Sorry for the confusion on my post Dominique. I’ll try again!
You can assume that companies that have a black hat web-presence would be more likely to run their offline business with the same unethical manor right? Assuming that, as a competitor that prides itself in an honest business practice on and offline, you want these violators to be accountable for their actions.
For instance, an affiliate who is known for content scraping is expected to be taken care of by the affiliate managers that pay them. We at CAP want action taken against those that hurt us.
To the same effect, if Google does not punish these black hat webpage’s, and feels that only 32 out of 10,000 complaints are valid issues (from lots0s’ post), how can you place trust in method used to evaluate these sites?
My post mentions the IRS because I was referring to my own experience with a non-profit industry that has many unethical members. These companies have spent years in the top ranks of Google, and only lost place after complaints to the IRS. My point being, that the IRS is known for it’s hugely chaotic and incompetent structure, and still weeds out the bad guys faster than the almighty Google.
Sorry if this makes little sense or sounds like a bitch – rather it’s just my take and personal experience on this subject matter and does not mean the whole system is flawed, but maybe misunderstood and a certain amount of confusion as lots0 states.