Here’s my take on it. I have absolutely no compunction about using spammy marketing tactics if it’s legal and unobtrusive, but there IS a line to be drawn.

Take referrer spam for example. It’s cheaper to toss request headers at 250K sites overnight, even if they don’t feature referrer data, than it is to validate/verify the net effect of each request (ie first pass=request header only, second pass = full page to see if referrer data is present etc).

The problem with this ? pointless traffic, and WM’s get annoyed at the additional traffic when say 100 such passes are made by referrer marketers (usually when said sites see little or no traffic this blows out stats etc – it’s the inexperienced who typically complain the most because they feel let down when they realize the nature of the traffic).

Now, take the above method of securing IBLs (Blogblasting). It’s contained. The WMs are willing participants. It’s cost efficient (theoretically). At the end of the day, I treat SE’s as tools to be used and capitalized upon, while I try to treat individual sites and WM’s as seperate entities each with their own needs. When was the last time you found a SE that did anything other than what was in their own best interests ?

The one rule I do have tho, is that any sites I promote deliver the content the end user obviously wants. I simply have no time for idiots who leave the provider consumer picture incomplete in this regard. It subverts the process for everyone, and causes nothing but frustration for all.

Linkvault is nice of course, but it’s simply another organized way of securing backlinks (once we remove the window dressing).

Cheers,

JL