> Paul Francis writes...
> > ( . . . ) I think
> > we would both agree that as long as people think they will
> > benefit from listing a given keyword 40 times or creating
> > multiple "search-engine advertisement pages" that all point
> > to the "user-browser advertisment page", they will do it.
>
> I certainly agree.
>
> That's why I think we should add "risk" to balance out the
> potential "payoff".
>
> The worst that can happen now is that a spammer's spam just
> doesn't work very well, and he doesn't end up as highly
> rated as he'd like.
>
> I'm proposing that the "risk" be that he doesn't end up being
> indexed AT ALL. This would actively discourage people from
> even experimenting with ratings manipulation.
I agree - with the caveat that such policies should be prominently listed
and explained on the search engine sites. People are much less likely to
'push the envelope' if they know that pushing it too far means they don't
get listed at all.
-- Benjamin Franz