Permanent Jagger?
www.1-script.com
Looking at messages from last couple weeks, I see no sign of relief from
the churn that the latest update (why "Jagger", anyways?) causes. Couple
weeks into the update, and the message to the public is still "sit tight"
(borrowing from Bill's line) for couple more weeks.
So, would it be too far-fetched to assume that the churn in SERPS is in
fact a permanent feature that the last update brought to the industry?
After all, why does Google need to give all the traffic to the first 10
links that have something to do with the keyword someone's looking for?
Granted, they are considered the most relevant AT THE MOMENT, but with
Google having 2 billion + combinations of parameters they use to devise
relevancy, it is bound to swing, and swing violently as new sites (and
more importantly, new pages on old sites that don’t get Sandbox’ed) are
entered into the Grand Index.
So, maybe the permanently churning SERPs are here to stay? Think of it
from Google’s prospective: no more vicious webmasters checking on SERPs
every hour on hundreds of keywords/phrases because you can’t know a SERP
as it always fluctuates… I cannot imagine how much traffic this would have
saved.
No, seriously, if Google increases the number of sites that receive
traffic from the first page (since few people care about going past the
first page of SERPs), would it not be a stimulus for more sites to develop
better pages as oppose to only 10 that got to the top often times
employing questionable or outright spammy techniques?
I also think that Google has already enough power to use something
similar to the SERP churn technique I dreamed up above to steer
development of the Web world very much the same way a government would
affect a county’s well-being by employing macro-economics techniques like
setting interest rates or currency exchange rates.
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 18118 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
Davémon
> So, would it be too far-fetched to assume that the churn in SERPS is in
> fact a permanent feature that the last update brought to the industry?
Sounds like the seopoclypse!
> So, maybe the permanently churning SERPs are here to stay? Think of it
> from Google’s prospective: no more vicious webmasters checking on SERPs
> every hour on hundreds of keywords/phrases because you can’t know a SERP
> as it always fluctuates… I cannot imagine how much traffic this would have
> saved.
... I can also imagine web-masters tracking it over time and working on
the averages, so possibly increasing the irrelevant traffic.
> No, seriously, if Google increases the number of sites that receive
> traffic from the first page (since few people care about going past the
> first page of SERPs), would it not be a stimulus for more sites to develop
> better pages as oppose to only 10 that got to the top often times
> employing questionable or outright spammy techniques?
...or giving up on trying to get good 'natural search' all together, as
it becomes so unpredictable, and instead pay for the advertising services.
OTOH, is anyone riding out Jagger with no change in their positions?
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk
Roy Schestowitz
> Hello everyone,
>
> Looking at messages from last couple weeks, I see no sign of relief from
> the churn that the latest update (why "Jagger", anyways?) ...
WebMasterWorld. Must be some Jag fanatic or something...
> ... causes. Couple
> weeks into the update, and the message to the public is still "sit tight"
> (borrowing from Bill's line) for couple more weeks.
At first I thought you were referring to Gates and the never-ending delays of
the Vista/Longhorn release date (London).
A message that came from Cutts which said that Jagger is entering stage 3
(out of 3) rather soon. I think you are swept into that state of paranoia,
which you mustn't.
> So, would it be too far-fetched to assume that the churn in SERPS is in
> fact a permanent feature that the last update brought to the industry?
> After all, why does Google need to give all the traffic to the first 10
> links that have something to do with the keyword someone's looking for?
If these are the most desired links, why change them? Bear in mind that if
somebody proceeds to page 2 and follows a link, Google knows it. It
definitely has some tracking mechanism in place. Consequently, when such a
link gets followed, that link can be 'promoted' to page 1.
SERP's evolve according to demand. Breaking the progressively-acquired
knowledge, which has been built for year, would be damaging. Jugding by
SEPR's that I keep track of (other sites), there are irrational
prioritisations. You can sometimes tell when a link drops although it is by
far the most relevant and not just due to IBL's.
