1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. 2. Holier than thou does not mean concern. 3. professionality is not a word; try professionalism
Every word was created somehow and maybe i just created a new one, either way i prefer mine better then yours so ill keep on using it. Who is being ignorant to the law? I dont understand that bible crap either so maybe explain that.
Ignorance of the law ... a reference to those who may be in violation of Google guidelines, meaning no sympathy for those who might get caught being wrong or stupid. Holier than thou ... a reference to banning people for not being within the guidelines of another's program; it's not the place of the DP administration to enforce the rules of another entity. Taking things personally and literally to be abrasive is a real sign of professionalism ... I know many lexicographers, and you sir, are no lexicographer ... get over yourself. I sided with your principles on this issues to some extent though I did not agree with your methodology / recommendation for a ban. Now I am considering taking up the position that people wanting to ban people should be banned.
Yeah and none of them were bumbling idiots that had a hard time stringing together a cohesive sentence.
It seems you cant read, i never said banning the member. I believe its now called an STI, a man of such intelligence should know that. eea ah oo suck,.? (my dik-
No, I read just fine thank you, your thread subject is: Ban people listing their PR to increase sales Now, if it's a matter of wording as that was not your intended message, it could have read: Ban people FROM listing ... STI is an infection, which differs from the STD, disease, which is often the root of the infection ... If you're interested, over at Reference Resources, there's a link where you could buy a dictionary or thesaurus; by the way, that's not a book on dinosaurs.
I see where TLN is coming from, I am hoping he wasn't turned red for this. He simply pointed out something some people may not be aware of. I didn't know this rule myself. I am selling a few domains for a friend and mentioned the PR of them, had I known this fact ahead of time, I'd have not mentioned PR publicly. I see this as informing the public of a fact they may not be aware of. I don't think it should be banned from forums though. It's more like let the individual decide for themselves if it's a risk they want to take.
As someone already said, G places the publicly available 'value' on the site/domain and is then overstepping (too far into the God Complex) their authority by asserting rules on how or when site/domain owners can discuss that ranking. Maybe the solution (to prevent upsetting the Gods--or those with low PR's who tend to bawk at sales threads that list PR) is to not list PR# link for sale, but rather, link for sale - G calls it a # of 10?
They are not overstepping their authority. They simply have rules and guidelines for how they conduct their business and how they conduct business with others. You are always free to ban googlebot from your site if you don't like their overstepping. If you ignore google, they will be MORE than happy to ignore you. I was ignorant of this particular forum rule as well. No big deal. I think anyone who cares about the PR of a site will go look it up anyways. And Scott your suggestion is dumb. You can't sell cocaine legally by calling it powdered sugar.
I would dispute that. I (or any site owner) never gave G permission to place a numeric value of any kind on my site, yet they do anyway and make it publicly available. That being the case, they should have no right to restrict how or where the owner will discuss it. Certainly, if G decides to ban a site because the owner lists PR somewhere, that's their right as it's their directory. But, that still doesn't mean they should have the right to prevent the owner from listing the PR in the first place. As for banning the bots, just by being indexed a site owner hasn't agreed to be bound by any and all policy rules G decides to create and post--nor do they have to. Perhaps if the owner agreed to terms while "submitting" their site to a SE this would be different, but if your site was picked up simply by backlinks then my argument is valid. Wow, dumb??? Any dumber than a 4 page thread debating and ranting about whether or not a forum should police and enforce G's policies? Anyway, my suggestion was offered more to appease than as a valid solution. I hope that wasn't lost in translation. Scott
Why should the forums help police googles guidelines? I never agreed to follow this rule. It is not a law.... I can follow or not follow googles guidelines as I see fit. Google can react as they want to. Why do you care? Why should the forums?
You can dispute that all you want. You could also dispute Consumer Reports should not be allowed to review items. Nor should movie and restaurant reviewers, however you would be wrong. Why not? The actual number is Googles. I think they have a right to have a say in how it is used. You are right. As Google is not obligated to list ANY of your sites in its index, whether you follow their rules and guidelines or not. Consider it the propeller on the dumb beanie that is this thread.
But they can't stop me from saying how many stars they gave the movie, or whatever. Not legally, they have no legal basis to say I can't say google pr for this site is N.