__/ On Friday 26 August 2005 10:35, [T.J.] wrote : \__
> Let us say that T is the original page and F
>> (false) is the copy.
>> If F = T + A where A is some extra content, then you have problems
>> If T = F + A then your assumption is correct
>> If T = F you can rely on links (acknowledgements)
>> What would you do when:
>> F = T1 + A + T2 + B + T3
>> Or even worse:
>> F = T1/2 + A + T2/2 + B
>> To a black hat SEO it would be no problem to automate this and deceive
>> the search engines. it is much easier to carry out a robbery than it is
>> for the
>> police to spot the crook in a town of millions.
> What is the matter with you people?
> Why do you always look at the negative side
> of things?
> In my OP I posted a link to a site that provides
> free content that it states can be used by anybody
> To me that is a "great source for content"
> do you agree or not?
> And why suddenly bring black hat SEO in to it?
The threads in this group often drift away. I remember it being pointed out
before. People start to have personal discussions while the OP gets no
answer and that fact is missed due to the large number of messages which
are bound to it.
Sorry I brought up the term "black hat SEO". There were no implications
Roy S. Schestowitz "These characters were randomly picked"