> Granted, they are considered the most relevant AT THE MOMENT, but with
> Google having 2 billion + combinations of parameters they use to devise
> relevancy, it is bound to swing, and swing violently as new sites (and
> more importantly, new pages on old sites that don’t get Sandbox’ed) are
> entered into the Grand Index.
>
> So, maybe the permanently churning SERPs are here to stay? Think of it
> from Google’s prospective: no more vicious webmasters checking on SERPs
> every hour on hundreds of keywords/phrases because you can’t know a SERP
> as it always fluctuates… I cannot imagine how much traffic this would have
> saved.
That traffic is very affordable. Don't compare the load which crawling
servers or indexing machines bear with Web pages that are delivered to
users. The 'pull' is probably far more laborious than the 'push'.
> No, seriously, if Google increases the number of sites that receive
> traffic from the first page (since few people care about going past the
> first page of SERPs), would it not be a stimulus for more sites to develop
> better pages as oppose to only 10 that got to the top often times
> employing questionable or outright spammy techniques?
That seems to make sense, yet I suspect that Google do not care how many
Webmasters they please. Their aim is to give the most relevant results using
whatever data is available. That company seems to have lost its heart when
the investors took over.
> I also think that Google has already enough power to use something
> similar to the SERP churn technique I dreamed up above to steer
> development of the Web world very much the same way a government would
> affect a county’s well-being by employing macro-economics techniques like
> setting interest rates or currency exchange rates.
Interesting thought...
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymous posters are more frequently disregarded
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:50pm up 1 day 11:48, 4 users, load average: 0.35, 0.31, 0.23
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Big Bill
Yup. So's Stacey, so's Cat, few others. I've gone up maybe a couple of
places and that's it. Stable.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ s...@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
Stacey
news:fa3nm1dhvjpmlol4i...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:00:30 +0000, Davémon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>OTOH, is anyone riding out Jagger with no change in their positions?
>
> Yup. So's Stacey, so's Cat, few others. I've gone up maybe a couple of
> places and that's it. Stable.
Well I moved down 1 spot for rag rugs....other than that yeah strong and
stable.
Stacey
www.1-script.com
> OTOH, is anyone riding out Jagger with no change in their positions?
My own sites still receive pretty much the same traffic they were for last
couple months, and my observation that the original post was based on was
mostly from reading this group and DigitalPoint's forums. I have to admit
though that I do not track any particular SERPs anymore, so I would not
know if a particular SERP would have moved. Overwhelming amount of my
traffic comes from SERPs on keywords/phrases I would not even think of
until I see them in the logs, and therefore I see very little reason to
track SERPs on any particular one. I do, obviously, care about total
amount of traffic I receive and therefore all SEO efforts I put into my
sites concentrate around readability and accessibility of my pages to
bots. I see no reason to optimize for a particular keyword hence no need
to track its SERPs ;-)
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 18140 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
mark | r
"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa3nm1dhvjpmlol4i...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:00:30 +0000, Davémon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>
> >www.1-script.com wrote:
> >> So, would it be too far-fetched to assume that the churn in SERPS is in
> >> fact a permanent feature that the last update brought to the industry?
> >
> >Sounds like the seopoclypse!
> >
> >> So, maybe the permanently churning SERPs are here to stay? Think of it
> >> from Google's prospective: no more vicious webmasters checking on SERPs
> >> every hour on hundreds of keywords/phrases because you can't know a
SERP
> >> as it always fluctuates. I cannot imagine how much traffic this would
have
> >> saved.
> >
> >... I can also imagine web-masters tracking it over time and working on
> >the averages, so possibly increasing the irrelevant traffic.
> >
> >> No, seriously, if Google increases the number of sites that receive
> >> traffic from the first page (since few people care about going past the
> >> first page of SERPs), would it not be a stimulus for more sites to
develop
> >> better pages as oppose to only 10 that got to the top often times
> >> employing questionable or outright spammy techniques?
