<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I Don&#8217;t Like Conflict (But Google Doesn&#8217;t Think SEOs are Criminals)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.bruceclay.com/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/</link>
	<description>SEO and Internet Marketing Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:23:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: timmergroup</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-27459</link>
		<dc:creator>timmergroup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 19:48:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-27459</guid>
		<description>Very good thread...
&quot;Forget fighting Google. Make good sites.&quot; is really the name of the game.  Not only should SEOs be concerned about getting their customer that #1 ranking, they should be concerned about their customers ROI as well.  If the company you are SEOing has a poor site, the end user is not going to make a purchase.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good thread&#8230;<br />
&#8220;Forget fighting Google. Make good sites.&#8221; is really the name of the game.  Not only should SEOs be concerned about getting their customer that #1 ranking, they should be concerned about their customers ROI as well.  If the company you are SEOing has a poor site, the end user is not going to make a purchase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Apostoleris</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-26512</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted Apostoleris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-26512</guid>
		<description>Google actually does not follow all of their guidelines.  For instance, there is a very well known site that certainly violates Google&#039;s quality guidelines in many ways.  It is a high profile site known as ROR (acronym..I don&#039;t want to give them any link juice, relevancy, noteworthiness or anything), that in my opinion , I feel is a very evil site in what it does.  Google has even had to deal with high-level controversy because of it before, but it continues to rank this site well, and / or not ban it.  Google are certainly proponents of hypocrisy for not taking care of this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google actually does not follow all of their guidelines.  For instance, there is a very well known site that certainly violates Google&#8217;s quality guidelines in many ways.  It is a high profile site known as ROR (acronym..I don&#8217;t want to give them any link juice, relevancy, noteworthiness or anything), that in my opinion , I feel is a very evil site in what it does.  Google has even had to deal with high-level controversy because of it before, but it continues to rank this site well, and / or not ban it.  Google are certainly proponents of hypocrisy for not taking care of this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: attorney seo</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18604</link>
		<dc:creator>attorney seo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18604</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Nice article I liked it...
Nice work Susan
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice article I liked it&#8230;<br />
Nice work Susan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry Van Horne</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18603</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry Van Horne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:53:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18603</guid>
		<description>Bruce, seriously dude... tell them about the Inktomi whitelist incident where there were definite &quot;white knights&quot;... The yahoo! webmaster que etc. There&#039;s profiling... has been forever...
BOB Massa stalked on Forums
Ummmm there&#039;s also good SEO profiling so if you&#039;re not in the business of &quot;screwin&#039; with SEs&quot; you got nothing to worry about. However if you&#039;re selling advertising... users must know... bloggers don&#039;t like it because they talk a good game but... use BS like links to do what we know is doable with none of that crap. Buy links as promotion... if you buy links for advertsing don&#039;t expect to get SEO benefits! Yes people exchange gifts for advertising... they don&#039;t care if it&#039;s nofollowed... whatever... they want traffic and audience visibility... the webmaster can do what they&#039;re comfortable with when it comes to how they want to handle nofollow. The ad buyer shouldn&#039;t have to say no because of the webmasters decision IMO, that adds risk inappropriately to the buyer who may care less what rel= means... they buy advertising not do SEO.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bruce, seriously dude&#8230; tell them about the Inktomi whitelist incident where there were definite &#8220;white knights&#8221;&#8230; The yahoo! webmaster que etc. There&#8217;s profiling&#8230; has been forever&#8230;<br />
BOB Massa stalked on Forums<br />
