Manual Spam Action Revoked. A Case Study

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Jim Munro: Manual Spam Action Revoked. A Case Study.
  
  I think this is a good article from Jenny Halasz. Looking forward to reading/hearing your opinions and there is a possibility that Jenny might be able to join us on the DSQ HOA to discuss this.
  
  +Tim Capper ;+Masatake Wasa ;+Micah Fisher-Kirshner ;+Rob Wagner +Rob Maas ;+Alistair Lattimore ; ;+Richard Hearne ;+Dan Petrovic ;  ;
  
  I hope you guys don't mind me tagging you. I know you are busy. :)
• 
  Richard Hearne: Don't know about anyone else, but the fact that their #1 affiliate was hacking websites, and they continued to work with that affiliate implies that they condoned what he was doing.
  
  Maybe I'm picking it up wrong, but the story suggests the above activity was happening and they were too afraid of losing the 20% of aff sales to report his illegal actions?
• 
  Jim Munro: I have to admit that the issue not dawn on me. I think your reading of it is accurate though.
  
  I used to be proud to call our companies "Affiliates" but since the advent of Dumb SEO Questions and all I have heard these days, not so much.
• 
  Micah Fisher-Kirshner: +Richard Hearne: Maybe I'm misreading this/the article, but why the past tense? Isn't it that they continue to condone it with their affiliates and just 404 the pages so it doesn't impact SEO?
• 
  W.E. Jonk: This I don't understand:
  
  It was very clear they (the links from one affiliate)  ;_had been hacked_
  
  it turned out to be their top affiliate — someone (who paid others to hack sites) who regularly provides the site with about 20% of the sales_… _someone (who paid others to hack sites) we did not want to fire or anger
  
  apparently, there is an underground “service” that does this for people and by canceling his/her contract, all the links were magically removed.
  
  Doesn't that make you liable or at least one doesn't want to be involved in those illegal actions.