> >
> >...or giving up on trying to get good 'natural search' all together, as
> >it becomes so unpredictable, and instead pay for the advertising
services.
> >
> >OTOH, is anyone riding out Jagger with no change in their positions?
>
> Yup. So's Stacey, so's Cat, few others. I've gone up maybe a couple of
> places and that's it. Stable.
>
> BB
> --
> www.kruse.co.uk/ s...@kruse.demon.co.uk
> Elvis does my SEO
>
after the initial drop im back to #10 on page 1 (which is 5 places below
where i was for a time!)
Big Bill
One spot or two either way is stable.
Big Bill
Well it isn't over yet so you've still time to panic:-)
which you do so well...:-(
davidof
My main site is pretty stable too. Jagger is supposed to target scrapers
adn MFA sites though so content rich sites should be ok and if you are
in an area with few scrapers then things shouldn't budge much even in
the top 10.
----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/
Stacey
news:436c9654$0$25970$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
Good scrapers need to go. I was just saying one as the question was imposed
with *no change in positions.*
Stacey
Carol W
>www.1-script.com wrote:
>> So, would it be too far-fetched to assume that the churn in SERPS is in
>> fact a permanent feature that the last update brought to the industry?
>
>Sounds like the seopoclypse!
>
>> So, maybe the permanently churning SERPs are here to stay? Think of it
>> from Google’s prospective: no more vicious webmasters checking on SERPs
>> every hour on hundreds of keywords/phrases because you can’t know a SERP
>> as it always fluctuates… I cannot imagine how much traffic this would have
>> saved.
>
>... I can also imagine web-masters tracking it over time and working on
>the averages, so possibly increasing the irrelevant traffic.
I can see it increasing versus decreasing as some people will check in
on thier SERPs more often. I mean some folks were checking their SERPs
rather often when there wasn't talk about fluxing rankings (someone
posted here not too long ago about using a program/script to check his
rankings periodically over the course of a day - let alone a week) -
how would fluxing SERPs decrease those folks' curiousity? .
On the other hand, this could have some folks looking at Yahoo or MSN.
Personally, I don't see an advantage of flunctuating SERPs. I haven't
checked out that many but havent' really noticed major flux happening
in the ones I have. With Florida and one other algo change, some SERPs
did flux a bit longer than others. Could that be the case with this
Jagger one?
>> No, seriously, if Google increases the number of sites that receive
>> traffic from the first page (since few people care about going past the
>> first page of SERPs), would it not be a stimulus for more sites to develop
>> better pages as oppose to only 10 that got to the top often times
>> employing questionable or outright spammy techniques?
But you did word that as not every Top 10 site employs questionable or
outright spammy techniques, so why would Google break out the broad
paintbrush for Top 10 sites? When Google banned a group of sites using
a certain SEO service (and that service's techniques) - Google didn't
ban all sites that had paid for SEO services, just the users of a
particular firm's techniques. Some unwitting folks got caught up in
that sweep but they WERE clients of that firm and didn't apparently
ask enough questions about what techniques the firm was putting on
their site but only looked at the SERPs.
>...or giving up on trying to get good 'natural search' all together, as
>it becomes so unpredictable, and instead pay for the advertising services.
But would becoming "unpredictable" still have relevant results, in the
search engine user's mind, showing up in response to queries? That
would remain the focal point on Google's side with their search
engine.
I think Google is smart to realize people will try to rank well on
their search engine - thus many employing SEO techniques. Google will
just try to keep the lid on the tea kettle versus having overzealous
attempts at ranking well turn off the users of the SE?
>OTOH, is anyone riding out Jagger with no change in their positions?
I dropped in PR, from 5 to a 4, but went up a slot - now #4 and #9 for
two of my most-checked on SERPs. Not bad considering I haven't really
done anything to the site for the past 3 or 4 months in terms of SEO.
