Fritz M wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Roy.
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Some say that as many as 80% of blogs are spam, but I believe that this
>> is judged by the wrong criteria.
>
> I mentioned 90% in my blog post, but that's for a very specific niche
> keyword. I think I agree with you that, overall, it's probably less
> than 80%.
Very dependent upon the /definition/ of spam I presume.
>> For example, a
>> search engine might wrongly classify your site as spam.
>
> I've pushed the envelope on occasion. I'm surpised somebody hasn't
> commented on the hypocrisy of the automated IBL generation that occurs
> at my site.
>
> Should/Could spam blog tools like RSStoBlog be considered any less
> legitimate than the RSS feeds I follow for search phrases in Technorati
> and Google News?
Yes, because they are powerful tools in the hands of almost anybody.
However, all blogs aggregators I know do not /archive/ content. They are
simply a reflectant pages that are intended for /people/ and does no
target SERP's.
> Speaking of Google, they're becoming the king of scraped content....
> but I digress. All hail Googlezon.
Only if you count cache. I can't think of many people who read content off
Google rather than following a link.
> RFM
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
