In
August 2005, a long-standing and trusted member of an Internet forum forwarded
information about a great time to view the planet Mars. Scores of people read
the thread; most (including me) believed it. Thirty hours later, another
member pointed out that this was a hoax; an old news story from 2003, redistributed
for this year. It transpired that the story had been receieved and passed on in
good faith; apologies, amusement and mild embarassment all round - but no harm
done. An everyday tale of life on the web? Yes. The tale may well have been
a hoax, perpetrated from someone's malicious amusement, it may have been the result
of someone reading a news story which had no publication date (very common), following
a search. An easy mistake to make. Was the forum member a liar for giving
false information? Of course not. Was his source, someone he trusted, a liar?
Of course not. Both had spread factually incorrect material, but both had acted
in good faith; there was zero intention to deceive. No harm was done; but even
if there had been, no reasonable person would have attached blame in this case. But
what about the person who started the rumour? In this case, we just do not know
if it was a genuine error, malice, mischief or what. Myths, Spam and SEOIn
many cases, Internet myths are deliberately spread; misinformation is consciously
created and distributed. And the Internet spammer's community is a regular source
of myths. For example: "Spammers improve Google's results by getting
appropriate ranks for relevant information" - once in a blue moon, by sheer
coincidence, that may be true. Usually, spam usurps the relevant sites with Adsense-laden
garbage. "Spammers are people too" - I believe that they are human
beings, and love their grandmothers; but in a discussion about fraud, lies and
cheating, that call for sympathy is 100% irrelevant. "Incompetent SEOs
do more damage than spammers" - There may be examples where an incompetent
spammer has done horrendous harm, and examples where a particular instance of
spam has done little harm; but the generalization is palpably twaddle, once you
think about the facts. This particular example has been ably discussed by
Irina Ponomareva, and neatly encapsulated by Doug Heil in subsequent discussion;
"Spammers hurt MANY more groups of people by the thousands, and many more
stakeholders than any incompetent or lazy SEO will." In that discussion,
I argued "Someone who hires a sloppy guy to fix the cable connection might
well be annoyed at the result - but almost all will know the difference between
a sloppy cable guy and the schmuck who is ripping off him, the cable company -
and everyone else in sight. Even the one who hires the crook, knowingly, will
know the difference. This "bad SEO" stuff is a smokescreen to divert
attention away from spammers friends. Again, look at the bigger picture - don't
mistake a little local disturbance for a major problem. Because it isn't." This
shifting of emphasis from spammers to incompetents is merely the latest in a long
line of misinformation nurtured on spammers forums, and expanded on the wider
web by "spammers' friends". Many people read that kind of thing,
remember an example of incompetent SEO, and it strikes a chord. Especially if
the source is one they have grown to trust. Maybe they are right? Of course
they are not. Does that make all who repeat the story liars? Of course it doesn't.
most of the people spreading the myth, just as in the 'Mars' example, are acting
entirely in good faith. Declaring the myth to be false, and accusing the
instigators of being liars does not for one second imply, or suggest that those
who acted in good faith are liars, any more than the Mars example I began with. And
when accused of calling such folk liars, my response was unambiguous "...
the business we discussed is a smokescreen. That doesn't make those that say it
necessarily liars, does it? As it happens, I suspect one or two of those pushing
the myth are liars; the rest I would say at worst have been taken in, at best
just haven't particularly thought about the implications of that particular spammers'
defense, they probably have much better things to do." And that's true
of all Internet myths; the instigator may or may not be a liar; those who pass
it on (and are taken in) are almost certainly not liars. It happens all the
time. But here's a small difference from the 'Mars' story; in that case,
those who had been taken in (including me), were a little embarassed at being
'caught', but instantly accepted the truth. In the latest 'Spammers are
OK' myth, some choose to cling to the fiction, and defend the instigators - suggesting
that an accusation against them was an accusation against everyone who heard,
believed or passed on the myth. A myth is a myth. Saying so is not an accusation
against those taken in by it. Defending the myth, and those who profit by it,
raises serious questions about loyalty. That's the kind of bad faith
that spammers dine out on. SourcesSEO, Spam, and the Confusion
- by Irina Ponomareva - August 2005 Mars - something to watch out for!
- August 2005
Published: 14 August 2005
This article may
be published elswhere, provided this footnote is included as is, with a live link
to the source: http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/articles/
Copyright © 2005 Andrew Heenan. Comments very welcome. | 
|