Page 2 of 2 First 12
  • Jump to page:
    #16
  1. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Just because you believe the motive of the anchor text Texas Hold'em was meant to manipulate results only a supeona forcing link providers to produce an affidavit to that effect would be genuine evidence. Clearly stating they were told to provide the link as described for a fee.
  2. #17
  3. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by fathom
    My points are not meant to belittle you... But to wake you up.

    I don't want you to publish anything ... You are not addressing the courts concerns because you can't fathom the legal question being asked.

    You need to subpoena a response from Google, particularly from the Webspam Team. That would be what your solicitor would do if you had one. They would also translate into the laws of the convening authority (country).

    That said, the opposing solicitor correctly advised the courts, of Google's interpretation of Google's own guidelines.

    You need flip off your SEO hat and explain to the court what the different is.

    Their use of DOFOLLOW links in immaterial to any legal question.

    It's why solicitors can dance around all day rebutting your opinions.

    "It all depends on the motive the link was offered," not the presentation of available content... And legally that is open to intrepretation.

    Thank you, very good point about "It all depends on the motive the link was offered,".


    Unfortunately I have to represent myself in the court. PokerStars are eating me alive, they made all claims so quickly so it was impossible to get free legal representation and I could not get paid professionals because PS have not paid me in full owing me thousands of pounds. So now I am trying to learn, I am asking for advice on forums, reading legal information, trying in short period of time to understand how to defend myself against multi billion criminals
  4. #18
  5. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    I can't offer much legal guidance for an EU court. But a few things to consider about the law in general, and a wealth of SEO insights to follow.
    Last edited by fathom; Sep 18th, 2015 at 11:43 AM.
  6. #19
  7. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Posting PART I

    First... Stop with the rhetoric. They are not criminals until the courts says they are. Your version of events must be proven and as I understand, PS is suggesting to the courts you are the criminal in their eyes. It doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong but who has the better story.

    You need to subpoena testimony from Google's Webspam Team via an affidavit to answer the courts question. A first hand account is the most compelling argument. Don't try and guess your way through this.

    The law is an adversarial system that takes the same facts and “interprets" them differently to support different conclusions of the events. By law, this suggest the court must decide which version is a better fit for the law, which is often supported by case law (prior rulings).

    If you have a paper trail like email denoting any specific link was produced via a PS initiated plan that would makes for a compelling argument. Speculating on how or why a link is there is not evidence, such links could actually be created by a 3rd party in an attempt to do a Negative Campaign which unfairly bolster your version of events. The point here, unless you have first hand records that support your claims you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    The court is unintentionally asking the wrong question... DO PAID LINKS VIOLATE GOOGLE'S TOS!

    ANSWER: NO THEY DO NOT (you must concede that).

    QUESTION: WHAT IS A PAID LINK?

    ANSWER: A LINK DROPPED FROM GOOGLE'S LINK GRAPH WHICH HAS NO IMPACT ON ORDERED RANKS

    QUESTION: HOW IS A LINK DROPPED FROM GOOGLE’S LINK GRAPH?

    ANSWER: VIA ONE OF TWO WAYS. USING THE NOFOLLOW ATTRIBUTE WITHIN THE LINK ELEMENT OR REDIRECTING THE LINK THROUGH A PAGE BLOCKED FROM BEING INDEXED.

    QUESTION: WHAT IS PS DOING THAT MIGHT VIOLATE GOOGLE'S TOS?

    NOW HERE’S WHERE IT GETS TRICKY

    ANSWER: THEY ARE MISINTERPRETING WHAT A NATURAL LINK IS. (ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN SOLICITOR). In fact, according to your own admission you taught them that... Right?

    Be mindful, you openly admitted you created this situation.

