Social Networks will send messages as though they're you.

Facebook got sued over something very similar >> Facebook Sponsored Stories Implied Endorsements Going WAY Too Far http://socialimplications.com/facebook-sponsored-stories/ WIthout that suit we probably would have been seeing much more of this behavior sooner.

 

Back in May, 2011 I wrote about my concern over the new wording of the Facebook and Twitter permissions. At that time I wrote:

"...these permissions give other companies, Web sites, and individuals permission to post “status messages, notes, photos and videos” to  your wall on Facebook or “Post Tweets on Your Behalf” (the exact wording on Twitter’s news permissions) to your followers on Twitter."

I knew it would only be a matter of time before tweets and shares that appeared to be written by users would appear in our streams that were actually sent by the social network - probably for businesses that paid to have them sent. See http://growmap.com/facebook-end-run-around-your-privacy-settings/

Social Networks will send messages as though they're you.

Facebook got sued over something very similar >> Facebook Sponsored Stories Implied Endorsements Going WAY Too Far http://socialimplications.com/facebook-sponsored-stories/ WIthout that suit we probably would have been seeing much more of this behavior sooner.

 

Back in May, 2011 I wrote about my concern over the new wording of the Facebook and Twitter permissions. At that time I wrote:

"...these permissions give other companies, Web sites, and individuals permission to post “status messages, notes, photos and videos” to  your wall on Facebook or “Post Tweets on Your Behalf” (the exact wording on Twitter’s news permissions) to your followers on Twitter."

I knew it would only be a matter of time before tweets and shares that appeared to be written by users would appear in our streams that were actually sent by the social network - probably for businesses that paid to have them sent. See http://growmap.com/facebook-end-run-around-your-privacy-settings/

I wonder how someone would

I wonder how someone would define large scale? 10s, 100s, 1000s? Other than that it looks like most of the guidelines, asking webmasters to plug the holes in their algorithm.

I wonder how someone would

I wonder how someone would define large scale? 10s, 100s, 1000s? Other than that it looks like most of the guidelines, asking webmasters to plug the holes in their algorithm.

"Linking to web spammers or

"Linking to web spammers or unrelated sites with the intent to manipulate PageRank"

Where from the Google.com page is this? I could not see?

I ask because recently I raised the question on another site of linking to "bad neighbourhoods" and if that is a problem. A concern of mine is that I may have many links in comments to other sites which could now be causing a problem. They are all "nofollow" so I guess not a problem?

I'm not sure if it is exactly numbers

My guess is that  it is more about patterns than specific numbers and what % a given percentage represents for an overall backlink profile. I also think there is a factor with at what velocity you get the links. In the past, getting 1,000's of link in one day means that you were agressively link building. Now, I think it could be that or it could be a competitor or otherwise spam attack on your site....

Also, I think that this change is really coming late in the game. They should have really released this update to the guidelines before the release of Penguin, I think...

 

I'm not sure if it is exactly numbers

My guess is that  it is more about patterns than specific numbers and what % a given percentage represents for an overall backlink profile. I also think there is a factor with at what velocity you get the links. In the past, getting 1,000's of link in one day means that you were agressively link building. Now, I think it could be that or it could be a competitor or otherwise spam attack on your site....

Also, I think that this change is really coming late in the game. They should have really released this update to the guidelines before the release of Penguin, I think...

 

small correction

I could not find a way to edit my post here...

  • Linking to web spammers or unrelated sites with the intent to manipulate PageRank
  • Links that are inserted into articles with little coherence

those are lines that that they removed from the guidelines

Regarding your bad neighborhood question...I think that if you have the comment links nofollowed, that should be fine...

small correction

I could not find a way to edit my post here...

  • Linking to web spammers or unrelated sites with the intent to manipulate PageRank
  • Links that are inserted into articles with little coherence

those are lines that that they removed from the guidelines

Regarding your bad neighborhood question...I think that if you have the comment links nofollowed, that should be fine...

small correction

I could not find a way to edit my post here...

  • Linking to web spammers or unrelated sites with the intent to manipulate PageRank
  • Links that are inserted into articles with little coherence

those are lines that that they removed from the guidelines

Regarding your bad neighborhood question...I think that if you have the comment links nofollowed, that should be fine...