wikipedia uses nofollow
Jez
Jez.
Big Bill
>I just saw that wikipedia are now using nofollow on all external links.
>
>Jez.
Good job I didn't bother to put one then! Actually I don't suppose it
matters too much if you've got a business page up there because if
people like what they read about you then they'll follow the link
anyway, which is kind of the point of having a page there, and,
indeed, of links in the first place.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/good-google-listing.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/content-management-systems.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/free-seo-advice.htm
Jez
Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:00:51 +0000, Jez <j....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> I just saw that wikipedia are now using nofollow on all external links.
>>
>> Jez.
>
> Good job I didn't bother to put one then! Actually I don't suppose it
> matters too much if you've got a business page up there because if
> people like what they read about you then they'll follow the link
> anyway, which is kind of the point of having a page there, and,
> indeed, of links in the first place.
>
> BB
I expect that it's going to be a huge shock to some people. I had one
very nice PR5 link from wikipedia for a couple of years and I mourn its
loss - but some have built their empires on wiki links.
Jez.
mirage
How did you find that out?
--
mirage
Visit http://www.hostingforum.ca today
stevewagon
Yes i am also interested how did you find that wikepedia is not
following the external links.
Jez
mirage wrote:
> How did you find that out?
>
>
I looked on the source code on the page that i have a link on and then
saw it was nofollow and checked some more pages.
Jez.
John Bokma
> Yes i am also interested how did you find that wikepedia is not
> following the external links.
Because they set the rel attribute to nofollow.
The sad thing is that this has been decided by one person and that again
people fall for "nofollow" stops spam bullshit.
--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
Ignoramus20599
> "stevewagon" <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes i am also interested how did you find that wikepedia is not
>> following the external links.
>
> Because they set the rel attribute to nofollow.
>
> The sad thing is that this has been decided by one person and that again
> people fall for "nofollow" stops spam bullshit.
>
I have experimented with adding spam to wikipedia, and found that
while its pagerank effects are obviously large, the amount of traffic
it generated was not too great. That was for algebra.com. So, as far
as I am concerned, the effect of nofollow for me would remove 98% of
the incentive to put up my links.
To clarify, I do not and did not spam wikipedia, I simply placed links
to related things such as a link to my logarithm calculator in the
logarithm section, etc.
i
Denise
"Jez" <j....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:51m4mbF...@mid.individual.net...
>I just saw that wikipedia are now using nofollow on all external links.
>
> Jez.
Rats. There are 18 links from Wikipedia pages (mostly PR5 & 6) to my primary
website.
So this sucks. But, there's nothing to be done, so I can't lose any sleep
over it.
best,
Denise
John Bokma
> I have experimented with adding spam to wikipedia, and found that
> while its pagerank effects are obviously large, the amount of traffic
> it generated was not too great. That was for algebra.com. So, as far
> as I am concerned, the effect of nofollow for me would remove 98% of
> the incentive to put up my links.
I am afraid that a lot of spam goes automatically. Not sure with
Wikipedia, but it's not that hard to write a program that does the
following:
pick an URL from a huge list of wiki pages
add several links to it
repeat until list is exhausted
stuff similar to this already runs on bot nets, wouldn't amaze me if less
visited Wikipedia pages are on the list.
The big joke is that spammers are 4-5 steps ahead while "we" are thinking
about shall we add nofollow or not, captcha or not, etc.
spam stops when:
- sites are taken down fast
- hosting providers that don't take sites belonging to spammers down
are immediately world wide black listed
- ISPs /disconnect/ infected computers (part of botnet) and then
ask customer to clean up the shit
- ISPs that don't take down spamming customers are immediately
world wide black listed
Sadly it's not happening. Blogspot currently hosts thousands and thousands
of sites that do nothing but redirecting (using JavaScript) to affiliate
sites and new sites are added faster then the old ones are dropped (my
idea, but I have the bad feeling I am right).
Several hosting providers don't care shit about spam and make money
hosting garbage.
A lot of ISPs don't care as long as customers pay.
