in this thread but, if you do, I'd be happy to oblige as long as the discussion/debate/argument remains rational, unheated and impersonal. If it turns heated or personal on either side, I'll be off.