a) Google unveil the Rapid Reaction Spam Airborne Assault Division

or b) a court of law makes SE performance a legal asset;

… I’ll allow that possibly their opinions carry some actual weight.

>> should probably reconsider as programmers that once-upon-a-time did similar tricks with time bombs in software that failed

Different entirely though. Software is a product, whose performance can be measured, and whose code can even be legally protected under copyright. How, exactly, do you propose to shoehorn SE rankings under current IP law? If you blow up software, of course there are consequences, it’s tantamount to property (and Anglo-Saxon derived law is HOT on that subject)

But traffic? People floating about in the Tubes of the Interwebs? Who the hell owns them?

Besides, Google is a publically held, for-profit corporation, who supply various search related services. They can choose for any reason or for none to include you, or not, in their index. The second you try to apply any artificial notion of “fairness” to it (”Boo-hoo, that unavailable_after killed my site, it not FAIR”) it breaks. You either have to nationalise Google, and make them a publically owned utility, or take the kicks - pick one

>> He says it was his service that put them into the SERPs, so it’s ok that a lack of his service will remove them from the SERP

That is, in my opinion, an overly cynical way to look at it, but OTOH, how many eager SEOs have had a client drop them / refuse to pay / otherwise stitch them up? There are Dirty Clients too you know, neither side is innocent.

The WWW is free… actually, really free. That means you are free to get cheated, as well as the other good stuff

“unavailable_after” est une nouvelle meta que le Google a annoncé sur son Blog très récemment. Voici sa syntaxe :

Si vous ajoutez sur une page ce code, la……

And Todd your post is so off target its not funny…build all links to one site and then link that to a client…..

I wish I had more competitors that thought that tactic would work,,,,unfortunately you forgot Google would see the links to your clients site, coming from the one website you bought, and give it a whopping PR1….

More please…lol

John Andrews comments: Eldiablo I’ll let Todd speak for himself if he sees this, but I understood the tactic to be a traffic tactic, not a PR tactic. The client sees traffic from the SEO efforts, which goes to another destination once the DirtyBastard is no longer being paid. Still done with framing FWIS.

I was going to say the same thing. I remember when this was a big issue in the mid ’80s-early ’90s. IIRC a Judge in NY set the precedent that time bombs like these are illegal.

@Jon, thanks for this article. I had no idea that metatag existed. When used as designed, I can see that it would be a great asset.

=C=