Re: Win By Ethics

> The site in question (begintosell.com) is stuffing big time. Any human
> reader can tell that another human didn't write this page.

> I've heard of sites doing this to the extreme that they present a
> different page to each of the different search engines. This is known in
> the programming world as wasted optimization. Begintosell.com doesn't seem
> to be presenting different pages to different viewers, though a site
> generator such as this one could do it easily.

> I almost laughed when I looked at it.

> I bet it'll work for years. However...

And has this keyword stuffed site achieved a good rank on any relevant keywords?

Show me it has, in the search results, or otherwise I have no reason to believe that keyword stuffing is actually working for tat site..

> The wisdom at the moment is to get a few high-quality incoming links, not
> a whole lot of lousy ones. A high-quality link is eomthing like dmoz.org.
> It might be tempting to think that getting a link from ANY site with more
> traffic than yours is a good link, the search engine might actually be
> thinking "Oh, that site had potential, but now this well-known crap
> site is linking to it, too bad."

Crap sites get no links or crap links. Nuff said.

> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you're saying that
> ethical thinking naturally leads to a good site, because trying to cheat
> the engines will cause a backlash.

What I'm saying is search engines are already good at locating and filtering crap sites. And that they'll get better at it.

I'm also saying, it's a person's own choice. It's THEIR site. Not Google's. Not MSN's. Not Yahoo's.

If a person wants to produce crap sites, it's not dishonest to have a crap site. However, I personally don't believe crap sites will produce good results.

> What about the original topic of a generated site? Assume that it creates
> a site with lots of quality content that people actually want to read, as
> is claimed by that software I bought but haven't tried yet (it harvests
> articles from free submission sites).

> From what I'm reading, most of the people on this forum would have no
> problem with that. As long as there is quality content, it doesn't matter
> where it comes from or how it gets where it's going. Automation is great,
> as long as there are happy visitors and everything is spam-compliant and
> such.

> Is any of this dishonest? I'd like to know because I'm trying to be Mister
> Honesty here :)

Again, there are no commendment saying that "though shalt have a good site"

And with due respect to the other commentators, the person who owns a site is the person who is responsible for it. Not the commentators on this board, not the search engines, nobody but the owner.

There is nothing dishonest about producing a crap site if you want to. I don't even see the potential for dishonesty (assuming of course the site doesn't contain lies in its actual content).

However, if you do produce a crap site, I think it's highly likely that you'll produce crap results too.