Maybe I am mis-reading your blog, Matt? Even in your comment I am not sure I understand why you say “We do consider building doorway pages filled with keyword gibberish that then redirect people to a completely different page to be sneaky, and I think most users would agree that it is sneaky”. I’ll ignore the inflammatory language (I don’t think the example you cited is properly described as “keyword gibbersih” nor did the landing pages seem “completely different” since they were all on topic). But Matt — last I checked, most users don’t understand much about the Internet at all. These days “most users” type their destinations into the Google search box presented by Google on the Firefox homepage, even though they had no intent to “search” for that domain. We can’t base our competitive webmaster guidelines on what “most users” would think, can we Matt? Do we even want to do that?

It sure seems that either you or Google is out to stifle innovation here. I can see how there can be dual meanings to the word “undetectable” as published by V7N accordng to the article you referenced. To V7N and the competitive webmaster audience it serves, “undetectable” in that context may mean that the V7N system does not violate Google’s established spam guidelines, and so will not be flagged by Google’s spam awareness system. To me, that sounds like innovation. But to you, it seems to have sounded like a threat (please correct me if I am wrong).

The web site you referenced concluded the V7N system was a “no brainer” for testing, because it had potential to be good, and low risk. You have certainly stomped that opportunity to death wth your post. Isn’t that stifling innovation, Matt?

I am reminded of the Microsoft marketing machine of the mid 1990’s, which seemed to execise it’s monopoly powers by issuing pre-emptive pre-market announcements, effectively stifling innovation. If a company was coming out with an new program for Windows, Microsoft would announce it’s intent to go into that market, effectively cutting off the available investment money for the start-ups, since no one in their right mind would invest in something that Microsoft already planned to dominate. Consumers would think twice and many would “wait for the Microsoft version”. When it worked, Microsoft didn’t even have to develop the product (and we users suffered). Take a look at the accounting software space to see how that behavior damaged the viability of a thriving market segment.

Following your post, Matt, who in their right mind would use the V7N system? And as a follow up, do you think there may have been a better way to communicate directly with V7N on this issue, in advance of a public trouncing? I do.