Hey guys -- Eppie here. Just wanted to clarify a few points in this discussion.
First, the site I audited in this case study dropped in the SERPs around the end of January. My take is that I'd never out an actively ranking site, but once it's dead I have no problem dissecting it. Some of you will disagree with that, but I believe it's a fair stance to take on the issue of "outing" a site.
Second, to the one or two guys who took issue with the fact that the post promotes Link Detective -- it's a completely free service with no limitations. I'm not making a dollar off of it.
Finally, I'm no SEO moralist -- I think it was an impressive achievement to rank that site and, quite frankly, I've ranked plenty of "garbage" sites of my own (though never for a keyword as competitive as these guys pursued). Good on them for getting their money. If Google doesn't like it, it's their responsibility to fix their algorithm to rank what they highlight in the search quality guidelines.
As for calling the site "garbage," when I say "garbage" sites, I mean sites that Google wouldn't want showing up in their SERPs. It's not my personal judgment of the site's value but is based on what Google's put out as their guidelines for search quality.
I know some of you will still think I'm a dick, but I just wanted to clear the air and get my side of the story out there.