I don't know if site age speculation had anything to do with it or not
- but them I am a bit fuzzy about when a site crosses over into
becoming regarded as "old" in terms of some of these
theories/speculation posts.
Carol
Davémon
>
> When Google banned a group of sites using
> a certain SEO service (and that service's techniques) - Google didn't
> ban all sites that had paid for SEO services, just the users of a
> particular firm's techniques. Some unwitting folks got caught up in
> that sweep but they WERE clients of that firm and didn't apparently
> ask enough questions about what techniques the firm was putting on
> their site but only looked at the SERPs.
>
Sorry, I don't believe any of this! Can you name the SEO-co, the
techniques, some of the clients, and when this occured?
>>...or giving up on trying to get good 'natural search' all together, as
>>it becomes so unpredictable, and instead pay for the advertising services.
>
>
> But would becoming "unpredictable" still have relevant results, in the
> search engine user's mind, showing up in response to queries? That
> would remain the focal point on Google's side with their search
> engine.
Yes, the results would be generally relevant, but not as relevant as the
advertising. You're still thinking of Google as being a search engine
with advertising stuck on the side. IMHO it's moved on it's an
advertising engine with search results stuck in the middle.
> I think Google is smart to realize people will try to rank well on
> their search engine - thus many employing SEO techniques. Google will
> just try to keep the lid on the tea kettle versus having overzealous
> attempts at ranking well turn off the users of the SE?
>
Most users don't even differentiate between the adverts and the natural
results. They just want whatever they're looking for.
Googly knows which side of the bread is buttered. It makes money though
people clicking on its adverts, not by people doing searches. One way of
increasing revenue is making it impossible for SEO to work (fluxing),
thereby forcing the people who relied on SEO for their traffic to move
to advertising.
I'm not saying that this is what is happening! and if it does happen, it
will more likely happen over a number of years, not months. (Like
Googlys introduction of increasing numbers of adverts).
>>OTOH, is anyone riding out Jagger with no change in their positions?
>
>
> I dropped in PR, from 5 to a 4, but went up a slot - now #4 and #9 for
> two of my most-checked on SERPs. Not bad considering I haven't really
> done anything to the site for the past 3 or 4 months in terms of SEO.
It seems that most of the regulars here haven't been hit severly by it,
which makes me doubt the flux-hypothesis ("Marty - the libians!") is
actually occuring.
> I don't know if site age speculation had anything to do with it or not
> - but them I am a bit fuzzy about when a site crosses over into
> becoming regarded as "old" in terms of some of these
> theories/speculation posts.
I have no idea, and testing for it would seem to be very difficult. I'd
also doubt there was a fixed point (young|old), and more of a sliding
scale, perhaps modified by IBL's to deep-pages and other signs of
reasonable stability.
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk
Big Bill
>Carol W wrote:
>>
>> When Google banned a group of sites using
>> a certain SEO service (and that service's techniques) - Google didn't
>> ban all sites that had paid for SEO services, just the users of a
>> particular firm's techniques. Some unwitting folks got caught up in
>> that sweep but they WERE clients of that firm and didn't apparently
>> ask enough questions about what techniques the firm was putting on
>> their site but only looked at the SERPs.
>>
>
>Sorry, I don't believe any of this! Can you name the SEO-co, the
>techniques, some of the clients, and when this occured?
I think it was Traffic Power. There was a class action suit being put
together against them in the States, I believe.
I'm right it was Traffic Power, I checked. They threatened to sue
Aaron (SEO BOOK) Wall
http://www.seobook.com/archives/001130.shtml
I think that's ongoing.
>>>...or giving up on trying to get good 'natural search' all together, as
>>>it becomes so unpredictable, and instead pay for the advertising services.
>>
>>
>> But would becoming "unpredictable" still have relevant results, in the
>> search engine user's mind, showing up in response to queries? That
>> would remain the focal point on Google's side with their search
>> engine.
>
>Yes, the results would be generally relevant, but not as relevant as the
>advertising. You're still thinking of Google as being a search engine
>with advertising stuck on the side. IMHO it's moved on it's an
>advertising engine with search results stuck in the middle.
