WebProNews

Matt Cutts - "Endless Scams on the Internet?"

I understand where he is coming from... however correct me if I am wrong... Google ate up the entire internet... it made virtually no effort to "allow" proper content into it... It violated any number of copyright laws, and it supported others who breached it as well...

Google can't have it both ways... They cannot demand for fair and honest, or non-paid posts, when they themselves make no effort to screen the content for "quality" themselves...

I have seen any number of Google employees endorse or otherwise mention Google products on websites which are not "official"... Were they on the clock? Of course they were...

Ok, What about this,
My clients its an Obesity Surgery Center in Mexico,
We get testimonials from our patients and we publish them in spanish (as we get them) in www.adios-obesidad.com. The get testimonials from the patients without any form of payment or anything, the just provide them.

BUT, we have an english version of that site in www.goodbye-obesity.com and we publish the same testimonials, only that we pay pay for the TRANSLATION service from spanish to english, and we use the content in english, not only that, we have many articles and content that we regularly publish on other sites, blogs, etc. This article was written by the doctors of the center, but again the translation service was paid.

Does anyone knows what happens here?

Also, what about plagiarism when content is translated?

Thanks

Okay, first of all, how does this affect international marketers? I won’t reiterate the obvious, but how do you regulate across international borders – how about US websites hosted abroad, or UK marketers hosting sites in the UK. How about Eastern Europe and all the spam that’s originates from there on a daily basis?

Secondly, how does this proposal affect somebody who, for example, is promoting travel and vacations? Is it expected that a writer has visited every hotel they write about, or how about just the locale. Is the country sufficient?

I agree with the spirit of the guidelines - increased public confidence is not only beneficial, but crucial to the continued growth of online enterprise. I just have concerns that these measures won't achieve the desired results.

The FTC should leave regulation in the hands of web marketing experts who know what is going on, and not impose because they feel so.

So we only clean up the web in the US, but these rules don't apply to those outside of the FTC jurisdiction.

Is this a case to outsource paid reviews then?

Will free speech Prevail? Or is the blog, AND freedom dead. The choice is really yours, you have exactly the amount of freedom your willing to fight for. Keep that in mind when the "Health Care Goons" come around to collect there tribute money.

Keep UP the good work WebProNews = w/Google, MSN and Yahoo?

We have the FCC's support on Net Neutrality,
NOW we need to be allowed to lawfully
provide support for our children under Federal LAW =?

www.myspace.com/steverene11
www.fatherswhocare.blogspot.com
www.linkedin.com/in/steverene11
www.facebook.com/steve.rene11
www.twitter.com/ParentsWhoCare

Thank you, again,
Steve Rene
=============
www.​SteveRene.​com
Twitter: @​ParentsWhoCare
Facebook: Steve-Rene11
LinkedIn: SteveRene11
Skype: SteveRene11
818-468-7983

Confidentiality Notice: ALL intellectual property rights are reserved.

I seriously think Mat Cutts is seriously losing it. For a Google search guy to be spouting and pontificating about a trustworthy internet when googles own criteria just for getting indexed/ranked keep shifting on an almost weekly basis and the only clues as to what is required are issued in ambiguous comments just demonstrates that Mat and his buddies are more, than a bit out of touch with reality.

The Reality is that most internet users have a 'day job' and simply can't afford or even justify expensive SEO services and have limited and precious little time available.

Too many times google searches return pages of useless and scam pages with decent pages that have clearly had a lot of effort and research invested in them buried countless dozens of pages down in the results in favour of countless dozens of scam and irrelevent pages.

Maybe instead of agreeing with more regulations Mat/Google could endeavour to make Google's operations a bit less clandestine? and ultimately help themselves by having more high quality content available?

It is fairly common to see competitors using forums, social networking sites and blogs to pass negative comments about services or products offered by others. By the same token, Would FTC also impose fine to those who give false information for negative marketing!

How did they arrive at the value of $11x Zeros? Does anyone earn even 1/10th of such amount by advertising?

And finally, word of mouth advertising (considered to be the best!) is often done when one has really liked a product, and doesn't necessarily mean he / she has been paid to advertise - so do we setup an international cops cell to monitor who is using what, when, why where and how ?

This truly is a globally absurd idea.

IS anyone awake at FTC?

Thx
Veena

Welcome to the Obama Nation, you all have been owned.
This will only get worse. This is Gov first step into trying to police web.
They slipped this in, not a word was said and no one even heard about it
until it was passed. Ownage!!

And you can believe big G had its hand in this is well, make ppl pay for PPC
instead of paying Bloggers and Vloggers.

Another US Govenment department on that famous hill that seems to be on a mission to make a total arse of itself on the world stage.

What next? Extradition requests because a european Blog has been viewed by the FTC as endorsing a product and can be viewed on US computers?

Okay, Mr. and Miss FTC,

How about going after the number 1 sponsored event out there today, and take on the lobbyists and our very own government representatives.

If anything needs to be divulged, it's the amount of money that representative X got for his campaign or for his pet project by voting with those monetary endorsements from a particular lobby group. Or who got what money to sponsor a particular person to actually have a seat on the FTC. So let’s say, how about you clean up your own act and our big "sponsored" government before you go plunging your hands into the internet.

This opens the door for fines levied on anyone who ever took advantage of a Buy3 get 1 free promo, and then posts a review of that product without disclosing that they got a free tire or knife or whatever. Muy malo...

There is an almighty difference between RULES and LAW. Most people feel no obligation to adhere to rules, which are simply guidelines imposed by non-elected bodies, but when these rules have been enshrined as law by a democratically elected government, then we will see a significant proportion of the people take the new regulations seriously. The question gets down to one of AUTHORITY or JURISDICTION to regulate and whether individuals actually consent to this alleged authority.