This is so sad to ban them – the so-called hidden links were just to get thier links spidered and pageranked

On the homepage, they have several International Naviagational links – it is probably more effective to have the other links spidered on the front page – than inside the geographical links – - and less confusing to the users

The bottom line is, does the public REALLY benefit from NOT having Printing.com on the SERPs??????

I dont see any reasons why not!!

The public certainly benefits if SEO spam is being battled... because then, there is a) less SEO spam in Google and b) companies might learn and not do SEO spam in the future. There are reasonable approaches to get you well-ranked on Google, including having good titles, a meaningful site structure, a site that's accessible (no JavaScript or Flash needed for critical stuff), and above all, a site that has great linkworthy content. White text on white background, on the other hand, doesn't belong into this category of "reasonable approaches." If it doesn't help the end user... then think twice why you're doing it. SEO spam only helps to pollute the web.

I think Search-Engines-Web.com is right to a degree here, the public don't really benefit from this banning and the links were just for indexing purposes. But to be honest, why bother hiding the links? They would of looked fine being visible anyway. Shame (and lawyers) be on Bespoke Marketing for doing stupid SEO.

And Philipp, I really can't remember the PR, but the fact that it was Zero is what made me look into it being banned. With 8000 quality backlinks im guessing PR6 atleast.

"I think Search-Engines-Web.com is right to a degree here, the public don't really benefit from this banning and the links were just for indexing purposes."

I see your point. This point would have more importance if printing.com was the only website of its kind. But there are many others like it. And there are billions of websites, which makes picking and choosing which one benefits the public or not a problematic chore. So, it seems best for google to apply the same standard across board, then sites that are created naturally(for humans not engines) have a better chance rising to the top. Of course, sometimes good websites may get hurt with the bad, but overall word will spread that sites should not use these methods, and eventually raises the bar all around.

"but overall word will spread that sites should not use these methods, and eventually raises the bar all around."

I agree, I do hope that word does spread. Educating SEO clients will only make the industry more credible – for example, I still get people saying to me in all seriousness that SEO work is basically keyword stuffing.

The revenue loss printing.com will loose in the mean time is mind boggling!

Okay Search-Engines-Web.com, we get it, you are a black hat that is upset Google would block a website. Please, let it drop already! I see you complaining whenever Google drops a site. Google has no responsibility to any of these websites. If you don't like what they do, don't use them and don't risk your business by getting most of your revenue from Google.

If those "hidden links were just to get their links spidered and pageranked", why the need for phrases like "colour printing" and "business cards"? If those links were there for purely technical reasons, Googlebot could follow an anchor text of "." as well.

S-E-W.com seems to revel in controversy, that's all. Not that he has anything relevant to say.