Using the new rel="nofollow" attribute

that must be a joke...

yes, and many people have used jump links for an extended period of time. this recommendation is just another way to do it.

it doesn't force anything. it just gives you another option.

and I think it was done mostly for PR too. I doubt they thought they were really changing anything with it.

 

*What are you smokin?*

I was told it's a local variant of some Dutch Skunk, but is this strictly relevant?

Some people, including myself, see the COOP as a "links scheme", and circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Google does too.

Using this new link attribute would show the world the COOP is NOT a links scheme, it's in fact an advertising network.

 

gotta love new people showing up and "calling us out"... So Shawn's supposed to bend over and rewrite software because google put up a web page and announced a new tag attribute, regardless of what his user community says . Then 2500 people have to change the code on their websites, just to satisfy you.

Thanks, but no thanks. If you see it as a linking scheme, then don't click on the links. If you are worried that we have an advantage and you refuse to join, then go find your own methodology for doing whatever it is that you want to do.

I don't know how long the norel thing has been going on, but I do know that I just heard about it for the first time. Neither Movable Type, nor Wordpress support this out of the box and I just installed them within the last month.

Why don't you get this straight: Nobody is going to change things because you call us names, try to shame us into it, or anything else. In fact, that is the worst way to go about it. I haven't seen any evidence that Google or any other search engine sees the coop advertising network as a linking scheme. Nor do I think that they would focus on it either. Have you been to any of the "text links brokers" or "link exchanges" out there? There is plenty of garbage out there that is clearly garbage. Anything that involves asking for links could be percieved as a linking scheme. There are at least a million sites out there willing to put up links for a fee. Clearly this was put out by google to deal with blog spam, not anything else. They can make recommendations, but they don't rule the world. They don't even rule the search engine world. I haven't seen anything that says this recommendation is being made by MSN, Yahoo, Lycos, Gigablast, or any of the thousands of other search engines or web directories.

The blogging developers will decide whether or not they will support this attribute. I'm sure there are plenty of people with your mindset out there that want all links to have a norel attribute so that your crappy site with two inbound links will make it to the top of the search engines. There are plenty of others who will bring up the fact that the blogging community has already effectively dealt with comment spam and there are plenty of already existing quality solutions to the problem.

 

Bend over? It is a minor change. It would take 2-seconds to change --unless Shawn wrote it in some off-the-wall language that only martians can edit.

Not one single person would have to change the code in their web site -if the change and coding was/is written properly in the first place.

*****

This network is nothing more than a variant of the link2you network. The difference is that it DOES affect search engine rankings, and it does not do so with any responsibility. That is spamming ...whether you want to argue it or not.

I, personally, do not care if the network "conforms" or not. I am simply one of the ones pointing out that it IS -in fact- spam. What you choose to do with that revelation is up to you.

-Wesley

 

You mean like blogger does? And WordPress? And about.com and the yahoo directory and the dmoz directory? These are all "link farming schemes" according to you.

You people just don't seem to understand that this is an advertising network. People can pay for advertising, or they can swap advertising, or they can do a little of both. Print and Radio have swapped advertising for generations.

Who exactly peed in your cheerios? Why do you care about it so much that you would come here and register just to tell me that this is spam? Do you know what spam is? This is not spam by definition. So you are wrong.

You don't know anything about the network. If you actually did know anything about this cooperative advertising network you would realize that there are a number of things that are done here that just wouldn't be done if it was just a big spam network.

As far as the suggestion that this is a "clone" or a "copy" of some other network, then I'd say you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

It seems like there are plenty of people around who have lots of time throwing abuses at others or their work, rather doing their own.


And the most amazing thing is one time posters who pops up, to save the world. <sarcastic> Great Human characters </sarcastic>

I just cant seem to find out where Shawn said " Its compulsory for you to join the network".
In simple words if you don`t like it don`t join.

 

Last time I checked, none of those sites put links in other sites without the displaying sites explicit approval. I could be wrong (not). Point of fact, however, I do think that DMOZ is a link scheme because it is overrun with so many cheaters -but that's another topic for another day.

You people just don't seem to understand that we all know too well the truth here. If it were truly advertising, you wouldn't defend it so hard just to keep the SEO portion of it.

Unfortunately for you, I do know how this network operates and I still label it spam. I am very objective, but this network is blatant. Defend it all you want; I couldn't care less. I'm not a part, so I won't suffer. I merely decided to warn those with less experience in such matters.

I use my means to generate my income, and you use yours. No harm; no foul.

Yes, in fact, I do. You apparently are too stubborn to admit it or too dense to realize it. So, you are wrong.

We can go back and forth all day, but I prefer to just let you meander about with whatever low budget site you advertise in the co-op.

