The web has changed and is still changing into a more dynamic app-like structure, from static content. With that come new guidelines in regards to (search engin

The web has changed and is still changing into a more dynamic app-like structure, from static content. With that come new guidelines in regards to (search engine) accessibility. Google also is battling spammers. Spammers can saturate a single technique (such as guest blogging) to the point where Google says: "We are actively making sure that this technique does not benefit you in the rankings". It is not the site structure that is entirely at fault here. It would not make sense to aggregate phone numbers and discussions about these numbers on a single page. A "thin content" penalty is speculative and Google even gave an "unnatural links" warning, telling us where to look first. I think Google understands the power of linking pages together and weighing these links in ranking :). Reverse SEO is murky though, and in principle I could agree that other webmasters devaluing your property is a problem with Google. On the other hand: The fact that spammers complained a lot (and still complain) and were being re-purposed by Google to help clean up the web, tells me that Google is winning this battle. But we also know that collateral damage is possible in war. Finally: Google does make mistakes. And a mistake is between algorithmic superiority and malicious intent by Google. > In the previous posting he indicated that Google asked him to contact the various site authors and ask them to remove their links. Why should he have to do this? Because else he will be slapped with an unnatural links penalty, and he clearly doesn't want that. Again, he is free to ignore these warnings and see his site removed from Google's index. Google can not force him to do this. They can however enforce quality on their own turf. Question: Could you clarify some of the currrently spammy practices which are encouraged by the standards which define how the Web operates?