Ummmm there&#8217;s also good SEO profiling so if you&#8217;re not in the business of &#8220;screwin&#8217; with SEs&#8221; you got nothing to worry about. However if you&#8217;re selling advertising&#8230; users must know&#8230; bloggers don&#8217;t like it because they talk a good game but&#8230; use BS like links to do what we know is doable with none of that crap. Buy links as promotion&#8230; if you buy links for advertsing don&#8217;t expect to get SEO benefits! Yes people exchange gifts for advertising&#8230; they don&#8217;t care if it&#8217;s nofollowed&#8230; whatever&#8230; they want traffic and audience visibility&#8230; the webmaster can do what they&#8217;re comfortable with when it comes to how they want to handle nofollow. The ad buyer shouldn&#8217;t have to say no because of the webmasters decision IMO, that adds risk inappropriately to the buyer who may care less what rel= means&#8230; they buy advertising not do SEO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SLight</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18602</link>
		<dc:creator>SLight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18602</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m just in it to make a living, it&#039;s my job to get sites ranking and keep them ranking. I&#039;ve worked on many a big corporate site where the name of the game has either been, OK so we have this specific problem we need you to trouble shoot, or it is a case of general house keeping and removing on site obstacles. Very rarely is it about aggressively targeting keywords. This is why Google seem to be more forgiving.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My point is people like to bitch about the big brands throwing their weight around in the serps but I honestly don&#039;t think these big clunky organisations have any idea what&#039;s going on with their rankings, much less how to manipulate them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Google forgives them for their sins as they see it&#039;s rather ignorance than malice. That and they see brands as a way to keep the SERPs cleen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;the answer won&#039;t come by keeping brands from the space; instead, the web needs them to help clean up the net.&quot;
Eric Schmidt, Google, CEO.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Let&#039;s face it, we all expect to see the big brands in the SERPs and Google knows that&#039;s what people are looking for. That&#039;s why they forgive them for having archaic monoliths of sites, creaking their way forward from 1995 on custom built appalling CMS systems of SEO death. I&#039;ve seen URLs longer than the address bar, so many pages with no readable content, massive internal duplicate content (67 repeated domains is the record so far!) and many other pieces of ridiculousness. When multiple teams of people work on one site all driving it in slightly different directions this is what happens.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m just in it to make a living, it&#8217;s my job to get sites ranking and keep them ranking. I&#8217;ve worked on many a big corporate site where the name of the game has either been, OK so we have this specific problem we need you to trouble shoot, or it is a case of general house keeping and removing on site obstacles. Very rarely is it about aggressively targeting keywords. This is why Google seem to be more forgiving.</p>
<p>My point is people like to bitch about the big brands throwing their weight around in the serps but I honestly don&#8217;t think these big clunky organisations have any idea what&#8217;s going on with their rankings, much less how to manipulate them.</p>
<p>Google forgives them for their sins as they see it&#8217;s rather ignorance than malice. That and they see brands as a way to keep the SERPs cleen.</p>
<p>&quot;the answer won&#8217;t come by keeping brands from the space; instead, the web needs them to help clean up the net.&quot;<br />
Eric Schmidt, Google, CEO.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s face it, we all expect to see the big brands in the SERPs and Google knows that&#8217;s what people are looking for. That&#8217;s why they forgive them for having archaic monoliths of sites, creaking their way forward from 1995 on custom built appalling CMS systems of SEO death. I&#8217;ve seen URLs longer than the address bar, so many pages with no readable content, massive internal duplicate content (67 repeated domains is the record so far!) and many other pieces of ridiculousness. When multiple teams of people work on one site all driving it in slightly different directions this is what happens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Heil</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18601</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Heil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:12:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18601</guid>
		<description>Alan wrote:
&quot;Two years ago I validated that these DO get the most successful free page counter &quot;sponsors&quot; higher in Google and Yahoo. Bitched to Google. Griped. Complained. Used the Webmaster &quot;report spam&quot; system. Several times. Never got nothin in reponse. Sites never degraded. AdWords campaigns flourish to this day.
Personally I throw that right in there with Google allowing sites that don&#039;t have SEO as being allowed to get away with what we are slapped for.&quot;
Well yes Alan. But that goes back to the fact that Google is a machine. They hate looking at spam reports and simply targeting that one site reported. They love to figure out a way to fill the exploit using automated means. Some of that stuff gets through, but some of it doesn&#039;t either. Spam will always been in the se&#039;s indexes. You can&#039;t ever get rid of it totally. You can only stress that it works for a site until it doesn&#039;t work anymore. If you are caught, you get penalized or banned.