There's never enough time, and I do have my own system -which is the first of its kind that doesn't spam the search engines like this one.

In reality, I was asked to give input at a couple of forums and this thread was pointed out at another forum. I decided to give some feedback to help those less knowledgeable about this form of "advertising" -as you all call it.

-Wesley

 

*with whatever low budget site you advertise in the co-op.*

This is definitely a factor, if I can use "any old shite" site to host the ads, but have my "real" site as the recipient, there's a natural qualitative downward spiral....

 

I believe his website is linksmile.com

Wesley as the owner of another advertising network doesn’t that render your opinion of the co-op biased?

 

Hey glengara , just curious but why do worry so much about what other people are doing

why don't you just "do you"

I really don't uderstand you glengara, I know why lots of seos are into calling stuff spam and etc .... mostly to try to make themselves look like an "expert"

but what is your hook, I don't uderstand how you profit from bad mouthing other peoples stuff

what do you get out of posting on message boards all day about this is spam , that is spam they are a spammer

Is just it just for like recreation, I mean according to your site you sell some seo services of some kind

this is your site right?

http://www.diy-seo.com/search-engine-optimization-services/index.html

for 800.00 you do some 'stuff'

http://www.diy-seo.com/search-engine-optimization-services/wpr.html

Does "outing" the "spam" of the internet help you get clients?

 

Well all I am going to say is LOL

 

I feel this thread has wandered from the point. The point is not what you or I or Shawn think the network is for and is doing: the point is what Google (and, apparently, some others) think the network is and is doing.

Now to be sure, we none of us know what G thinks (if G and think can be used in the same sentence). But the appearance of this tag, though aimed primarily at blogs, is indicative, as are various other observations, including those from the ever-popular "GoogleGuy" , that G may not be taking the network in the same frame of mind as its advocates have been setting forth here.

The truth comes at the narrow pass: if this is mainly or wholly an advertising network, not an SEO ploy, then no one should have any least objection to the attaching of this new tag to all network links. If I (who am a member on virtually all my sites) were to code in such a tag on all links provided by the network, would I be disqualified from the network? If it is an advertising network, such tags should make no difference, as they do not interfere with any visitor's desire to visit the linked site; if it is mainly an SEO-value network, the tags will vitiate the main function.

So I ask: did I apply those tags at my end, would I be in violation of the network's Terms of Service?

 

I agree with this entirely, even though I hate it. Regarding SEO vs. Advertising, unfortunately, most of the raves about the co-op has been about rankings (SEO) - and for good reason, our serps have benefitted a great deal from the co-op, particularly in Google. But on the flipside, that tells you something about what it is "actually" doing and it's true benefits. I have yet to see the same amount of raves here because of the traffic converted to sales that it actually produces (Advertising). The former far outweighs the latter.

I would like to see the theming implemented in full because I think this should eliminate the spam perception and put the controversy to rest. A direct link from a related site is good for everyone, engines included. I really don't want to give up the optimization to jump or no follow links if it can be avoided. For me because I would lose out on a benefit that has helped me tremendously (and which I am very grateful), and for the coop since it's fullest potential wouldn't be realized: it's you get what you give aspect.

 

Well technically an ad that passes pr is worth more then a ads that doesn't

So basically you would giving less then you are receiving

 

I have no need to brag here. I do very well with my sites, and I do not use these spammy techniques.

I can back up all my claims. In fact, I already have but you can't see it. That's not my issue. However, I will not waste anymore time here (as this is all a waste) -which should make you all happy.

I just hope that some others will see this thread and my comments and ask the questions that keep them from losing what they've worked so hard for. It's tough for people like you to believe someone would "care" out of concerns for others; but there's your answer... that's why I posted here.

Not hardly. Here YOU go trying to talk about something of which you do not know. I would never go out of my way to sell footer links like these, and we are making efforts to convince people to move away from "footer spam links" altogether.

At any rate, this is not a thread about my site; so I won't self promote here. I am not against webmasters that know what they are getting into using this coop... I simply want to warn those that do not know any better and might get their "important" sites banned.

At any rate... I'm done. Now, I'll leave and you all can bad mouth me.

Cheers,

Wesley

 

I cannot believe I just wasted 10 minutes reading this whole thread!

Everyone wants to advertise their site, that's why they pay money on Adwords, have other sites link to them, etc. Does it help in ranking? sure, but it's not the ONLY reason the co-op exist.

btw - i'm not even a PART of the co-op and i don't see a problem with it.

anyway, silly people pester me... there are some highly negative cranky people out there....just as irritating as the person in the grocery store who decided a loaf of bread belonged in the dish soap aisle....

blah

wendy