> Is it the owners responsibility to do something about that?
Reasonably, yes. But, when the volume of spam becomes too much to handle, what can a poor webmaster do?
I quite like that Google have altered their algorithm to penalise this SEO behaviour. Because it now puts the headache firmly on the website that paid SEO people to originally spam those links.
And I applaud and support the webmaster who requested payment for removing the link. The link was placed by a link spammer on behalf of their client, it's only right that that client, after benefitting from that tactic - risk free - now should pay for it to be removed.
Granted, there are negative SEO connotations to this, but factors like link-age can be used to spot who was link spamming before Penguin/Panda, and who is link spamming after.
I would be thoroughly impressed with an SEO agency who was practicing this now negative SEO tactic before links from spammy neighbourhoods were risk free. And thus benefitting by giving their competition a headache post Penguin and Panda.
I have no sympathy for companies that hired SEO agencies who link-spammed their website. They shouldn't have done it (ethic-deprived), and if they didn't know about it they should have known about it (abrogation of responsibility). If there was deceit involved, then the company can take it up with the SEO agency that created that deceit.
Yes, clean SEOers are doing a roaring trade trying to clean up these websites, but they must realise their client caused the initial damage by hiring bad SEOers, and they are not entitled to free link removals.
Reasonably, yes. But, when the volume of spam becomes too much to handle, what can a poor webmaster do?
I quite like that Google have altered their algorithm to penalise this SEO behaviour. Because it now puts the headache firmly on the website that paid SEO people to originally spam those links.
And I applaud and support the webmaster who requested payment for removing the link. The link was placed by a link spammer on behalf of their client, it's only right that that client, after benefitting from that tactic - risk free - now should pay for it to be removed.
Granted, there are negative SEO connotations to this, but factors like link-age can be used to spot who was link spamming before Penguin/Panda, and who is link spamming after.
I would be thoroughly impressed with an SEO agency who was practicing this now negative SEO tactic before links from spammy neighbourhoods were risk free. And thus benefitting by giving their competition a headache post Penguin and Panda.
I have no sympathy for companies that hired SEO agencies who link-spammed their website. They shouldn't have done it (ethic-deprived), and if they didn't know about it they should have known about it (abrogation of responsibility). If there was deceit involved, then the company can take it up with the SEO agency that created that deceit.
Yes, clean SEOers are doing a roaring trade trying to clean up these websites, but they must realise their client caused the initial damage by hiring bad SEOers, and they are not entitled to free link removals.