Replies to post #29486 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[SPIN]

edit2: it isn't the least bit surprising that you of all people would maintain such a position.

SO, what do you call authoring a blatant hype article (w/enticing graphics of the Intel MB included) regarding Wave Systems (under the seemingly innocent guise of a more general discussion on Trusted Computing) & posting it on a supposedly objective vertical market/industry association website under the byline "CadCam Forum Staff Writer" & concealing the fact that the same author is swimming in shares of Wave & as such, possesses a MASSIVE conflict of interest?

s'pose you'd characterize it as maximization of shareholder value.

others might call it shamefully unethical.

think anyone stumbling onto that hype article will make the connection to yer naked self interest now that you have established the new super-secret wavoid batcave in the same comfy confines?

SO, thanks for further illustration of moral relativism... but just don't act surprised if (when) the subpoena arrives.

edit: Jaybeaux -- i responded to the prior post & it was felled in the weekend delete-spree that apparently landed awk in iHub jail.

fwiw, i completely concur w/the points made about tiers. it was a fellow wavoid who made a point about the supposed differences in the education, not me. i merely inquired what tier was the school she attended (& it was a rhetorical question to her, btw). so there's a certain degree of irony in the challenges you post to me, as i side w/the perspective. it is a fellow wavoid w/whom you take issue. she went to the #2 law school in the U.S.

as to the analysis you just posted on the merits of the claim vis-a-vis the PR, i've stated repeatedly that the reporting was IMO negligent, but i am also not privy to what may have been communicated verbally to any reporters.

the "teeth" of the claims lie elsewhere IMO & who knows what'll turn up in discovery.

edit2: fwiw, for part of my education i was on a full scholarship & fellowship. for other parts i took financial aid & clerked part-time throughout my studies ('cept 1L).

[SPIN]

Google's Quality Guidelines - Specific recommendations:

* Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
* Don't employ cloaking or sneaky redirects.
* Don't send automated queries to Google.
* Don't load pages with irrelevant words.
* Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
* Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.

These quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here, (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known web sites). It's not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn't included on this page, Google approves of it. Webmasters who spend their energies upholding the spirit of the basic principles listed above will provide a much better user experience and subsequently enjoy better ranking than those who spend their time looking for loopholes they can exploit.

If you believe that another site is abusing Google's quality guidelines, please report that site at http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html. Google prefers developing scalable and automated solutions to problems, so we attempt to minimize hand-to-hand spam fighting. The spam reports we receive are used to create scalable algorithms that recognize and block future spam attempts.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html#quality

"EVERY website company does the same thing or they are stupid."

or ethical.