John Bokma
>
> "Jez" <j....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:51m4mbF...@mid.individual.net...
>>I just saw that wikipedia are now using nofollow on all external
>>links.
>>
>> Jez.
>
> Rats. There are 18 links from Wikipedia pages (mostly PR5 & 6) to my
> primary website.
>
> So this sucks. But, there's nothing to be done,
Sure there is, you can complain like many other people are doing. The
weird thing is that one guy enforced this while not long ago the option
was voted away.
* It's not going to stop spam *
Spam only stops when the people responsible are kicked in the balls, hard.
Sadly people are looking everywhere for automated solutions, while
spammers are already using automated solutions that are several steps
ahead.
On the positive site, lets hope that all big sites are going to clutter up
their HTML with nofollow and that PageRank gets killed.
Big Bill
Wait for the serps to shuffle! Just shows, you shouldn't put your eggs
in one basket.
Big Bill
wrote:
It's still being reported in various places. If you want to follow SEO
you need to subscribe to some newsletters, feeds etc.
Big Bill
wrote:
>
>How did you find that out?
It's being reported in various places.
Big Bill
wrote:
Sure there is, Denise, you can start thinking about where to get more
links from.
You have that directory submission site, don't you? Maybe I should put
a link on from my linkpop page.
Denise
news:ir6dncgloqlh3ivY...@giganews.com...
> On 23 Jan 2007 17:08:26 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> "stevewagon" <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
> I have experimented with adding spam to wikipedia, and found that
> while its pagerank effects are obviously large, the amount of traffic
> it generated was not too great.
We get a great deal of traffic from links from Wikipedia - Wikipedia is
usually one of our top 2 referrers.
(These are links from Wikipedia pages to very closely related pages on our
site.)
I guess it just depends on the site / topic.
Denise
Big Bill
wrote:
Some imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before. What can I
do about that, anyone know? Do we keep overwriting each other till one
gives up?
John Bokma
> Some imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
> back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before. What can I
> do about that, anyone know? Do we keep overwriting each other till one
> gives up?
Depends, sometimes I got my stuff removed from Wikipedia as well,
sometimes I did so myself (stuff written by others). In the former case
often the reason was a good one.
What was the reason given? (Check the history page).
@Denise: yes, I get for some topics some nice additional visitors via
Wikipedia. It has been suggested to remove nofollow from links that have
been in an article for some time. I think that's a good option.
1100000
>I just saw that wikipedia are now using nofollow on all external links.
Terrible decision on their part. Once everyone adds rel=nofollow to their
sites search engines will have to start reading those links... otherwise
they will have no data to work with. I have a feeling that search engines
do not always obey rel=nofollow in all situations anyway.
You can see rel=nofollow links right on Web pages if you download the Search
Status Firefox Extension. Click (or right-click) on the "q" in the Firefox
status bar and choose "highlight rel nofollow links". It makes browsing a
lot more informative.
--
http://tips.webdesign10.com/best-firefox-extensions-revisited
1100000
> On the positive site, lets hope that all big sites are going to clutter up
> their HTML with nofollow and that PageRank gets killed.
Get the Search Status Firefox Extension and browse with rel=nofollow
highlighted... It's amazing to see how many sites use rel=nofollow and what
their strategies are.
--
http://tips.webdesign10.com/
Jezsta Web Productions
news:Xns98C1B49417...@130.133.1.4...
> Big Bill <bi...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Some imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
>> back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before. What can I
>> do about that, anyone know? Do we keep overwriting each other till one
>> gives up?
>
> Depends, sometimes I got my stuff removed from Wikipedia as well,
> sometimes I did so myself (stuff written by others). In the former case
> often the reason was a good one.
I suppose Bill didn't read that the Article needs to be written like an
Advertisement. The person who rewrote it appears to be one of the users:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuru
> What was the reason given? (Check the history page).
Yeah to revert back to the old.
Stacey
--
Valentine Stuff - Where it is Valentine's Day Every Day!
http://valentine-stuff.net
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns98C1B49417...@130.133.1.4...
