I'm working on my own splogs(spam blog) farm, and I'm trying to at least be considerate with it. Most of my posts are full data(even if the RSS feed itself is not), modified to get rid of duplicate content penalties. Now, I'm considering giving at the very least a nofollow backlink to the blog that was the source for that particular article. Possible a "follow" backlink. But I was wondering, do you guys even want one of those from a splog? So here we go. Whatever the common consensus is on here is what I will do. If you have any other ideas on what to do to "play nice" with the blogosphere, short of not creating splogs, feel free to post those here, and I'll consider it
Curious as to how that works, but if you're going to come in with a self-righteous attitude saying, "I want to be considerate," just shut up. You're either a greedy profit-whore who doesn't care about the other blogs, or you shouldn't be doing it. Anyway, if you truely care about being considerate, you should put a following link, otherwise you are giving them basically zero value.
I'm not being self-righteous. I'm not "holier than thou", I'm giving you guys an option. Am I a greedy profit whore? Whatever. If I consider myself a marketer(I do), then that's my job. That is what I do. I do not have room to allow tiny issues to interfere with what I do. Now, if I can go about that the most considerate way possible, that's fine. I lose nothing from giving the link. I just wanted to make sure that's what the blogging community wanted.
Never did I say there is anything wrong with being a greedy profit whore. But, if you know anything about marketting, it is fairly obvious that bloggers want following links.
Yeah, that's true. But a lot of people here are quite anal-retentive about pagerank of links that they want. I wanted to make sure y'all weren't crazy enough to turn down a link just because it had spammy origins. PS:If you had just said profit whore, I wouldn'tve objected. I'm a profit whore, but I'm not greedy. I like to be able to relax with a smokable in one hand, and a drink in the other, with the laptop glowing in front of me. I can do that without being rich I just gotta be "well off" ..."mega-profit-whore" also would have been acceptable.
If they want to link me, it is fine with me but I will no give them a linkback through pingbacks to avoid being banned my Google if under any circumstances sites like these got reported and banned from Google.
Link to me with a no-follow. Actually on second thoughts don't link to me just give me credit for it by writing out the main url of the blog in such a way that it's not hyperlinked. I like that. Seriously no one needs splog links lol. Best of luck on your splogs however,
heh thanks. There's been mixed responses, so I'm thinking full data posts will include a no-follow, and XML scrapes will contain a full, follow link. Mixed responses make it hard.
haha I just got negative rep saying that "splogs are not what true marketers do" Congrats on creating an incentive to NOT give you guys an option in the future. And by the way, true marketers use whatever is at their disposal, without exception. Otherwise, you're just another webmaster, and should go check on your 53 cent adsense day.
If you have a lottttt of bad ones you can. I recently had a site ranking about 40 for a key term, then I decided to link spam, and forgot to run my list through a pagerank checker. It dropped to 147. Thankfully, after a second round WITH a pagerank checker, it went a bit above where it started (29).
Not sure yet. I think it will be Nofollow/no link for full data posts(necessary to not get splog marked) follow links for rss scrapes. Right now, the primary confusion is a result of me being pissy at whoever marked down my damn rep for this thread. XMCP ANGRY!
"Im going to rape you in the ass, now do you want lube or no lube?" Either way we're getting fu*cked in the ass. What your doing is illegal.
Nosir, no it's not. If I gave no credit whatsoever, it might a copyright violation, possibly. POSSIBLY. 1)I'm not positive how I'm going to do that part. People might get credit no matter what. In which case, it's pretty much the legal equivalent of citing a source in a book report. 2)The content is modified It might even be used for an article spinner that would spin it's own unique(semi-sensical) content. 100% unique, custom work. 3)A bit of a dramatic comparison there. More like "I'm going to flick your ear. Would you like to cover it first?". None of these blogs rank worth a darn(I'm not sure if I can cuss on DP, so yeah, I just said "darn"). They won't even take traffic. On top of that, due to the modifications, they seem like they were written by someone who was very much not a native speaker(although they do make sense). Oops. I guess it's not illegal.
"I am hosting the latest blockbuster movie on my servers.. buts its not illegal because I mentioned that Paramount made it". Not sure that that well go down well when Paramount takes you to court.
Nope. Not unless you charge to let someone into your blog entry. The information is out there and freely available. Better question: What if I made a mash-up of the "movie" in your analogy?(Bear in mind, that covers a good part of youtube). Took a few parts, mashed em together into one almost incoherent video? Perhaps with some background music playing?
Maybe it's a conflict of interest. There's a million other ways to make money, I'm not sure splogs will last in the long run (google picks them up eventually)
Of course there's a conflict of interest. Although I will point out that the poll supports no linking. But really, it doesn't affect me too much either way. And yeah, splogs will last I believe. They'll just be adapted probably. But even if they don't, might as well cash in now. Google is miserable at catching them. I know people running blog farms of over 30,000, and they're not having issues. I'm not terribly afraid.