I agree with all the rest of your post.
My beef with Google has aways been that they accept advertising money from blackhats or anyone else who was banned or penalized. My beef with this industry as a whole as always been related to the same thing. Known industry &quot;experts&quot; and spokesmen who sell advertising to people/firms who spam, but yet continue talking about whitehat stuff and how you should not spam. It makes me sick. Go to a few SEO blogs and communities out there and check the ads, etc. Who wants to actually clean up this industry and who does not? Who is only in it for the money? It&#039;s very obvious to some of us. I cringe when I hear of someone talking a conference or writing something about spam or whatever, and that same site has prominent ads on it for a firm who does their very best to trick the se&#039;s. Those people can kiss my blank.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan wrote:<br />
&#8220;Two years ago I validated that these DO get the most successful free page counter &#8220;sponsors&#8221; higher in Google and Yahoo. Bitched to Google. Griped. Complained. Used the Webmaster &#8220;report spam&#8221; system. Several times. Never got nothin in reponse. Sites never degraded. AdWords campaigns flourish to this day.<br />
Personally I throw that right in there with Google allowing sites that don&#8217;t have SEO as being allowed to get away with what we are slapped for.&#8221;<br />
Well yes Alan. But that goes back to the fact that Google is a machine. They hate looking at spam reports and simply targeting that one site reported. They love to figure out a way to fill the exploit using automated means. Some of that stuff gets through, but some of it doesn&#8217;t either. Spam will always been in the se&#8217;s indexes. You can&#8217;t ever get rid of it totally. You can only stress that it works for a site until it doesn&#8217;t work anymore. If you are caught, you get penalized or banned.<br />
I agree with all the rest of your post.<br />
My beef with Google has aways been that they accept advertising money from blackhats or anyone else who was banned or penalized. My beef with this industry as a whole as always been related to the same thing. Known industry &#8220;experts&#8221; and spokesmen who sell advertising to people/firms who spam, but yet continue talking about whitehat stuff and how you should not spam. It makes me sick. Go to a few SEO blogs and communities out there and check the ads, etc. Who wants to actually clean up this industry and who does not? Who is only in it for the money? It&#8217;s very obvious to some of us. I cringe when I hear of someone talking a conference or writing something about spam or whatever, and that same site has prominent ads on it for a firm who does their very best to trick the se&#8217;s. Those people can kiss my blank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Bleiweiss</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18600</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Bleiweiss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:18:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18600</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Matt,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m with you on the &quot;good debate&quot; aspects.  My reference points weren&#039;t head to head in their details - it was &quot;we feel we have a legitimate complaint about unfair business practices&quot; comparison. So maybe it was apples to oranges. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Doug,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here&#039;s one I&#039;ll go with - Google takes money for adwords for &quot;free page counter&quot; sites that give away tens, hundreds of those little suckers that sit on the bottom of trashy little web sites all over the world and where there&#039;s a link wrapper around the counter that points to law sites, insurance sites, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two years ago I validated that these DO get the most successful free page counter &quot;sponsors&quot; higher in Google and Yahoo.  Bitched to Google. Griped. Complained.  Used the Webmaster &quot;report spam&quot; system.  Several times.  Never got nothin in reponse.  Sites never degraded.  AdWords campaigns flourish to this day.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Personally I throw that right in there with Google allowing sites that don&#039;t have SEO as being allowed to get away with what we are slapped for.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As far as I am concerned, if a site is doing something we should be slapped for, the person / people doing it KNOW it works and thus that is using SEO as well.  Highly crafty marketers sure as heck know what they&#039;re doing these days.  That&#039;s where Google&#039;s using the &quot;intent&quot; card is a crock of dung.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don&#039;t get all hung up in page sculpting on the few sites of that scale because I&#039;ve always felt it was such a minor value gain in comparison to doing more of the other &quot;traditional&quot; best practices things.