@Autocrat,
@RedCardinal,
@luzie,

QUOTE:

    "@SEOmofo you're moving the goal posts, and then using non-relevant examples (15 seconds waiting for ad servers). Your original post said that you were deferring the load of your own content, not content from a 3rd party. I doubt this was ever about user experience - if it was you'd just get yourself a faster server, and use other performance imporvements."

QUOTE:

    "And, come on ... first you talk about optimizing PR-flow, now your reason for using this age-old trick is a better user experience?"

QUOTE:

    "You've said "A" so long ... then when people have questioned it ... started shouting "no no! I meant B!"."



I have no idea why you're all saying that I'm trying to change my story or my focus. What thread have YOU been reading? I just reread this entire thread, and virtually every single comment I wrote acknowledges that this linking technique manipulates search engines. From my previous comments:

    "The reasons for jumping through these hoops are: (1) PREVENT PASSING PAGERANK THROUGH AFFILIATE LINKS. (2) Decrease the amount of time it takes to load the page."

    "If you're trying to tell me that I should avoid web design techniques that KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY EXPLOIT THE INHERENT WEAKNESSES OF SEARCH ENGINE RANKING ALGORITHMS--to the detriment of my users...then I'm sorry, but I disagree."

    "Until then, the only logical interpretation of your collective wisdom...is that webmasters should provide a bad user experience FOR THE SAKE OF GOOGLE."

    "The only thing I'm having trouble understanding...is why Google's Help Forum 'Top Contributors' are ADVISING WEBMASTERS TO AVOID MANIPULATING SEARCH ENGINES AT ALL COSTS--even if it means providing a worse User experience."



I haven't made any attempt whatsoever to conceal the fact that this technique takes advantage of Google's weaknesses and prevents Google from seeing the affiliate content I'm lazy-loading onto my page. The title of my second blog post is "Hey, Matt Cutts, I’m using JavaScript to hide links from Google, cool?"

The reason I continue to bring up the user experience side of things...is because none of you will admit that this technique improves the user experience!

 

You don't need to tell me I'm manipulating search engines, and you don't need to keep mentioning "intent." The former is obvious and the latter is irrelevant.

 

Yes, this technique manipulates Google.

No, this technique does not have pure intentions.

 

The question is...and always has been:

 

If a web design technique improves the user experience...but also manipulates Google, should a webmaster use it?

 

In other words:

 

Does the end justify the means?

 

In other words:

 

Should I provide the best user experience possible, or should I provide the best user experience that doesn't manipulate Google?