Danny Sullivan did not strip for Matt Cutts
Nope, this is not recycled news. I'm not referring to Matt asking Danny to strip off his business suit, although the video is really funny. I want to comment on something Matt didn't say recently, but promised to do soon (again).
Danny Sullivan stripped perfectly legit code from Search Engine Land because he was accused to be a spammer, although the CSS code in question is in no way deceitful.
StandardZilla slams poor Tamar just reporting a WebProWorld thread, but does an excellent job in explaining why image replacement is not search engine spam but a sound thing to do. Google's recently updated guidelines need to tell more clearly that optimizing for particular user agents is not considered deceitful cloaking per se. This would prevent Danny from stripping (code) not for Matt or Google but for lurid assclowns producing canards.
Danny Sullivan stripped perfectly legit code from Search Engine Land because he was accused to be a spammer, although the CSS code in question is in no way deceitful.
StandardZilla slams poor Tamar just reporting a WebProWorld thread, but does an excellent job in explaining why image replacement is not search engine spam but a sound thing to do. Google's recently updated guidelines need to tell more clearly that optimizing for particular user agents is not considered deceitful cloaking per se. This would prevent Danny from stripping (code) not for Matt or Google but for lurid assclowns producing canards.
Labels: cloaking, crap, Google, search quality, SEO, Webspam
 Stumble It! |
 Post it to del.icio.us |
posted by Sebastian @ Thursday, June 07, 2007 · PERMANENT LINK
-->
Subscribe to my blog
4 Comments:
At Thursday, June 07, 2007,
Anonymous said…
Lurid Assclowns is a pretty good description.
A better one might be know nothing self-appointed Google Stormtroopers following imagined orders.
Danny Sullivan supposedly having to remove a valid image replacement technique is about the most ridiculous thing I have heard of in a long time.
Next thing you know, having a keyword on your page more than once, or even once will be considered "bad" because some people try to stuff keywords.
I guess we give them an A+ for reading but an F- for reading comprehension.
At Tuesday, February 05, 2008,
Anonymous said…
Lurid Assclowns is a pretty good description? A better one might be know nothing self-appointed Google Stormtroopers following imagined orders?
I am not sure about that. Why?
Danny Sullivan supposedly having to remove a valid image replacement technique...
Danny claimed himself that it was not a valid image replacement: WPW
...is about the most ridiculous thing I have heard of in a long time.
I think you might would like to recall. Don't you think?
I guess we give them an A+ for reading but an F- for reading comprehension.
Don't you think you should update your gradings?
At Tuesday, February 05, 2008,
Sebastian said…
Webnauts, Craig's gradings are fine.
The discussion is here:
http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/danny-sullivan-did-not-strip-for-matt-cutts/
This blogspot archive is quite dead.
Thanks
Sebastian
At Tuesday, February 05, 2008,
Sebastian said…
Blogger :(
Here's the link to the discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home