>
>> I think Google is smart to realize people will try to rank well on
>> their search engine - thus many employing SEO techniques. Google will
>> just try to keep the lid on the tea kettle versus having overzealous
>> attempts at ranking well turn off the users of the SE?
>>
>
>Most users don't even differentiate between the adverts and the natural
>results. They just want whatever they're looking for.
Um, several studies show that searching folk click more on organic
results than paid results. So far, anyway. Whether they do that by
circumstance or design would be another matter.
>Googly knows which side of the bread is buttered. It makes money though
>people clicking on its adverts, not by people doing searches. One way of
>increasing revenue is making it impossible for SEO to work (fluxing),
>thereby forcing the people who relied on SEO for their traffic to move
>to advertising.
>
>I'm not saying that this is what is happening! and if it does happen, it
>will more likely happen over a number of years, not months. (Like
>Googlys introduction of increasing numbers of adverts).
>
>
>>>OTOH, is anyone riding out Jagger with no change in their positions?
I was till the third phase, now for some phrases I'm dancing.
>> I dropped in PR, from 5 to a 4, but went up a slot - now #4 and #9 for
>> two of my most-checked on SERPs. Not bad considering I haven't really
>> done anything to the site for the past 3 or 4 months in terms of SEO.
>
>It seems that most of the regulars here haven't been hit severly by it,
>which makes me doubt the flux-hypothesis ("Marty - the libians!") is
>actually occuring.
>
>> I don't know if site age speculation had anything to do with it or not
>> - but them I am a bit fuzzy about when a site crosses over into
>> becoming regarded as "old" in terms of some of these
>> theories/speculation posts.
>
>I have no idea, and testing for it would seem to be very difficult. I'd
>also doubt there was a fixed point (young|old), and more of a sliding
>scale, perhaps modified by IBL's to deep-pages and other signs of
>reasonable stability.
I'd suggest that the site's provenance comes into it.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ s...@kruse.demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone
David
>Googly knows which side of the bread is buttered. It makes money though
>people clicking on its adverts, not by people doing searches. One way of
>increasing revenue is making it impossible for SEO to work (fluxing),
>thereby forcing the people who relied on SEO for their traffic to move
>to advertising.
>
>I'm not saying that this is what is happening! and if it does happen, it
>will more likely happen over a number of years, not months. (Like
>Googlys introduction of increasing numbers of adverts).
Only 10 sites can be in the top 10 of a specific SERP, that leaves
thousands of other sites in the cold having to find alternative
traffic.
I know the above is a simplistic view since there are millions of
different SERPs and as long as you don't get banned you'll always get
a little traffic from the search engines.
Point is though with the majority of sites not doing well in Google
they have an almost unlimited source of businesses that want Google
traffic and have the money to pay for it.
They don't have to mess with the organic SERPs to make more money from
Adwords. They basically have their own money printing machine :-)
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Carol W
>Carol W wrote:
>>
>> When Google banned a group of sites using
>> a certain SEO service (and that service's techniques) - Google didn't
>> ban all sites that had paid for SEO services, just the users of a
>> particular firm's techniques. Some unwitting folks got caught up in
>> that sweep but they WERE clients of that firm and didn't apparently
>> ask enough questions about what techniques the firm was putting on
>> their site but only looked at the SERPs.
>>
>
>Sorry, I don't believe any of this! Can you name the SEO-co,
Traffic Power
> the techniques,
If I recall correctly - it involved a hidden link or two, mousover
techniques, one-size-fits-all style of-keyword studded page, and link
farming. Clients were silly enough to hand over their sites usernames
and passwords to the SEO company without asking what the company was
uploading.
> some of the clients,
I beleive one former client of the company posted here to this NG
right when it occured - but I don't recall his name or site. Do a
search on Traffic Power and you will probably find a couple of the
clients that way. I beleive some tried to get a lawsuit going.