>> Big Bill <bi...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Some imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
>>> back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before. What can I
>>> do about that, anyone know? Do we keep overwriting each other till one
>>> gives up?
>>
>> Depends, sometimes I got my stuff removed from Wikipedia as well,
>> sometimes I did so myself (stuff written by others). In the former case
>> often the reason was a good one.
>
>I suppose Bill didn't read that the Article needs to be written like an
>Advertisement. The person who rewrote it appears to be one of the users:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuru
>
>> What was the reason given? (Check the history page).
>
>Yeah to revert back to the old.
>
>Stacey
They would rather have something inaccurate? Anyway, an advert for
what? SSS? Does any entry about submission have to appear like an
advert for it?
Phil Payne
> very nice PR5 link from wikipedia for a couple of years and I mourn its
> loss - but some have built their empires on wiki links.
I think it's a good thing. A couple of years back I had a live link to
my site in a Wikipedia article - unsolicited. Someone scraped the Wiki
page and built a couple of thousand domains using that text - I went
from a couple of thousand earned organic links to four thousand, half
of them spammers.
I was worried sh1tless for a couple of days, but Google seemed to deal
with it. The link: search stopped working, toolbar PageRank went
haywire, but traffic was unaffected.
John Bokma
Other option is to hack your userContent.css, add (untested):
a[href~="nofollow"] { border solid red 1px; }
^ --> one value matches nofollow
(e.g. href="external nofollow foo bar")
See: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113/#selectors
Which is somewhat permanent.
Jezsta Web Productions
news:ca8dr2tsni3c9qqfa...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:55:09 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns98C1B49417...@130.133.1.4...
>>> Big Bill <bi...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
>>>> back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before. What can I
>>>> do about that, anyone know? Do we keep overwriting each other till one
>>>> gives up?
>>>
>>> Depends, sometimes I got my stuff removed from Wikipedia as well,
>>> sometimes I did so myself (stuff written by others). In the former case
>>> often the reason was a good one.
>>
>>I suppose Bill didn't read that the Article needs to be written like an
>>Advertisement. The person who rewrote it appears to be one of the users:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuru
>>
>>> What was the reason given? (Check the history page).
>>
>>Yeah to revert back to the old.
>>
>>Stacey
>
> They would rather have something inaccurate? Anyway, an advert for
> what? SSS? Does any entry about submission have to appear like an
> advert for it?
No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a paragraph
when it states on the page that it has to be written like an advert.
Do they want something in accurate? Well the only thing I see that is kind
of inaccurate is:
"Search Engine Submission is a way to promote a website."
But would that be considered kind of accurate also as they don't say you
have to submit. They just state it is a way to promote a website, and in
fact it is a way if you want to do it, like via a sitemap which we do
encourage at times to help get all pages indexed.
The rest still holds true, except that most places are doing "no follows".
But some aren't so it is still good to post to forums and NG with a sig. And
getting a link from other websites and directories are still good ways to
get noticed.
So what was so terribly outdate and wrong to you? As they listed how to get
your site submitted(seen and indexed) into the SE's, and all of them are
still ways of doing it.
Oh, and BTW it is optimization for US sites.:-)
John Bokma
> No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a
> paragraph when it states on the page that it has to be written like an
> advert.
"This article or section is written like an advertisement.
Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per
Wikipedia policy."
In short: write it neutral, /not/ like an ad.
1100000
>
> Other option is to hack your userContent.css, add (untested):
>
> a[href~="nofollow"] { border solid red 1px; }
>
> ^ --> one value matches nofollow
> (e.g. href="external nofollow foo bar")
Nice idea.
--
http://tips.webdesign10.com/
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>> Other option is to hack your userContent.css, add (untested):
>>
>> a[href~="nofollow"] { border solid red 1px; }
>>
>> ^ --> one value matches nofollow
>> (e.g. href="external nofollow foo bar")
>
> Nice idea.
