4 ms·
As one who specialises in enterprise SEO. That is still an issue with many businesses, websites are still seen as just an electronic version of a poster on a b
by C1sc0cat 7y ago
As one who specialises in enterprise SEO.
That is still an issue with many businesses, websites are still seen as just an electronic version of a poster on a bill board, its gradually changing.
And Eu companies are even worse, a few years back I suggested a link from a German parents website to the uk subsidiary and was told the Head office lawyers where checking to see if they "where allowed" to add a link.
- pyvpx 7y agothat's a german legal liability thing. not (just) european business generally being stuck in the 90s
- C1sc0cat 7y agoWhat linking to your uk subsidiary? Was that the 1890's they are stuck in :-)
- rad_gruchalski 7y agoAlmost. 1930s and 1960s. That’s what I hear from my German wife.
- tag2 7y agoThough I'd read a pretty good write up of their AdWords tactics recently and learned a fair bit: https://marketingexamples.com/seo/step-by-step-keyword-research https://marketingexamples.com/seo/step-by-step-keyword-resea...
- gmueckl 7y agoIn German law, if you add a link to another site somewhere on your own site, you take responsibility for the content on the site you link you. You are required to check for that or face liability. This the result of years of court cases around this matter. And courts don't usually understand much about the web, let alone tech in general. So while involving lawyers every time is definitely high on the CYA scale, it may make sense to run some instances by a lawyer to be safe(er). The subsidiary's website shouldn't generally be much of a problem, though.
- irrational 7y agoAre they expected to continually monitor the linked website? What happens if they add the link and then a week later something "bad" is added to some sub-page of the linked website?
- gmueckl 7y agoA quick search seems to indicate that yes, you might be responsible for linking to the altered content. As a website author you have - in principle - a duty to check what you are linking to. It is unclear what that means in practice. I would guess that it would involve a test if timely detection of alteres content on the linked site would have imposed an undue burden. The only part that is absolutely certain is that a website owner must react if they are notified that they are linking to illegal content. Other than that, it's seemingly a grey area.
- a_c 7y agoI am very curious to know if the rule of "being responsible to the link a website links to" applies transitively, i.e. a link in the link my website link to. If applies, then can the law be interpreted as my website needs to be responsible to the entire internet. On the flip side, if the rule only applies to one layer deep, then a url shortener would defeat the whole law
- gmueckl 7y agoThe rule applies to the content you end up seeing after your browser follows all automatic redirects and possibly even interstitials (ads/disclaimers). Redirects are an irrelevant technical detail in this context.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoSo how many times have each of the search engines been sued?
- gmueckl 7y agoGuess why the remaining search engines are so good at classifying certain types of sites of the "adult entertainment" and and other such types? I am not sure if the courts distinguish between automatically generated pages and authored/curated content that involves human input in its creation. Courts haven't been exactly consistent on these points.