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve never lured people to give me or any clients links through &quot;questionable&quot; tactics.  Yet any savvy marketing maven today knows full well that a well crafted marketing initiative should involve building buzz.  And they know that buzz includes links.  Intent is a sham excuse.  You think Google targets BBDO, Porter Novelli, Hill &amp; Knowlton?  They sure don&#039;t.  Because those are &quot;marketing&quot; companies.  Even though they have in-house SEO teams.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m with you on the &#8220;good debate&#8221; aspects.  My reference points weren&#8217;t head to head in their details &#8211; it was &#8220;we feel we have a legitimate complaint about unfair business practices&#8221; comparison. So maybe it was apples to oranges. </p>
<p>Doug,</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s one I&#8217;ll go with &#8211; Google takes money for adwords for &#8220;free page counter&#8221; sites that give away tens, hundreds of those little suckers that sit on the bottom of trashy little web sites all over the world and where there&#8217;s a link wrapper around the counter that points to law sites, insurance sites, etc.  </p>
<p>Two years ago I validated that these DO get the most successful free page counter &#8220;sponsors&#8221; higher in Google and Yahoo.  Bitched to Google. Griped. Complained.  Used the Webmaster &#8220;report spam&#8221; system.  Several times.  Never got nothin in reponse.  Sites never degraded.  AdWords campaigns flourish to this day.  </p>
<p>Personally I throw that right in there with Google allowing sites that don&#8217;t have SEO as being allowed to get away with what we are slapped for.  </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, if a site is doing something we should be slapped for, the person / people doing it KNOW it works and thus that is using SEO as well.  Highly crafty marketers sure as heck know what they&#8217;re doing these days.  That&#8217;s where Google&#8217;s using the &#8220;intent&#8221; card is a crock of dung.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t get all hung up in page sculpting on the few sites of that scale because I&#8217;ve always felt it was such a minor value gain in comparison to doing more of the other &#8220;traditional&#8221; best practices things.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never lured people to give me or any clients links through &#8220;questionable&#8221; tactics.  Yet any savvy marketing maven today knows full well that a well crafted marketing initiative should involve building buzz.  And they know that buzz includes links.  Intent is a sham excuse.  You think Google targets BBDO, Porter Novelli, Hill &#038; Knowlton?  They sure don&#8217;t.  Because those are &#8220;marketing&#8221; companies.  Even though they have in-house SEO teams.  </p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: web design st louis</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18599</link>
		<dc:creator>web design st louis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18599</guid>
		<description>I agree with Doug Heil on the google adwords thing. outrageous.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Doug Heil on the google adwords thing. outrageous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Heil</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18598</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Heil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18598</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Alan; Matt has it exactly right. It&#039;s &quot;never&quot; been fair at all when it comes to SEO&#039;s who try their very best to find every single loophole ever made in SEO and search engine history. Infoseek use to combat the SEO&#039;s the best they could. They tried many different ways to fight and close up holes. They failed. Heck; they got so fed up that at the very end, they excepted emails from SEO&#039;s with lists of keyword phrases corresponding to the domain that the SEO wanted to rank on. I sent in a big o&#039;l list to them. The next day the sites were bombarded by visitors of all kinds and for many different terms. I think they were pissed off. LOL&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My point being is that search engines have fought SEO&#039;s it seems like forever now. The very idea that search engines worth a damn might not do some profiling would be shocking to me. They have done so since day one or day two. :-)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This same type of whining doesn&#039;t stop. It&#039;s the same stuff over and over again; just disguised in different clothes. Sometimes new outfits. Sometimes just a belt change, or a new style of shoes, but looking closer; it&#039;s the same damn arguments. It always is.