3rd option is to use Greasemonkey. I use that to highlight links to
johnbokma.com [1] which helps to see if there is a real IBL or someone is
referer spamming :-)
[1] <http://johnbokma.com/firefox/greasemonkey/link-highlighter.html>
Ignoramus20599
Denise, could you quantify how much traffic that is, roughly?
Thanks.
i
Denise
Hm, based on a quick glance at my stats, about 12-15% of our traffic, I
think. Not bad for less than 20 links.
best,
Denise
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a
>> paragraph when it states on the page that it has to be written like an
>> advert.
>
> "This article or section is written like an advertisement.
> Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per
> Wikipedia policy."
>
> In short: write it neutral, /not/ like an ad.
I read it as help rewrite with a neutral point of view in the style of an
Ad. Which is why it was placed back in the same style. It reads somewhat
like an ad. Giving points to why do something.
Ignoramus20599
> "Ignoramus20599" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.20599.invalid> wrote in message
> news:NdKdnQqMSqO_XivY...@giganews.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:12:50 GMT, Denise <dio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Ignoramus20599" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.20599.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:ir6dncgloqlh3ivY...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 23 Jan 2007 17:08:26 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>>> "stevewagon" <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have experimented with adding spam to wikipedia, and found that
>>>> while its pagerank effects are obviously large, the amount of traffic
>>>> it generated was not too great.
>>>
>>> We get a great deal of traffic from links from Wikipedia - Wikipedia is
>>> usually one of our top 2 referrers.
>>> (These are links from Wikipedia pages to very closely related pages on
>>> our
>>> site.)
>>>
>>> I guess it just depends on the site / topic.
>>
>> Denise, could you quantify how much traffic that is, roughly?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> i
>
> Hm, based on a quick glance at my stats, about 12-15% of our traffic, I
> think. Not bad for less than 20 links.
>
Denise, I mean in terms of visits per day, that would be what I am
interested in, thanks.
i
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98C1C03A0C...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a
>>> paragraph when it states on the page that it has to be written like
>>> an advert.
>>
>> "This article or section is written like an advertisement.
>> Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per
>> Wikipedia policy."
>>
>> In short: write it neutral, /not/ like an ad.
>
> I read it as help rewrite with a neutral point of view in the style of
> an Ad.
No, it's currently written like an ad and the request is to write it
neutrally, hence not like an ad.
> Which is why it was placed back in the same style. It reads
> somewhat like an ad. Giving points to why do something.
Yup, and that's what the warning is about: don't write like it's an ad for
SE submission, write a neutral article ;-)
John Bokma
> Denise, I mean in terms of visits per day, that would be what I am
> interested in, thanks.
45/day here, 1018 as of today.
Big Bill
>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a
>> paragraph when it states on the page that it has to be written like an
>> advert.
>
>"This article or section is written like an advertisement.
> Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per
> Wikipedia policy."
>
>In short: write it neutral, /not/ like an ad.
I did, I rewrote what was there and what I wrote isn't like an advert.
Interesting how Stacey misses things sometimes.
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
The rest isn't about search engine submissions. It's irrelevant.
>But some aren't so it is still good to post to forums and NG with a sig. And
>getting a link from other websites and directories are still good ways to
>get noticed.
>
>So what was so terribly outdate and wrong to you? As they listed how to get
>your site submitted(seen and indexed) into the SE's, and all of them are
>still ways of doing it.
They did? Hold on.... this is they...
--------------------------------------
Search Engine Submission is a way to promote a website. Webmasters
highly desire that their sites be among the top 10 in such search
engines as Google, Yahoo, and MSN.
To maximize website visibility for search engines, webmasters build
backlinks on other pages. Many ways to build backlinks are available.
Create a unique context so that links will appear in various online
forums and discussions. Other websites will link your website without
charge if they find it useful and interesting.
Submit your website to various online directories.
Post your links in various online forums.
Use link exchange -- some services can help with this.
Write articles -- thousands of websites can help with this.
