__/ [ canadafred ] on Sunday 19 March 2006 17:49 \__
> "Big Bill" <kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:i82r121ercq6ov9v49l5eg9efq4je0goo3@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> <snip>
>
>> The problem Google has is that if it catches a big well-known company,
>> someone with the stature of a world-renowned brand, spamming then it
>> can't ban it for any effective length of time without diverting people
>> who might reasonably be expected to be searching for it in quantity to
>> go instead searching for it to other engines. While they're there they
>> may well find themselves searching for other things too and end up
>> liking it so much they stay there.
>
> <snip>
Long (and insightful) post! *smile*
> That's a very good point Bill, I never quite considered it that way before.
> I think the major SEs would do better with spam issues if they mutually
> agreed to block the obvious perpetrators.
Are you proposing the reification of sites by an independent body that would
call shots and force all search engines to remove 'SEO criminals'? I quite
like the idea, but I can't think of precedence. Not in ICANN's case. As for
industry, the European Commission springs to mind.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Roughly 2% of your keyboard is O/S-specific
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:50pm up 11 days 12:27, 11 users, load average: 0.49, 0.56, 0.76
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
