I read what is posted. My takeaway is the author doesn't like the method of mass producing articles to hit SEO. I don't see that as an issue, do you?
Edit: I'd like to point out the articles are written in am intentional, click HERE for this bit of info, them in that article clicked HERE for this hot of info format.
I edited my previous comment to point out that the author chose to put all the information in different places. Screen Rant isn't paying. His complaint about screen rant is they're producing so many articles to hit SEO he as a solo can't compete. That's not paying for screen time. Above I called it hitting all the topics because someone cares about something, and there's so much media.
If you reread the article, notice how short it is? Because all the information requires you to click to read another article. Doesn't that mean this author is also manipulating SEO while complaining about it? I had to read 4 articles to understand his complaint, and declined a pdf download.
Ok, I think I understand the confusion. You are correct that there is no direct proof of Valnet paying for visibility for any of its subsidiaries (screenrant). It is heavily implied when the pieces are put together, and I instantly assumed it was the obvious conclusion based on the circumstances.
Valnet has threatened legal action over a series of articles and social media posts. The threat itself is suspicious. If all they were doing is spamming articles, what would it matter for some internet journo to point it out? But if there is money changing hands behind the scenes then the threat makes much more sense.
Wait, isn't the complaint that Valnet (and possibly other companies) are paying Google for visibility on their search engine?
I read what is posted. My takeaway is the author doesn't like the method of mass producing articles to hit SEO. I don't see that as an issue, do you?
Edit: I'd like to point out the articles are written in am intentional, click HERE for this bit of info, them in that article clicked HERE for this hot of info format.
It was written to confuse intentionally
Not nearly as big an issue as paying for search engine visibility which was my take away.
I edited my previous comment to point out that the author chose to put all the information in different places. Screen Rant isn't paying. His complaint about screen rant is they're producing so many articles to hit SEO he as a solo can't compete. That's not paying for screen time. Above I called it hitting all the topics because someone cares about something, and there's so much media.
If you reread the article, notice how short it is? Because all the information requires you to click to read another article. Doesn't that mean this author is also manipulating SEO while complaining about it? I had to read 4 articles to understand his complaint, and declined a pdf download.
Ok, I think I understand the confusion. You are correct that there is no direct proof of Valnet paying for visibility for any of its subsidiaries (screenrant). It is heavily implied when the pieces are put together, and I instantly assumed it was the obvious conclusion based on the circumstances.
Valnet has threatened legal action over a series of articles and social media posts. The threat itself is suspicious. If all they were doing is spamming articles, what would it matter for some internet journo to point it out? But if there is money changing hands behind the scenes then the threat makes much more sense.