    (If Google implemented a Manual Review or launched a PENGUIN updated you might be able to prove something). With neither occurring you need Google's voice.
    Last edited by fathom; Sep 17th, 2015 at 10:48 PM.
  8. #20
  9. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    PART II

    Why are they not devalued? There are many reason why. If Google didn’t receive a spam report that is a solid reason - they have no direct knowledge about any activities other than their own. Receiving millions of spam reports for other violations on other domains is a good reason why they haven’t acted. If the link profile actually contain natural links that is a good reason why Google actually acting on unnatural links didn’t do anything especially if they have a solid internal link architecture… Which could be why no Manual Review.

    PENGUIN 3.0 launched almost a year ago, which suggests you were still on the job attempting to violate Google Guidelines back then helping the company you suggest are criminals for doing what you taught them to do. Which brings into question your motives for flip flopping?

    Did you actually see the errors of your ways? Or did something else happen?

    This situation is clear as mud.

    Clearly you suggest you are still owed income from these despicable acts. Sound like you might prefer such acts to continue so long as you are paid. Which seems to be their motive for suing you as well. They desire the good times to continue.

    You can do what you need to do via the clerk at the courthouse and I'm sure they will freely advise you of all proper procedures. Once you filed your subpoena (get the courts to stamp your subpoena) Google is duty bound by law to provide a written affidavit as to what precisely violates their TOS. They may even suggest why PS could have avoided all wraiths.

    I recall when Traffic Power filed a lawsuit against Aaron Wall Matt Cutts broke from tradition to publicly claim this:

    https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/confirming-a-penalty/

    Originally Posted by Matt Cutts
    Confirming a penalty
    Posted February 11, 2006 in Google/SEO
    Note: Remember my disclaimer that this is my personal site and that the views expressed here are not those of my employer? For this post, I am speaking in my official capacity as head of the webspam group at Google, and I’ve had this post reviewed by Google’s lawyers.

    Usually, Google doesn’t confirm or deny whether a company has been removed from our index. I started that precedent several years ago when a reporter asked whether a particular company was banned from Google for spamming, and I declined to confirm a spam penalty. That precedent has worked well at times in the past, but lately I’ve found that it can assist webmasters to give concrete examples of violations of our quality guidelines.

    This site is also useful because it allows me to give webmasters and site owners more information. For example, it lets me remind site owners of our search engine optimization (SEO) guidelines, which states that “you are responsible for the actions of any companies you hire.” That means that if an SEO were to build doorway pages directly on your own domain, your site could be removed from Google as a result. For that reason, it’s important to do your research and to understand what actions an SEO company will be performing for you.

    I was recently reading about a lawsuit involving Traffic Power, an SEO company. If you’d like some background, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about Traffic Power a few months ago. You can also read more from the Better Business Bureau, which has received over 100 complaints about Traffic Power in the last 36 months.

    According to this post, Traffic Power is suing someone and asserting among other things

    “The false and defamatory information includes but is not limited to the following:

    a. Claims that the search engine giant Google has banned and is banning from its search engine listings websites of Traffic-Power.com clients because of the search engine optimization strategies used by Plaintiff.

    b. Claims that clients of Traffic-Power.com run the risk of being banned from Google search engine listings if they use Traffic-Power.com services;”

    I’d like to address those two points. I can confirm that Google has removed traffic-power.com and domains promoted by Traffic Power from our index because of search engine optimization techniques that violated our webmaster guidelines at

    http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html. If you are a client or former client of Traffic Power and your site is not in Google, please see my previous advice on requesting reinclusion into Google’s index to learn what steps to take if you would like to be reincluded in Google’s index.

    Note: I’m turning off comments for this post. There are other places that are more appropriate places for discussing this issue.
    Of course that actually happened unlike here this is all speculation and Arron Wall didn’t do anything but report the finding… You suggest you actually implemented what you now suggest PS is criminally responsibility for, your acts that you suggest you should be but haven’t been paid for.