> and when this occured?
I beleive it was in the latter part of 2004. Google banned the clients
sites - Yahoo, a couple weeks later, followed suit. Right after the
banning Google put up a page about it - in a roundabout worded way as
they didn't name the company or any of the sites involved but told
people that when they hired a SEO firm then they were also responsible
for what that SEO firm did to their sites (therefore could risk
penality or banning and you couldn't say "But ... but .. I didn't
know. I didn't do it!")
Traffic Power still exists - they changed their wording to where they
offer site reveiw and enahncment services or some such.
>>>...or giving up on trying to get good 'natural search' all together, as
>>>it becomes so unpredictable, and instead pay for the advertising services.
>>
>>
>> But would becoming "unpredictable" still have relevant results, in the
>> search engine user's mind, showing up in response to queries? That
>> would remain the focal point on Google's side with their search
>> engine.
>
>Yes, the results would be generally relevant, but not as relevant as the
>advertising. You're still thinking of Google as being a search engine
>with advertising stuck on the side. IMHO it's moved on it's an
>advertising engine with search results stuck in the middle.
I suppose it would depend on the SERP. I don't see that major of
changes in the SERPs I tend to look at or use most often - but I
generally seek out informational sites and many of those don't pay for
advertising - at least not in the manner inferred above.
>> I think Google is smart to realize people will try to rank well on
>> their search engine - thus many employing SEO techniques. Google will
>> just try to keep the lid on the tea kettle versus having overzealous
>> attempts at ranking well turn off the users of the SE?
>>
>
>Most users don't even differentiate between the adverts and the natural
>results. They just want whatever they're looking for.
And they know when the results don't match what they are looking for
or - if they try another SE - if another SE seems to bring back better
results.
I wouldn't knock the average search engine user - many were quick to
pick up that Yahoo was using "paid for placement" for a while about 4
years ago and they grumbled enough to have Yahoo modify how they were
doing it.
>Googly knows which side of the bread is buttered. It makes money though
>people clicking on its adverts, not by people doing searches.
The two work hand in hand though. Can't have people using their search
to click on the adverts if people are not pleased with the results -
so start using it less often.
One way of
>increasing revenue is making it impossible for SEO to work (fluxing),
Will it be possible to have SEO _not_ work?
Doubt it. Search facilities have been dealing with SEO techniques
since around the mid-90's ... it was desire by people to "rank high on
results" at those search facilities that lead to META being ignored,
comment tags once a popular keyword stuffing area, and development of
link popularity.
>thereby forcing the people who relied on SEO for their traffic to move
>to advertising.
Unlikely as the search engines also know part of their databases
include educational, recreational, and informational sites. There is
more to the web than commercial sites.
>I'm not saying that this is what is happening! and if it does happen, it
>will more likely happen over a number of years, not months. (Like
>Googlys introduction of increasing numbers of adverts).
And Google's introduction of Froogle?
If they are thinking of increasing the number of adverts - therefore,
in essence, one has to pay to be listed/be found/near the top ... then
I will agree with you that this is years away.
Right now Google can profits, from searches through their SEor others
(Yahoo or MSN) through people clicking on Adsense. They also have
other tricks up their sleeve on otehr venues they can go into and
profit from. Thier search engine isn't the main means.
Their profit magin is probably bettered when considering they don't
need a large advertising budget. I dont' recall seeing an
advertisement for Google - I have seen Google listed as the resource,
say on news shows and such where they lease/pay to use Google maps or
such services ... so free advertising for Google. One thing Google had
over other companies is little to no relience on advertising revenue.
I don't fully buy into "since Google went IPO they became money
hungry" theory as many of the projects rolled out since the IPO were
likely beign worked on or starting to be developed before the IPO
process started ... some projects can take 2 to 3 years before being
presented to the general public.
In another decade or so the web may not be as "free" as it is now. It
isn't as "free" as it was in 1995 - so things do change.
