Thanks for this, its really helpful. I must admit I wasn’t fully aware of the dangers of creating profiles and then not using them to actively engage. We use them frequently to publicise article marketing but there are some profiles that I’ve signed up to which have proved not to be useful or appropriate and we have then let go cold- do you think this is an issue or is it important to delete?

I agree though- I wouldn’t call it unethical- it’s lazy at most

Also I like your comment on geolocation spam “While you might get away with it now, the more people that start doing it the more obnoxious it’s going to get and the less tolerance people are going to have for it “- one could apply this to almost every SEO trick in the book! It’s getting so important to use intelligence and discretion when working for clients now as it’s so easy to fall foul of these rules.

Regards, Cordelia@GWS Media

2. Useless content that doesn’t contribute real value isn’t appreciated by many website owners. It’s not up to a spammer to decide they should be grateful with it.

3. Regarding number of users — again we’re talking about the artificial stats inflation issue. And again, it’s not up to a spammer to decide that’s a good thing for the site owner.

The suggestion that having a link field means it’s not spam is ludicrous. That would be the equivalent of saying that someone having an email address means they’re soliciting uninvited emails and therefore email spam doesn’t really exist. Site owners are rewarding contributing members with a link because it adds real value when other members can get to know who they’re dealing with and what projects they’re behind. That’s not a solicitation of links without that larger relationship. If someone wants that, they already have options — free Web directories.

When some one makes a profile the following things a site and the site owner gets:
1) a visit – yes, it still is a natural visit, but if used a bot to create the same then you know my already posted view on these auto bots. I will consider it as a spam and so will many others.

2) The profile details – that’s content! but if it is fake then it should fall under spam.

3) Number of users – Yes it is a valid user and the stat is rightly updated too with the user counter but it should fall under the non-contributing and in-active user unless the user takes out the time and contribute to the community.

If the social site has given a link field then filling the same field can not be considered as spam. The script should not allow links in the profile if the site admin thinks that non-contributing users mean spam!

I’d also say you’re wrong about link spam profiles not affecting anyone. It’s a common misconception. As someone who’s owned and helped manage various communities online over the years though, I can tell you that you are indeed affecting someone. You affect that site owner’s stats, and you can waste a huge amount of their time cleaning up the mess left behind. Spam doesn’t have to involve a lot of people. You can spam just one — just as a single spam email is still spam, spamming a single person’s site to cram in your links is equally so.

Actually, Twitter follow spam also affects people. It leads to false follower counts (a spam follower is not a real follower — a member of your audience). It artificially inflates not only a sense of self-importance for some, but also the perceived importance of what someone has to say.

Keep in mind, this post didn’t actually have anything to do with how the spam might affect you as a non-spammer. It was addressing those who do spam others. While you might feel your actions are harmless, they rarely are — especially when more people follow suit.

Dan — I know, right? It’s so unfair!