Writing some funky search engine optimized profile and content in a Social Network probably won’t get you as much impact, and you’ll only be viewed as noise by the rest of the folks there, turning away the very people you had the opportunity to connect with.

Steve Rubel as a PR person is in a gray area…I think its something people across all internet marketing & traditional marketing should think about.

Digg (and clones) doesn’t give direct links – no SEO value there. Plus, Digg is good at spotting spam content, you’re not going to go anywhere promoting your own company or website there.

Blog comments – nofollow’ed unless the blog uses a dofollow-type plug-in or a platform that doesn’t nofollow. If you’re using anchor text in your comment name you’ll likely get hand-moderated by the blog owner. So no SEO benefit there.

Forum comments – ditto.

Social bookmark spam – most don’t pass link juice. Some do, but is it worth the time?

Guest blogging – adding value to a relevant community. Deserves link juice it gets.

Getting involved in Facebook and other social networks – walled gardens pass no SEO value. Not an SEO technique.

From what I gather from Steve’s post, I agree with him, he’s against Spam for SEO gaming. I also agree with you, Andy, PR’s do the same thing – maybe worse.

What is the perceived threat from SEO’s, exactly? Spamming social media for SEO benefits is simply a waste of time.

Anyone who successfully link baits through Digg or Sphinn uses the channel to gain attention, the SEO value of any links coming from people who actually like the content are credible, deserved links. I see no problem with viral/link bait campaigns.

I’d like to believe that a higher purpose (not necessarily spiritual mind you) will be achieved as a result of this spirited debate. Considering the character of the two men involved, Steve and Andy, I have no doubt that will occur and we will all be beneficiaries.

I’m saying my peace on the matter over at my blog.

Andy your quote sums up nicely what I wish people would understand about social media. It’s all about the community. I see so many people worrying about others manipulating social sites. The communities generally do a good job of policing themselves.

If you see a social site that seems to be overrun by what you think is spam, maybe it’s simply a matter of that community having a different view of what is and isn’t acceptable than what you think.

I don’t know one savy SEO who doesn’t get three or four benefits out of every page of content or blog post that they put out there.

I think it is a matter of perspective and sometimes a person cannot see the entire picture because he doesn’t have all the facts. Appearences can often be deceiving until you can review the master plan.

Somebody has to watch this process, though I’m not sure who it should be. Calling them “black hats” hasn’t been enough so far, any more than terming it “spam” has decreased the volume of worthless email.

Just let everyone use it for what THEY need it for, and let the community decide what they’ll tolerate.