__/ [ canadafred ] on Sunday 19 March 2006 01:04 \__
> "Borek" <m.borkowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Victims of their own success. *smile*
> I suppose this is a dilemma that exists of which Google must face every
> day. To ban automatically when it detects "black hat" SEO practices and
> risk the exclusion of a few legitimate web sites or to ban a web site once
> in a while to make a statement about the power that it actually can have on
> a business' bottom line. I would prefer the former although the latter
> seems to have a positive effect as well.
I fully agree. Any site that makes use of prominent keyword stuffing (no
matter how subtle) should be banned overnight. The site will then have some
time to 'clean up' and be re-included. When crossing that fine line again,
Ka-boom! Automated banishment, again; even with an intentional lag or
monetary penalties. We take this approach when people get disconnected due
to virus issues at the university. Fines and delays for putting the network
in jeopardy and wasting staff's time. Otherwise, people do not protect
Windows or migrate to more secure platforms.
I guess the impact of such a move, however, would involve an outcry and maybe
even chaos and Google apathy (like Pirillo's 'Googlefasting'). Think of the
headlines that appeared when BMW (in Germany alone) got blacklisted. Even
Microsoft are doing some overt blackhat SEO. If Google excluded their direct
and biggest competitor, many questions would be raised.
> Interesting reads Borek. Between the two articles that you suggested today,
> it has kept me out of trouble for about an hour and a half.
That's a long time...
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:05am up 10 days 21:42, 9 users, load average: 1.34, 1.17, 0.90
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project