Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
Ted Drake wrote: But if we need to do it to be competitive, would this at least protect those that are innocent, the people who need to use screenreaders? I've an idea. Quite a few people run personal sites that allow people to leave comments. You could create a script that automatically leaves comments on their site along with a link. That way you'd inherit some of their Google juice. Another method would be to send lots of emails to random people. If you send enough you are bound to find somebody interested in your products. I mean, if you need to be competitive you should really explore all the options. :-) Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
Another method would be to send lots of emails to random people YEAH!! spam them to death lol From: Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 4:49 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!Ted Drake wrote: But if we need to do it to be competitive, would this at least protect those that are innocent, the people who need to use screenreaders?I've an idea. Quite a few people run personal sites that allow people to leave comments. You could create a script that automatically leaves comments on their site along with a link. That way you'd inherit some of their Google juice.Another method would be to send lots of emails to random people. If you send enough you are bound to find somebody interested in your products.I mean, if you need to be competitive you should really explore all the options.:-)Andy Buddhttp://www.message.uk.com/**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
On 2/4/05 2:01 AM csslist [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: Another method would be to send lots of emails to random people YEAH!! spam them to death lol This list is way out of control and I'm going to leave unless somebody retakes control. I do care about this list when it's under control - otherwise, bye bye. Thanks Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
ADMIN Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:04:40 -0800, Rick Faaberg wrote: This list is way out of control and I'm going to leave unless somebody retakes control. I do care about this list when it's under control - otherwise, bye bye. 'How can i stay within Web Standards while spamming the search engines' is off the on-topic page, IMHO. I think we have reached the point of no return with this thread. Good people, please consider it Closed. warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot WSG Core member ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
It was said: I've an idea. Quite a few people run personal sites that allow people to leave comments. You could create a script that automatically leaves comments on their site along with a link. That way you'd inherit some of their Google juice. Another method would be to send lots of emails to random people. If you send enough you are bound to find somebody interested in your products. I mean, if you need to be competitive you should really explore all the options. ** I thought I was joining a Webstandards list. As a developer working with weblogs, the major problem is comments being abused. It is a very serious issue which should be against the law. Seriously. People using comments are being abused by spammer scum which ruins their online experience to a large degree. I don't care if this is off topic, or if I am deleted from this list. Seeing this kind of stuff encouraging comment spam deeply offends me. I would like to see spammers jailed. Bruce Prochnau www.bkdesign.ca Canada ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
Guys (in a very inclusive fashion), the thread is still closed. Now, imagine a big red 'closed' stamp coming down across it. warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot WSG Core member ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
Sorry just another point.
There is a MUCH BETTER way to spamdex without effecting anyone here.
I haven't used it before, but I have thought about it a lot.
You can simply add your spam div, when the user_agent is a googlebot,
msnbot, yahoobot etc...
If you dont know the user agents for the bots simply check out this list.
http://www.psychedelix.com/agents.html
its massive I know!
just go for the major ones.
THEN a little check if the useragent is a bot.
and BOOM.
spam
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
/spam
- My 2.35 cents!
Ted Drake wrote:
The recent discussion of css and seo had me wondering.
I have convinced the big wigs that although search engine rankings are very
important, and they are with our very competitive keyword, we need to maintain
accessibility. I have kept our alt tags pure, our h1 tags are using an image
replacement technique, but still are not filled with spam. We use no
noscript spam or doorway pages.
However, I have been thinking, h could we spam an h4 tag and put a
class=spam, clever huh? Then move the text off screen in the main style
sheet, display none in the print style sheet... normal, although unethical stuff so far.
But what about the screen reader. It certainly would be unfair for them to hear their
screen reader emphasize spam words and because of that I am against the idea.
However, we have that media=aural descriptor. Could I set up a new aural css with
.spam {display:none;}?
For those covering your ears and eyes screaming N! I know it is a bad
thing to spam your keywords. But if we need to do it to be competitive, would
this at least protect those that are innocent, the people who need to use
screenreaders?
Ted
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
--
Chris Stratford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neester.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 3/02/2005
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:07:15 +1100, Chris Stratford wrote: Sorry just another point. ALRIGHT!! ENOUGH!! This thread has clearly been closed TWICE now. (Yes, in case you were wondering, I AM YELLING!) Any more posts in this thread without a damn good reason[1] will see some public finger pointing and unsubscriptions. The use of standards for spamming the search engines is officially off-topic. warmly, Lea [1] You don't have a good enough reason. Don't try it. -- Lea de Groot WSG Core member ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:25:41 +1000, Lea de Groot wrote: ALRIGHT!! ENOUGH!! And I've just had it pointed out that I used unacceptable language in my last post! My abject apologies - it was completely unintentional. warmly, Lea ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
Ted Drake wrote: I know it is a bad thing to spam your keywords. But if we need to do it to be competitive, Sorry if I sound flippant, but if the business' competitiveness can only be maintained by spamming, then I'd say there's a fundamental business problem there. would this at least protect those that are innocent, the people who need to use screenreaders? You can't, as a rule, say that screenreaders will not read out display:none'd page elements. I have an older version of JAWS at work (4.02), and that quite happily reads out the css-hidden things. So, don't rely on this... -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
Ted wrote: For those covering your ears and eyes screaming N! I know it is a bad thing to spam your keywords. But if we need to do it to be competitive, would this at least protect those that are innocent, the people who need to use screenreaders? Are you willing to risk your client's site and your (possibly) good reputation by spamdexing? Google appears lax towards spamming at present but for how long ... ? Besides, it can be done legitimately: http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?Hidden1=MSNHHidden1=1252q=website+dev elopment Couldn't resist :o) Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.visidigm.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty!
Thanks for the replies. I don't like spamming and try to build a site that doesn't need it. I can't say I've been innocent, the web still has some of my spammed alt tags from years gone by. Thank you for the information about the JAWS readers, that is what I was looking for. Some good reason, above the obvious ethical reasons, to maintain standards and avoid using css to spam a page. Ted -Original Message- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:09 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty! Ted Drake wrote: I know it is a bad thing to spam your keywords. But if we need to do it to be competitive, Sorry if I sound flippant, but if the business' competitiveness can only be maintained by spamming, then I'd say there's a fundamental business problem there. would this at least protect those that are innocent, the people who need to use screenreaders? You can't, as a rule, say that screenreaders will not read out display:none'd page elements. I have an older version of JAWS at work (4.02), and that quite happily reads out the css-hidden things. So, don't rely on this... -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty! SEO/CSS
Wouldn't having something to say on your site that is relevant and useful to people who are going to search for what you have to offer be better than spending time on how to manipulate search engines by abusing CSS? If you scam me in the SERP's, can I trust you not to scam me in any other business dealings? Good content, updated regularly is the best SEO I know of. See: http://www.penmachine.com/2004/08/is-it-worth-optimizing-your-site-for.html Terrence Wood. Chris Rizzo wrote: laugh Well, I cetainly don't want to use techniques like this myself, but there are clever ways to spam that the engines can't detect. I know because I see it all the time in the SERPS. I am certainly not an expert on CSS/SEO spamming though :) Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Drake Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:42 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] cover me -- I'm gonna be naughty! For those covering your ears and eyes screaming N! I know it is a bad thing to spam your keywords. But if we need to do it to be competitive, ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
