Comments on: VW Search Spam: Just Good Design? http://www.johnon.com/302/volkswagon-search-spam.html I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere.... Thu, 23 May 2013 14:10:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: john andrews http://www.johnon.com/302/volkswagon-search-spam.html#comment-20319 Fri, 04 May 2007 17:00:54 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/302/volkswagon-search-spam.html#comment-20319 I'm with you on that, Danny, but I also think the "calling out" behavior exacerbates the problem. As for "we don't say they are spamming", that's what I got from the title of the SEL article. It was (is) "Google features Volkswagon, Which Happens to be Search Spamming". Imparting intent is my biggest issue... especially when Google does it (and Matt Cutts does impart intent on web masters openly and publicly). In this case even the label "invisiblecontent" doesn't impart intent, as the accessibility article demonstrates. I admit "class=stealth" would be more damning, but since I worked on technologies supporting the Stealth airplane back in 1980, maybe even that accusation would deserve a hearing. ;-)  I’m with you on that, Danny, but I also think the “calling out” behavior exacerbates the problem. As for “we don’t say they are spamming”, that’s what I got from the title of the SEL article. It was (is) “Google features Volkswagon, Which Happens to be Search Spamming”.

Imparting intent is my biggest issue… especially when Google does it (and Matt Cutts does impart intent on web masters openly and publicly). In this case even the label “invisiblecontent” doesn’t impart intent, as the accessibility article demonstrates. I admit “class=stealth” would be more damning, but since I worked on technologies supporting the Stealth airplane back in 1980, maybe even that accusation would deserve a hearing. ;-) 

]]> by: Danny Sullivan http://www.johnon.com/302/volkswagon-search-spam.html#comment-20282 Fri, 04 May 2007 10:22:45 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/302/volkswagon-search-spam.html#comment-20282 Actually, we don't say they are spamming. It's Google that says they are spamming. I actually agree with you that these types of rules are often silly and stupid. That's what the long article we linked to was about, where I discuss how I pretty much at rules against cloaking and hidden text. Forget the technique; what's the intent? The intent at VW really isn't to be misleading. And the point of posting about them isn't to say VW is bad but highlight how yet again, someone gets caught up in stupid technical rules that should change. Actually, we don’t say they are spamming. It’s Google that says they are spamming. I actually agree with you that these types of rules are often silly and stupid. That’s what the long article we linked to was about, where I discuss how I pretty much at rules against cloaking and hidden text. Forget the technique; what’s the intent? The intent at VW really isn’t to be misleading. And the point of posting about them isn’t to say VW is bad but highlight how yet again, someone gets caught up in stupid technical rules that should change.

]]>