Stacey
news:37d2n1la1aft7jgqe...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> If I recall correctly - it involved a hidden link or two, mousover
> techniques, one-size-fits-all style of-keyword studded page, and link
> farming. Clients were silly enough to hand over their sites usernames
> and passwords to the SEO company without asking what the company was
> uploading.
>
A hidden link or two...........just made me laugh. I think it was closer to
3 or 4.:-) Yes, and they made loads of pages with keywords that didn't even
go with the site itself. It the site was about motorboats it had pages for
kitchen appliances.:-)
To Davemon just do a search for Traffic Power and you will find a whole lot
of complaints about them on the web.
Stacey
Big Bill
You don't get the same number of free sites but you do get more free
content as you have more sites offering a little bit free. It kind of
evens out so it's still a tremendous free resource for all kinds of
stuff.
Carol W
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"Carol W" <from...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:37d2n1la1aft7jgqe...@4ax.com...
>
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> If I recall correctly - it involved a hidden link or two, mousover
>> techniques, one-size-fits-all style of-keyword studded page, and link
>> farming. Clients were silly enough to hand over their sites usernames
>> and passwords to the SEO company without asking what the company was
>> uploading.
>>
>
>A hidden link or two...........just made me laugh. I think it was closer to
>3 or 4.:-)
Well - yes, I was being nice though. ;) You will notice I didn't
comment about the tweaked services the company offers now ...
Carol
Stacey
LOL(I know you know I wasn't laughing at you, but them)!! Yep, all that
embarrassment and they still are doing it. I was just recalling those 100's
of extra links on the footers of the sites and trying to get to one of the
pages with all the redirects. Yep, they were in the know how.:-)
So, are you back for a while?
Stacey
Carol W
<Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"Carol W" <from...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:jsk2n1ldbj139ll7p...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 02:10:38 +0100, "Stacey"
>> <Remove-th...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Carol W" <from...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:37d2n1la1aft7jgqe...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I recall correctly - it involved a hidden link or two, mousover
>>>> techniques, one-size-fits-all style of-keyword studded page, and link
>>>> farming. Clients were silly enough to hand over their sites usernames
>>>> and passwords to the SEO company without asking what the company was
>>>> uploading.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A hidden link or two...........just made me laugh. I think it was closer
>>>to
>>>3 or 4.:-)
>>
>> Well - yes, I was being nice though. ;) You will notice I didn't
>> comment about the tweaked services the company offers now ...
>
>LOL(I know you know I wasn't laughing at you, but them)!! Yep, all that
>embarrassment and they still are doing it.
You know they say that anyone talks bad about them is just jealous
.... ;) *chuckle*
I was just recalling those 100's
>of extra links on the footers of the sites and trying to get to one of the
>pages with all the redirects. Yep, they were in the know how.:-)
>
>So, are you back for a while?
Still limited timewise at the moment but I think I finally got one
group filtered enough to where I am not downloading some nonsenical
posts - thus those wasting some of my online time in grabbign those in
with other posts. One time I downloaded 800+ posts from one group and
around 500 of them were from one person (and each one of those posts
were just a waste of time in downloading) ... sheesh!
However, by the end of hte week I may have used my online time
allottment so won't be here for Thanksgiving. :( So save a piece of
pumpkin pie with a dollop of whipped topping for me!
Carol
Stacey
>>
>>LOL(I know you know I wasn't laughing at you, but them)!! Yep, all that
>>embarrassment and they still are doing it.
>
> You know they say that anyone talks bad about them is just jealous
> .... ;) *chuckle*
Yep.:-)
>
> I was just recalling those 100's
>>of extra links on the footers of the sites and trying to get to one of the
>>pages with all the redirects. Yep, they were in the know how.:-)
>>
>>So, are you back for a while?
