__/ [Who Turned Off The Lights?] on Tuesday 14 February 2006 07:10 \__
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:33:54 -0800, Ed Jay wrote:
>> __/ [Tony] on Tuesday 14 February 2006 03:06 \__
>>> needin4mation@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> Is it "bad" to put in your competition in your keywords? Does that get
>>>> you banned from a search engine?
>>> Google "keyword spamming"
>> "Spamming is the abuse of any electronic communications medium to send
>> unsolicited messages in bulk."
>> I think we tend to overuse the term.
>> It seems, especially in this NG, to mean any message containing even a
>> modicum of commercial content that someone doesn't want to see. That gets
>> reported as spam.
> Too bad the real world can't keep me from being bombarded by commercial
> content I'd rather not see on the highway, on TV, on the radio and yes,
> even on Yahoo and MSN which in one way or another MIGHT further explain
> Google's success (which as of this writing had only 134 characters incl.
> spaces on their homepage compared with over 3,000 for MSN and 3,000 for
> Yahoo.) Simplicity may very well have been Goog's calling card.
If you thought /that/ was bad, lookie here (breaking news):
"Microsoft's new OS Vista "Welcome Center" screen, seen by all PC users when
they start their computers, will display ads. Because that practice has
caused complaints, the company is facing trouble from the U.S. Department of
Justice as well as states attorneys general who are considering legal
action. A report was filed last Wednesday with the judge handling
Microsoft's antitrust compliance."
>> That's as deceitful of putting one's competitor's name in an alt tag.
> Anyone recall "Miracle on 34th Street"? wherein Macy's sent everyone to
> their competitors? I do it all the time (without the rel="nofollow").
> Hmmmm, what if i was to begin to include their names and such within my alt
> tags. How much trouble could I get in? Not that I'm encouraging any of
> this...but just for the sake of argument. What would the aftermath be?
> Litigation? Copyright infringement?
Mentioning of names has always been a grey area, especially when the Web
expanded to have personal homepages and blogs. Plus, then came higher
crawling capacity and indexing now accounts well for word proximity. Same
arguments can be made for names of businesses, which have a 'face'/image,
just like individuals. See the following, which relates to your point rather
"The company behind US cash-advance firm Check ?n Go has sued Google for
selling its trademarks as keywords in search advertising, according to the
Cincinnati Enquirer. Such sales do not breach Google?s own policy for the US
So, people want to control SEPR's which relate to their names and the public
gateway to many potential customer.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Avoid missing ball for higher score"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:35am up 28 days 2:36, 13 users, load average: 0.82, 1.03, 0.81
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project