<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SEO Blogging &#187; Spam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seoblogging.net/category/spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seoblogging.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:39:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>SEO and 100 Links Per Page</title>
		<link>http://www.seoblogging.net/linking/seo-and-100-links-per-page/</link>
		<comments>http://www.seoblogging.net/linking/seo-and-100-links-per-page/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sparky</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Basics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seoblogging.net/?p=242</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is no longer necessary to keep the links in your page to less than a hundred – at least if you’re looking purely at the SEO perspective. In his post, ‘How Many Links Per Page?’, Matt Cutts explained why the links need no longer be strictly fewer than 100 in a page. In there [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is no longer necessary to keep the links in your page to less than a hundred – at least if you’re looking purely at the SEO perspective. In his post, <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-many-links-per-page/">‘How Many Links Per Page?’</a>, Matt Cutts explained why the links need no longer be strictly fewer than 100 in a page.  In there he said that originally Google was only able to index 100Kb per page so that having more than 100 links can lead to parts of the page not being indexed, however, these days Google can index more than that. Furthermore there is no truth to speculation that Google will automatically classify your page as spam if you have over 100 links in it. Google has never done this, unless of course the page truly is a spam page, but continues<a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#038;answer=35769"> its recommendation of less than 100 links per page</a> for design and quality purposes only.</p>
<p>In the user-perspective having 100 links is simply not a good idea because it will results in your page/site:</p>
<li><strong>Being an eyesore</strong></li>
<li><strong>Looking like a spam site</strong> – Even if it’s not and the search engines can determine that it isn’t many users will automatically dismiss a link-heavy site as a spam site.</li>
<li><strong>Becoming un-navigable</strong> – Users will get confused on which links to click on, which words really are links and which aren’t, and will have a difficult time distinguishing which links they deem will lead them to the information they really want to access.</li>
<p>To end, remember that 100 links in a page is no longer a problem SEO-wise but should still be avoided for your users sake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.seoblogging.net/linking/seo-and-100-links-per-page/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Black Hat Methods</title>
		<link>http://www.seoblogging.net/design/black-hat-methods/</link>
		<comments>http://www.seoblogging.net/design/black-hat-methods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:46:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sparky</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Rank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search engine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Engines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Website Promotion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seoblogging.net/archives/black-hat-methods/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SEO is meant to get a website to the top of SERPs. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with SEO at all and is in fact a good thing. The only time SEO becomes unethical, which I&#8217;ve warned about in a previous post, is when supposed &#8220;SEO experts&#8221; use black hat methods. Black hat methods are simply techniques [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SEO is meant to get a website to the top of SERPs. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with SEO at all and is in fact a good thing. The only time SEO becomes unethical, which I&#8217;ve warned about in a <a href="http://www.seoblogging.net/archives/get-lasting-results-with-ethical-seo/">previous post</a>, is when supposed &#8220;SEO experts&#8221; use black hat methods.</p>
<p>Black hat methods are simply techniques used to improve a certain page&#8217;s ranking that are not acceptable according to search engine guidelines. Such methods are usually deemed unacceptable because they are deceptive and often lead to sites with content unrelated to the keywords typed in by the user.</p>
<p>Two of the most common black hat methods used are spamdexing and cloaking. Spamdexing uses deceptive means to promote irrelevant and usually commercial pages. Though sharing attributes with spamming it is not the same. Spamming does involve promotion at a massive scale and can be very irritating but in the end it does not use deceit. Spamdexing often uses spamming as well as other less savory methods together.</p>
<p>Cloaking is also very different from spamdexing. It uses SEO techniques to trick crawlers into indexing them and search engine algorithms to give them high page ranks for certain keywords BUT serves the users or visitors a different web page than what the crawlers saw.</p>
<p>Though black hat methods do lead to high page rankings in less time for some websites in the end it is actually not a wise thing to do. This is because search engines do penalize sites automatically when it is discovered to be using such techniques. Penalties of course means a much lower page rank or worse being removed from the search engine listing altogether.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.seoblogging.net/design/black-hat-methods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spam Killing Email Marketing</title>
		<link>http://www.seoblogging.net/news/spam-hurting-email-marketing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.seoblogging.net/news/spam-hurting-email-marketing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sparky</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Email Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seoblogging.net/archives/spam-hurting-email-marketing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent survey by Return Path, nearly 79 percent of consumers admitted to having hit the &#8220;spam&#8221; or &#8220;junk&#8221; email button to get rid of an email message they don&#8217;t want. And nearly 37 percent do it as a way to &#8220;unsubscribe&#8221; from emails they have opted in to receive. This number is up [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://static.flickr.com/51/145719387_8953f7b4f1_m.jpg" /></p>
<p>In a recent survey by <strong>Return Path</strong>, nearly <strong>79 percent</strong> of consumers admitted to having hit the &#8220;<em>spam</em>&#8221; or &#8220;<em>junk</em>&#8221; email button to get rid of an <a href="http://www.mailscoop.com">email message</a> they don&#8217;t want. And nearly <strong>37 percent</strong> do it as a way to &#8220;<em>unsubscribe</em>&#8221; from emails they have opted in to receive.</p>
<p>This number is up slightly from a <strong>January Return Path</strong> survey that had <strong>34 percent</strong> of consumers reporting <a href="http://www.imandpartners.com">marketing</a> emails to be <em>spam</em> just because they did not want to receive the emails any longer.</p>
<p>One reason often cited is that <a href="http://www.discovereverything.info">consumers</a> are simply <em>overwhelmed</em> with the amount of email they receive: Most consumers get at least <strong>100 emails a week</strong> (<em>with 35 percent getting more than 500</em>) &#8211; half of which tend to be commercial emails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.seoblogging.net/news/spam-hurting-email-marketing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

