Comments on: Of paid links debate http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/ Terrible writing and mere conjecture Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:53:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: gb http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5425 gb Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:34:14 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5425 Forrest - According to most popular accounts, Sisyphus was trying to escape death via deceitful means, getting himself back to the "real" world after having already been sent to the underworld. It was for his trickery he is punished. See e.g., http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html While one could certainly apply this bit to the discussion as well (citing "paid links" as ignoble and worthy of punishment), it would be oblique to Honeck's reference merely to the Sisyphus's futile task, not the reason for which he is condemned to the task. Forrest -

According to most popular accounts, Sisyphus was trying to escape death via deceitful means, getting himself back to the “real” world after having already been sent to the underworld. It was for his trickery he is punished. See e.g.,

http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html

While one could certainly apply this bit to the discussion as well (citing “paid links” as ignoble and worthy of punishment), it would be oblique to Honeck’s reference merely to the Sisyphus’s futile task, not the reason for which he is condemned to the task.

]]> By: Forrest http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5424 Forrest Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:34:49 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5424 It's sad that few enough people can use a word to almost remove it from the language. I caught the Sisyphus reference immediately ... wasn't the 'earthly misdeed' he was punished for helping Prometheus steal fire from the gods? It’s sad that few enough people can use a word to almost remove it from the language. I caught the Sisyphus reference immediately … wasn’t the ‘earthly misdeed’ he was punished for helping Prometheus steal fire from the gods?

]]> By: geri http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5396 geri Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:17:10 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5396 As a company that provides a free or paid service they have the right to do whatever the want. Since the nature of their product is not to explain in detail how it works it is ridicules to think that they would give an explanation for their action. Google has for years indicated the proper use of links, as in "nofollow." They have only recently begun to enforce this, in reference to their results. They could care less about selling and buying if the "nofolow" is in place. There concern is about the quality of the product that they provide. We are very happy to see them act on this issue. Our position has always been that the buying and selling of links is corrupt. Those who have the money have a big advantage over those who do not have the money to purchase links. Those who are complaining the most have built their business model around selling links and the higher the PR the more that they can charge. The next largest group that is complaining is the SEO service providers who purchased links and called it good SEO. This group now has to actually produce. As we all know this takes time and effort. We have never purchased or sold links... So right now we are feeling very good about all of this. As a company that provides a free or paid service they have the right to do whatever the want. Since the nature of their product is not to explain in detail how it works it is ridicules to think that they would give an explanation for their action.
Google has for years indicated the proper use of links, as in “nofollow.” They have only recently begun to enforce this, in reference to their results. They could care less about selling and buying if the “nofolow” is in place. There concern is about the quality of the product that they provide.
We are very happy to see them act on this issue. Our position has always been that the buying and selling of links is corrupt. Those who have the money have a big advantage over those who do not have the money to purchase links.
Those who are complaining the most have built their business model around selling links and the higher the PR the more that they can charge. The next largest group that is complaining is the SEO service providers who purchased links and called it good SEO. This group now has to actually produce. As we all know this takes time and effort.
We have never purchased or sold links… So right now we are feeling very good about all of this.

]]> By: gb http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5392 gb Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:51:00 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/12/of-paid-links-debate/#comment-5392 While post hoc ergo propter logical fallacies abound, I can't help but wonder when we are to abandon reasonable inference in favor of a generally accepted "wisdom (Google/Matt Cutts/etc. says so, so it must be)." Especially for a neophyte who's doing a site with no expectation of remuneration and doesn't have the experience (nor perhaps the time to develop it) re: SEO stuff, it's certainly reasonable to acknowledge a possible cause-effect when the Only Page of a client's site to be linked from another site drops entirely from Google's index (along with that page's pictures) shortly after a spammy kiddie-porn inferring site with a "download this now" JS loop links to it. I tend not to characterize the dynamic not as Sisyphean (as there's a clear cause and effect - I push the stone, it goes up the hill), but more akin to response/outcome independence - what I do doesn't matter, as it may or may not produce the desired effect (see Seligman, et. al.) While post hoc ergo propter logical fallacies abound, I can’t help but wonder when we are to abandon reasonable inference in favor of a generally accepted “wisdom (Google/Matt Cutts/etc. says so, so it must be).”

Especially for a neophyte who’s doing a site with no expectation of remuneration and doesn’t have the experience (nor perhaps the time to develop it) re: SEO stuff, it’s certainly reasonable to acknowledge a possible cause-effect when the Only Page of a client’s site to be linked from another site drops entirely from Google’s index (along with that page’s pictures) shortly after a spammy kiddie-porn inferring site with a “download this now” JS loop links to it.

I tend not to characterize the dynamic not as Sisyphean (as there’s a clear cause and effect - I push the stone, it goes up the hill), but more akin to response/outcome independence - what I do doesn’t matter, as it may or may not produce the desired effect (see Seligman, et. al.)

]]>