Buy links on other websites.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_submission"
--------------------------------
end they. Are we talking about the same page here? I actually wrote;
Search Engine Submission is one of the most-searched for terms in
relation to seo or search engine optimisation. Many people are
searching for a way to increase their prominence in the search
engines, most particularly Google, and seem to believe that submission
to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of engines is the best way to do
it.
That's not true.
A search engine is basically a database. If a database contains
details of the number of tractor manufacturers in Oregon, USA, and
invites submissions from any newly-arrived firms dealing with that
market, there's not a lot of point in submitting your site about Kylie
to it. You can submit it, sure, and there are people on the web, in
prominent positions in Google no less, who will happily take your
money from you to do just that.
But it's pointless.
The same goes for your web site about your business, the one that
you've worked hard to build up that now supports both you and your
family, perhaps a handful or more of employees too. Is there really
any point in submitting details of your site to a database that is
only concerned with matters relating to tractor manufacture in Oregon,
Ohio? Or, indeed, to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of similarly
specialised databases?
Obviously not.
It's long been held in the SEO world that submission to search engines
is a waste of time. The best way to get indexed by Google, Yahoo, MSN
or Ask is to get a link to your site from another site that's already
in their index, has good Page Rank, and thus will be frequently
spidered.
That's it. That's all you need to do.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_submission"
------------------------------------------------------
end what I wrote.
What's wrong with what I wrote? And from the look of it, the original
has a problem *because* it's written like and advert. That's why it
has the ! sign with it. I think that means danger; this article is
written like an advert so it can't fully be trusted.
What's wrong with what I wrote?
BB
>Oh, and BTW it is optimization for US sites.:-)
>
>Stacey
--
Jezsta Web Productions
> On 24 Jan 2007 00:53:49 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a
>>> paragraph when it states on the page that it has to be written like an
>>> advert.
>>
>>"This article or section is written like an advertisement.
>> Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per
>> Wikipedia policy."
>>
>>In short: write it neutral, /not/ like an ad.
>
> I did, I rewrote what was there and what I wrote isn't like an advert.
> Interesting how Stacey misses things sometimes.
I didn't miss anything. I read what you wrote. Yours obviously got taken
down and the other put back up so they want it in the format that it was as
they didn't like yours.
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:34:21 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>But would that be considered kind of accurate also as they don't say you
>>have to submit. They just state it is a way to promote a website, and in
>>fact it is a way if you want to do it, like via a sitemap which we do
>>encourage at times to help get all pages indexed.
>>
>>The rest still holds true, except that most places are doing "no follows".
>
> The rest isn't about search engine submissions. It's irrelevant.
Not really. I look at being "submitted" by the SE as indexing. No you don't
actually have to fill out the submission forms. Submission as the dictionary
states can being "considered for" or being "compliant". So it isn't all
irrelevant.
>>But some aren't so it is still good to post to forums and NG with a sig.
>>And
>>getting a link from other websites and directories are still good ways to
>>get noticed.
>>
>>So what was so terribly outdate and wrong to you? As they listed how to
>>get
>>your site submitted(seen and indexed) into the SE's, and all of them are
>>still ways of doing it.
>
> They did? Hold on.... this is they...
Yes they did. All of those ways are ways to get your site seen and indexed.
> --------------------------------------
> Search Engine Submission is a way to promote a website. Webmasters
> highly desire that their sites be among the top 10 in such search
> engines as Google, Yahoo, and MSN.
Yep. Remember it doesn't have to be the act of submitting the form.
> To maximize website visibility for search engines, webmasters build
> backlinks on other pages. Many ways to build backlinks are available.
Yeah, stills works in my book to get your site seen and crawled.
>
> Create a unique context so that links will appear in various online
> forums and discussions. Other websites will link your website without
> charge if they find it useful and interesting.
Yeah still works.
> Submit your website to various online directories.
Still works.
> Post your links in various online forums.
Kind of works.
> Use link exchange -- some services can help with this.
Yep still works.
> Write articles -- thousands of websites can help with this.
Lots of time for this, but still works. I would much rather keep my
articles than to have them everywhere.