>
> Still limited timewise at the moment but I think I finally got one
> group filtered enough to where I am not downloading some nonsenical
> posts - thus those wasting some of my online time in grabbign those in
> with other posts. One time I downloaded 800+ posts from one group and
> around 500 of them were from one person (and each one of those posts
> were just a waste of time in downloading) ... sheesh!
Yeah, I am going to have to just hit the catch-up on the laptop when hubby
comes back on Sat. It can be confusing when you are just wanting to see some
particulars.
>
> However, by the end of hte week I may have used my online time
> allottment so won't be here for Thanksgiving. :( So save a piece of
> pumpkin pie with a dollop of whipped topping for me!
Well, shoot I was enjoying your visit! BTW you forgot the cuppa.....I will
have that also.
Stacey
Davémon
<snip Traffic Power>
Thanks for clearing that up. Still a bit of digging for me to do, but
that helps a lot!
>
>>Googly knows which side of the bread is buttered. It makes money though
>>people clicking on its adverts, not by people doing searches.
>
>
> The two work hand in hand though. Can't have people using their search
> to click on the adverts if people are not pleased with the results -
> so start using it less often.
>
Yep. But I still maintain that the user /doesn't care/ if it's paid
advertising, or 'natural search', it just wants those results.
If Google can migrate all business sites over to advertising, and just
keep the not-for-profit information sites, .org .gov and wikipedia in
the top 10, it will.
>
> One way of
>
>>increasing revenue is making it impossible for SEO to work (fluxing),
>
>
> Will it be possible to have SEO _not_ work?
>
I believe so, add in a random factor. Permanent Jagger, fluxing the
serps. The user gets relevant, constantly changing results. In fact a
user might even search /more often/ to see if anything new has come up.
>
>>thereby forcing the people who relied on SEO for their traffic to move
>>to advertising.
>
>
> Unlikely as the search engines also know part of their databases
> include educational, recreational, and informational sites. There is
> more to the web than commercial sites.
>
Sure, but non-commercials already come up for most information only
sources. It's not hard to separate them out and ghettoise the commerical
sites.
>
>>I'm not saying that this is what is happening! and if it does happen, it
>>will more likely happen over a number of years, not months. (Like
>>Googlys introduction of increasing numbers of adverts).
>
>
> And Google's introduction of Froogle?
Like with the Blogsearch, it's ghettoising it's database.
Either way, neither of us know what Google is going to do. However I do
think the Permanent Jagger hypothesis has some merits as a business plan
for Google.
>
> I don't fully buy into "since Google went IPO they became money
> hungry"
IMHO they went money hungry as soon as they started its advertising
program, long before the IPO.
> In another decade or so the web may not be as "free" as it is now. It
> isn't as "free" as it was in 1995 - so things do change.
>
Change is the only certainty!
That was a great post Carol, sorry I snipped so much out I my reply. We
aren't ever going to agree about some of the subjects here, but it was
good to read your points, and thanks for taking the time to write it.
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk
Carol W
>Carol W wrote:
>
[snip]
>> Will it be possible to have SEO _not_ work?
>>
>
>I believe so, add in a random factor. Permanent Jagger, fluxing the
>serps. The user gets relevant, constantly changing results. In fact a
>user might even search /more often/ to see if anything new has come up.
So #1000 ranked site (prior ot Perm. Jagger fluxing) would stand a
chance of hitting Page 1 just due to fluxing? Or would they still have
to do some tweaking to get their page up to "fluxing"? If that latter,
then wouldn't SEO, even for Google's SE, still exist merely due to
people trying to figure out how to get Google to favor their site --
even for it to be deemed "flux" worthy.
I just feel that as long as people think there is _some_thing they can
do to have their site do better in a search engine, SEO will be
implemented by people on their sites.
[snip]
>That was a great post Carol, sorry I snipped so much out I my reply. We
>aren't ever going to agree about some of the subjects here, but it was
>good to read your points,
I don't look for total agreement anyway - just enjoy chatting while
having a cup of coffee online. ;)
> and thanks for taking the time to write it.
No problem :)
Carol