__/ On Friday 26 August 2005 11:34, [John Bokma] wrote : \__
> "T.J." <no1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> F = T1/2 + A + T2/2 + B
>>> To a black hat SEO it would be no problem to automate this and
>>> deceive the search engines. it is much easier to carry out a robbery
>>> than it is for the
>>> police to spot the crook in a town of millions.
>> What is the matter with you people?
> This is Usenet. Not a paid helpdesk, or think tank.
>> Why do you always look at the negative side
>> of things?
> We do?
>> In my OP I posted a link to a site that provides
>> free content that it states can be used by anybody
> Yes, but I hate to see the same info glued on pages on thousands of
> sites and just cluttering the search results. To me that's spam. Look at
> all those lyrics sites if you need an example. Some of those sites try
> to upload a nice payload if you use IE.
I remember that chorus, John.
>> To me that is a "great source for content"
>> do you agree or not?
> Why don't you make your own? Personally I hope that Google will assign a
> negative score to sites that consist of content slapped on pages with
> some ads added.
They already do, but the task is hard. They are killing splogs at the
moment. Tell me if you want some references.
>> And why suddenly bring black hat SEO in to it?
> Because a part of the sites who are going to use all this free content
> use black hat SEO and other stuff which can be considered black hat.
Dave will not appreciate that comment.
Roy S. Schestowitz "Free the mind, the source will follow"