I’m noticing a theme, and we’re still in the first quarter of the new year. Search marketing tactics, old and new, are pushing the ethical envelope, in new ways. Or it seems that way. For example:
An old discussion on Web Directories equal Web Pollution erupted again when someone passionate about their directories wrote:
“Don’t mind me i have half a brain and 36 quality directories with good PR to give back Quality websites and Blogs.
Why do i do it?
Because i make good money and will make a difference …. now can you say the same???
Are spam directories polluting the Internet? Is it good business to use directories as a marketing tactic?
Directories have been around for years and used to entice people into submitting to them. What happens when you find your content being sold without your permission or used on sites that use your content to draw in traffic so they can earn revenue off of your work?
This is addressed in I Am A Bot Bigot, throw the blaggards out!
“Chris Sherman Using Heatmaps In Search Results has a quick mention of two Web 2.0 product rating services. These, and similar services, work by sending bots to scrape, parse, and tally reviews written by others and aggregate the results into some visually appealling fashion (and, yes, into some potentially useful mashups).
In other words they ‘borrow’ others hard work and bandwidth, without asking, to make a buck. I am saddened so many in our industry, including discussion leaders I respect, ignore the flawed foundation of this scraper economy while praising the decor options available. “
The discussion includes Google as a scraper bot, used for their own gain with your content.
Frustration lurks at every corner of web design, including Web 2.0 and what it should look like. Green Or Orange? Designing for a Web 2.0 Look illustrates the confusion over what Web 2.0 is, what it should look like, why it looks that way and who made up the rules anyway? Why can’t Web 2.0 design be stripes or flowered prints with exotic fonts?
Lastly, when in doubt, check with people you trust. Someone received an email asking them to update their information, while being invited to pay a fee for annual advertising. It turns out the fine print is scary.
After awhile, one wonders if it’s safe to put up a website anymore. When will the risks outweigh the benefits? Will this stop being fun?
Has the Web changed that much recently, or are we just paying more attention to some of these issues?
Maybe they are coming to the forefront because it’s becoming easier for people to aggregate content from other sources in different ways.
I’m glad to see some of these discussions taking place.
Comment by Bill Slawski — March 23, 2007 @ 3:18 am
Google was just a very early uptaker on the whole web 2.0 racket.
When you think about it most of the big web 2.0 players are just organising, hosting or aggregating existing content. For example, many news sites aggregate AP feeds (or simply rewrite them), product comparison sites are just aggregating ROR feeds, eBay is just hoting millions of tiny stores. I found an article today that nails the whole ‘re-syndication’ idea -
http://www.demonzmedia.com/DemonzBlog/?p=12
I can uderstand why some people would choose to be critical of Google, but at the same time they give so much back (in terms of free services) that I think it’s a balanced arguement.
Comment by Joe Yann — July 20, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
I feel quite depressed when i see my articles(which i have put in hours to write)being copied and displayed on other directories (even article directories).And the saddest part of it is that they appear on the first page of search engines(means massive traffic) and my original web page containing the article is no where to be seen.So someone else is using my article to earn revenue but what can one do.That’s the way on the web.
Comment by Ashutosh P — March 11, 2009 @ 2:25 am
Nearly 2 years since this article was written, i’m glad the web 2.0 phase is fading
Comment by Web Designers Norwich — March 18, 2009 @ 11:17 am