4 ms·
I explained why in the first post. To be friendly and a generally good person. Legality was not a reason given so I'm not sure why you feel that's an argument.
by jqm 12y ago
I explained why in the first post. To be friendly and a generally good person. Legality was not a reason given so I'm not sure why you feel that's an argument. In this case, the guy posting the link does have a bad reputation, which is no doubt the reason for the search ranking hit. His deliberate posting and refusal to remove it makes him a bit of an ass.
And "Why" one should not behave as an ass is self evident in my mind. But we may not agree on this as evidenced by your last sentence.
- aaronwall 12y agoMany SEO consultants have suggested that even if you get the links removed, you should still disavow them in order to help speed up Google's evaluation of the links profile. In those instances, even if you think you are being a good guy, there's a good chance you are wasting the one resource you can never recover (time) in an attempt to help someone who is likely going to attempt harming you AND waste your time.
- discardorama 12y ago> But we may not agree on this as evidenced by your last sentence. That was the point of my last sentence: even though I asked that replies be in agreement, you still chose to reply. It's the same as someone asking "please don't link to me", but everyone is still free to link. That's the way discourse works, and that's how linking should work too.
- jqm 12y agohahaha Ok, I take your very well made point.