hi,

this is not spam by any means its just a share a peace of information for the world.

These I would consider splogs (spam blogs). Interestingly, I do not use Google to research or find out about new blogs. Mostly, I discover good blog reading through other bloggers I trust and have been reading for some time. As such, gaming Google for Adsense doesn't really affect me.

Splogs are very close to fraud, imo. If Google has an Achilles heel it would be having only one primary revenue stream based around advertising. Click fraud (different but related) and Splogs are, essentially, enemies to Googles financial health. Not a business, I would think, that can last.

I understand where you are going with this. In my mind Search Engines are flawed and there is no real subjective way to rank sites. It would be nice if a Search Engine could be smart enough to determine if the content on a site were good or bad, but in order to do that it would need to know so much about the content that the SE wouldn't need the site anyway, because it could you give the best content itself.

Oh well...

It's spam, without question. It boils down to intent. The intent is to raise rank, not share information in a way that makes the web more useful to everyone. Yes, I'm idealistic, yes, I've been at this for too long (14 years), and yes, I'm a bit too 'white hat' for most folks taste.

And yes, it is spam.

However, because it is spam does not make it good, bad, evil, or clever. Any legal tactic is fair game in online business world, especially with the power the big three engines weild. But...whatever tactic you choose to use, go into it with your eyes open and don't scream 'no fair' if the engine decides to bust you for it. You'd have no right to whine. You know you are trying to game the results, while the engines are trying to root out the gamers. Simple math.

Proceed with eyes open, and accept that sooner or later, you are busted.

LinkMoses

It's spam, without question. It boils down to intent. The intent is to raise rank, not share information in a way that makes the web more useful to everyone. Yes, I'm idealistic, yes, I've been at this for too long (14 years), and yes, I'm a bit too 'white hat' for most folks taste.

And yes, it is spam.

However, because it is spam does not make it good, bad, evil, or clever. Any legal tactic is fair game in online business world, especially with the power the big three engines weild. But...whatever tactic you choose to use, go into it with your eyes open and don't scream 'no fair' if the engine decides to bust you for it. You'd have no right to whine. You know you are trying to game the results, while the engines are trying to root out the gamers. Simple math.

Proceed with eyes open, and accept that sooner or later, you are busted.

LinkMoses

"They are obviously manipulating the system..."

Yes, but what system? Or, even, who's system?

Email spam is a byproduct of the early design of the Internet itself. And, the assumptions about social practices in the design of the email and other protocols is something we ourselves have to work around, e.g., by using multiple addresses, or by using other, newer, protocols, like IM.

Email spam is like people you don't know putting their food in your fridge because there is no law that prohibits them from doing so, while there is a law that limits the type of barriers you can build around your fridge. In other words, it's a design that now seems crazy, though it made total sense at the time.

But, the search engines being gamed in this case aren't the system of the Internet or web itself. They are just privately created web services built with assumptions about acceptable social practices online, i.e., what's socially acceptable as an honest link between two sites.

In some sense, the problem is that there are too few search engines making too many of the same assumptions. So, this is more like a case of people cutting in line at the cafeteria who maybe wouldn't if there were more open places to eat in town.

To add an example to my comment: what's happening with search engines is like what happened with Friendster when people created fake profiles. Friendster considered this socially unacceptable and "spam," and spent a ton of time trying to stop it. But, to many of the people creating the fakes, they felt it was a legitimate use of the system.

What's different is that there are not the search engine equivalents of a bunch of MySpace and Orkut type sites that creatively embrace this kind of gaming of the system, and create an outlet for it. So, it gets very aggravated, as the situation did with Friendster, where people are really looking to exploit every loophole in their design.

I like this point a lot Jay:

"In some sense, the problem is that there are too few search engines making too many of the same assumptions. So, this is more like a case of people cutting in line at the cafeteria who maybe wouldn't if there were more open places to eat in town."

I agree that the problem is with search engines and that is "private" problem - meaning that only they have the power to keep it from happening. It is an inherent part of their design and you can't really blame people for exploiting it - we all do in one way or another.

I think those tactics are definitely a form of "spam" or manipulating the system. I say this because people should link to other sources because they offer value, not because they're getting a link back/paltry donation in return. Yes these practices are motivated by the way google currently works, and that will change. In the meantime, I just try and create quality info that (hopefully) never goes out of style.

I think they are using perfectly legitimate ways to get links to their site. Yes, they are asking for specific link text, which certainly is manipulating the Search results. However, which web sites trying to make money don't do things to get higher Search Engine rankings?

Of course, you helped them out by giving them a link as well.

PS. I wish John's technique didn't work so well, because I found out about his site when it raced past my blog for the "make money online" term in Google's top 10.

George,
All due respect, but I think we have different views of the term "perfectly ligitimate".

John and perhaps you are operating on the assumption that web rankings will always be managed the same way. One tiny change by another company (google) and your business crumbles.

Practices like those of John are part of a big problem for 99% of the Web's users because he is manipulating a system that we all use (which is a whole other issue). Sure, we could all start bombing google with biased information and "make money online", but there is no sustainability where there is no substance. By motivating people to link with prizes, false promises become part of the business model. That is a serious flaw.

To use another commenters idea: we could all start breaking in line at the bank too, but it's just not the acceptable thing to do. Is it easy? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Is it a legitimate way to deal with your peers? No. Over time, it becomes a liability.

If you think prize-driven links are perfectly legit, then I say you should bet your future on it. Meanwhile, I'll be waiting in line at the bank, posting meaningful content and building long term relationships.

I don't think of it as breaking in line at the bank. That's just rude.

It's more like seeing a bunch of cars in the bank parking lot and seeing that there is only one car in the bank drive thru. So you choose the drive thru instead of going inside. It saves time. It's the smart thing to do, if you want to save time.

On the other hand, there are SEO techniques like cloaking, which too me is more akin to cutting in line. It's not illegal (no government laws against it), but the Search Engines don't like it (ie. it's rude).

I actually look on John's technique as no different than most link baiting techniques. It's just another way to promote your site. Alternatively, you can do nothing to promote your site, but how many big sites do nothing to promote their sites?

All that said, I am focusing on other ways to promote my sites, because I am moving away from relying on SEO as a primary source of traffic for my sites. So I doubt I will follow in John's footsteps.

Thanks George. I don't want to belabor this too much, but something stood out...

"It's more like seeing a bunch of cars in the bank parking lot and seeing that there is only one car in the bank drive thru. So you choose the drive thru instead of going inside. It saves time. It's the smart thing to do, if you want to save time."

I see what you mean. But, in the case of search engines, each time a person "saves time", the system gets more polluted. It's a selfish shortcut that has a very real cost to everyone else in the system. We all want and need searches to be effective and people who are trying to "save time" are working against that objective for their own singular, financial, needs.

The phrase "don't sh*t where you eat" comes to mind. John and co. will keep on pulluting the system until it's unusable and everyone moves to a system that doesn't reward their tactics. To me, that's just bad business.