    Not judging you, just noting facts.
    Last edited by fathom; Sep 18th, 2015 at 03:22 PM.
  10. #21
  11. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Matt Cutts on Paid Links that pass PageRank - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zupIbMyMfBI

    Be mindful that PS may not perfectly match these criteria. You're assuming they do but Google policies are not your policies. I have a fairly good grasp on what Google means but they are vague enough for me to question precisely what I think.
  12. #22
  13. Digital Marketing
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,718
    Rep Power
    5431
    Good points Fathom! (Bump, I think this is important)
  14. #23
  15. Not An Expert
    SEO Chat Hero (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,172
    Rep Power
    2034
    To encourage discussion and get this in front of more eyes, I've moved this thread from the "New User Q&A" section to our Link Development section. Sometimes when threads are moved, the forums software has some hiccups that prevent people from replying to it - if anyone experiences this bug, please let me know via email (markr@imninjas.com) or PM and I'll look into it asap.

    Thanks!
  16. #24
  17. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    SergePon, the more specifics (FACTS) you can give me the more I can help guide you.

    Additionally, what court is this before? Who is the Judge? Understanding their past rulings can help appreciate where they wish to go if the right argument is brought to them.

    I have a lot of International Connections that might afford more insights as I am a novice in legal proceses and moreso within the EU.

    There are also many solicitors that will take on a legal challenge based on contingency, especially for a precedent setting case. This sounds like a law maker where the outcome could become caselaw. Although, the laws of EU countries don't follow the trends of US Law, which guide my thought processes here.
    Last edited by fathom; Sep 18th, 2015 at 05:26 PM.
  18. #25
  19. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    SergePon I notice you exchanged a couple Google+ posts with John Mueller. But I wouldn't expect any formal correpondence from him. Informal posts are not all that useful in a court of law and neither John Mueller, or any other Googler would provide you anything without a court order.

    Matt Cutts broke a long standing tradition to help Aaron Wall and as I understand the Traffic Power Lawsuit simply vanished. Unfortunately, your history isn't so squeaky clean, and your motives seem untrustworthy at best... While I don't speak for John Mueller, or any Googler, nor their employer you seem to be as TOXIC as the links you helped to create.

    Do yourself a favor, file for a subpeona to get Google Legal & the Webspam Team involved.

    John Mueller politely noted he cannot help you beyond the web resource he pointed out.
    Last edited by fathom; Sep 18th, 2015 at 09:59 PM.
  20. #26
  21. Not An Expert
    SEO Chat Hero (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,172
    Rep Power
    2034
    Hello! Just bumping this thread because I'm curious - any updates, SergePon?
  22. #27
  23. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by markroberts
    Hello! Just bumping this thread because I'm curious - any updates, SergePon?
    Being monitoring the web most days... But ever since he posted on that legal forum (September 17, 2015) he has shut his trap (publicly online anyway).
  24. #28
  25. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    16,980
    Rep Power
    0
    If you missed this...

    Reference: Former PokerStars Employee Threatens to Reveal "Dirty" Trade Secrets

    The big revelation

    All things said and done, it seems that Mr. Pon came into all this without much of a plan. His initial coming out had barely any meat to eat and he was quickly shut down. As Eric Hollreiser of Amaya explained in his brief tweet concerning the matter, sometimes the things are what they are, and this is probably just a case of a disgruntled employee who was let go and is now looking to make some noise and some damage to the company that "did him wrong".

    Conclusion: nothing to see here.
  26. #29
  27. Not An Expert
    SEO Chat Hero (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,172
    Rep Power
    2034
    Hm, I did miss that. Thanks for providing it - seems that he didn't have much luck then.
Page 2 of 2 First 12
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Mar 8th, 2013, 08:27 AM
  2. Paid Links + Google
    By MarvinLeug in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Mar 30th, 2011, 12:47 PM
  3. Google Weights Paid Links!
    By seogoat in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Jul 24th, 2009, 10:58 AM
  4. Google Cracking Down on Paid Links
    By Technipages in forum Link Development
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Sep 20th, 2007, 01:20 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo