Dec 192007
 

You probably haven’t heard of Subvert And Profit, but Google sure has. In fact Google seems to find them a pretty reliable source of information on the web as evidenced by the fact that the toolbar pagerank for subvertandprofit.com is a 4. That means that Google has more faith in Subvert and Profit then they ever did in Philaahzophy even before they decided I was untrustworthy because I get paid for posting my opinions.

What trustworthy information or service does Subvert and Profit offer? Well, according to their website-

Subvert and Profit runs an ever-expanding black market for votes on social media sites. We are simultaneously the easiest way to make money online and the cheapest form of advertising in the web 2.0 sphere. We are the crowdhackers, and we are very good at what we do.

Other “social media optimization” sites can only advise their clients on ways to design their sites for Digg and StumbleUpon. Subvert and Profit actually gets you the votes, and for cheap!

By crowdsourcing our operation to over 3000 anonymous Internet users, we can provide a cheap, effective form of undercover marketing. Read the FAQ to see how it all works.

We currently operate markets for votes on:
Digg.com — over 1 million users

We’ll get you on the front page, where your content can receive 10,000 to 100,000 visitors.
StumbleUpon — over 3.1 million users

StumbleUpon is a more linear traffic model than Digg, and also appeals to a much wider audience.

Thank you, Google for keeping the internet safe from spam by attacking individual bloggers while simultaneously promoting sites who openly advertise, even brag about, the fact that their whole reason for existence is to spread spam further.

  2 Responses to “In Further Google PageRank Weirdness”

  1. Thank you, Google for keeping the internet safe from spam by attacking individual bloggers while simultaneously promoting sites who openly advertise, even brag about, the fact that their whole reason for existence is to spread spam further.

    And you use a referral link for them? I’m not too keen on black hatters subverting the social network sites, but I knew it happened (John Chow being a prime example of how it works). It’s disgusting, really, but typical. But that referral link takes a lot away from your argument. Really. It just tells me you’re down with that.

  2. […] This guy has a post up primarily taking pot-shots at Google for taking away his PageRank. I’m not the least bit concerned about that part. What is interesting about this post is that he points to another site as an example of Google’s full-blown hypocrisy. […]

  3. Welcome Jenny,

    In case you missed it, that entire sentence is sarcasm. I, for one, don’t need anyone saving me from spam on the ‘net. I’m perfectly capable of making rational decisions about what I want to view and have no difficulty finding the information and resources I want on the web.

    And damn straight it’s a referral link. I’m plugging their company and I deserve a fee for the people I refer to them. As for the potshots you take at me on your blog (thanks for the trackback, BTW)… I would be a hypocrite if I were complaining about spam while linking to sites like Subvert and Profit. But I don’t complain about spam, nor do I feel social bookmarking sites are somehow sacred. It’s Google that’s claiming to crack down on spam while simultaneously earning a large portion of its revenue from it.

    Why do you assume that just because I disagree with you I’m being hypocritical or dishonest?

    I do find it ironic that your post states Philaahzophy has “Google Ad Sense plastered all over it.” then claim you didn’t notice it until after you commented. Seems a bit disingenuous there.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)