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some of us are just getting tired of it all. Matt Cutts says anything at all and immediately SEO blogs around the world put their spin on what he said. Most times it&#039;s WRONG. Most times what they write is NOT what he said at all. Not even close. Like the pagerank sculpting thang. I&#039;ve read some far out stuff out there that couldn&#039;t be further from the truth. It&#039;s ridiculous to read. It&#039;s mind boggling to know we have some real gems in this industry who just will never get it. Never. This sculpting business was NEVER going to work from day one anyway. How many sites did I try it on? NONE. Why? Because I knew what Google was saying about it since day one. That&#039;s why.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yeah Matt; you go. I&#039;m with ya. Stop crying you silly industry. LOL&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;BTW: If you want something to rant about I&#039;ll give you one. It&#039;s one I&#039;ve hated for a long time. How about the fact Google Adwords still insists on selling advertising to known people who try to trick them? Now that&#039;s something to whine about and something I&#039;d get behind. I&#039;m sick of people in this industry who preach about being clean and whitehat, but turn around and sell ad space to blackhats. It&#039;s pathetic. You all know exactly who I&#039;m talking about. If the shoe fits, etc.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Alan; Matt has it exactly right. It&#8217;s &#8220;never&#8221; been fair at all when it comes to SEO&#8217;s who try their very best to find every single loophole ever made in SEO and search engine history. Infoseek use to combat the SEO&#8217;s the best they could. They tried many different ways to fight and close up holes. They failed. Heck; they got so fed up that at the very end, they excepted emails from SEO&#8217;s with lists of keyword phrases corresponding to the domain that the SEO wanted to rank on. I sent in a big o&#8217;l list to them. The next day the sites were bombarded by visitors of all kinds and for many different terms. I think they were pissed off. LOL</p>
<p>My point being is that search engines have fought SEO&#8217;s it seems like forever now. The very idea that search engines worth a damn might not do some profiling would be shocking to me. They have done so since day one or day two. <img src='http://blog.bruceclay.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>This same type of whining doesn&#8217;t stop. It&#8217;s the same stuff over and over again; just disguised in different clothes. Sometimes new outfits. Sometimes just a belt change, or a new style of shoes, but looking closer; it&#8217;s the same damn arguments. It always is.</p>
<p>Some of us are just getting tired of it all. Matt Cutts says anything at all and immediately SEO blogs around the world put their spin on what he said. Most times it&#8217;s WRONG. Most times what they write is NOT what he said at all. Not even close. Like the pagerank sculpting thang. I&#8217;ve read some far out stuff out there that couldn&#8217;t be further from the truth. It&#8217;s ridiculous to read. It&#8217;s mind boggling to know we have some real gems in this industry who just will never get it. Never. This sculpting business was NEVER going to work from day one anyway. How many sites did I try it on? NONE. Why? Because I knew what Google was saying about it since day one. That&#8217;s why.</p>
<p>Yeah Matt; you go. I&#8217;m with ya. Stop crying you silly industry. LOL</p>
<p>BTW: If you want something to rant about I&#8217;ll give you one. It&#8217;s one I&#8217;ve hated for a long time. How about the fact Google Adwords still insists on selling advertising to known people who try to trick them? Now that&#8217;s something to whine about and something I&#8217;d get behind. I&#8217;m sick of people in this industry who preach about being clean and whitehat, but turn around and sell ad space to blackhats. It&#8217;s pathetic. You all know exactly who I&#8217;m talking about. If the shoe fits, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SEO Over Here in Toronto</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18597</link>
		<dc:creator>SEO Over Here in Toronto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:19:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2009/06/i-dont-like-conflict-but-google-doesnt-think-seos-are-criminals/#comment-18597</guid>
		<description>&quot;If indirectly purchasing a few, well-guised links regains that #1 listing in the mean time while they work on other strategies, you&#039;re saying you&#039;d recommend they don&#039;t do it?&quot;
There are huge industries that purchase 10&#039;s of thousands of dollars worth of links a month and Google doesn&#039;t and can&#039;t do anything about it.  That is where things get really &#039;unfair&#039; IMO.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If indirectly purchasing a few, well-guised links regains that #1 listing in the mean time while they work on other strategies, you&#8217;re saying you&#8217;d recommend they don&#8217;t do it?&#8221;<br />
There are huge industries that purchase 10&#8242;s of thousands of dollars worth of links a month and Google doesn&#8217;t and can&#8217;t do anything about it.  That is where things get really &#8216;unfair&#8217; IMO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