> Buy links on other websites.
Still works.
All of those are WAYS they listed to have your site "considered" for their
index. Considered and compliant is submission.
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_submission"
>
> --------------------------------
>
> end they. Are we talking about the same page here? I actually wrote;
Yes.
> Search Engine Submission is one of the most-searched for terms in
> relation to seo or search engine optimisation.
And where did you get your data here?
>Many people are
> searching for a way to increase their prominence in the search
> engines, most particularly Google, and seem to believe that submission
> to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of engines is the best way to do
> it.
I feel most people don't believe that. It is SEO's and "add me type sites"
who try and con them into that. I don't think people think you have to
submit to a million SE's to gain rankings. I didn't when I started out. I
didn't know what made the rankings. But I sure didn't think bugging people
with submissions all the time was going to get me in faster or gain me
rankings.
> That's not true.
> A search engine is basically a database. If a database contains
> details of the number of tractor manufacturers in Oregon, USA, and
> invites submissions from any newly-arrived firms dealing with that
> market, there's not a lot of point in submitting your site about Kylie
> to it. You can submit it, sure, and there are people on the web, in
> prominent positions in Google no less, who will happily take your
> money from you to do just that.
This above to me isn't to the point. You aren't really saying anything. You
are stating that these don't work. Have you any proof? Now we know you don't
need to do that, as all you need is a couple of links. But it isn't going to
hurt you to do it.
> But it's pointless.
That isn't a neutral statement. That is your opinion. As you can not say
that physically submitting your site to the SE's doesn't work. Do you have
proof that it doesn't work, because there are free companies that will do it
also.
> The same goes for your web site about your business, the one that
> you've worked hard to build up that now supports both you and your
> family, perhaps a handful or more of employees too. Is there really
> any point in submitting details of your site to a database that is
> only concerned with matters relating to tractor manufacture in Oregon,
> Ohio? Or, indeed, to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of similarly
> specialised databases?
>
> Obviously not.
See now you are getting into more than SE form submittal.
> It's long been held in the SEO world that submission to search engines
> is a waste of time. The best way to get indexed by Google, Yahoo, MSN
> or Ask is to get a link to your site from another site that's already
> in their index, has good Page Rank, and thus will be frequently
> spidered.
>
> That's it. That's all you need to do.
>
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_submission"
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> end what I wrote.
>
> What's wrong with what I wrote? And from the look of it, the original
> has a problem *because* it's written like and advert. That's why it
> has the ! sign with it. I think that means danger; this article is
> written like an advert so it can't fully be trusted.
Well you see I interpret it differently. It didn't look like a warning to
me. But hey that is me. The person who is a user there obviously liked the
one before over yours. So there you have it.:-) I am not the one complaining
about having what I wrote removed.
> What's wrong with what I wrote?
To long and not to the point of what can be done. You left out things that
is obviously good things like submitting site maps which is a form of
physical submission. There was nothing wrong really with what they had if
you think about what is submission, look at it by not way of a submitting a
form. They never said to submit to 1000's of SE's and directories. In fact
the little advert type way of the bullet statements was good advise and will
get your site submitted(indexed).
Danie|
On Jan 24, 7:17 am, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2007 00:53:49 GMT, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-our-contact-f...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
> >> No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a
> >> paragraph when it states on the page that it has to be written like an
> >> advert.
>
> >"This article or section is written like an advertisement.
> > Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per
> > Wikipedia policy."
>
> >In short: write it neutral, /not/ like an ad.I did, I rewrote what was there and what I wrote isn't like an advert.
> Interesting how Stacey misses things sometimes.
>
> BB
> --http://www.kruse.co.uk/good-google-listing.htmhttp://www.kruse.co.uk/content-management-systems.htmhttp://www.kruse.co.uk/free-seo-advice.htm
de.wikipedia.org has been using nofollow for quite some time.
It really sucks sometimes, in some cases if someone steals
content from your small expert site. Sometimes there'll be a
source link but that link doesn't coun't cause it is nofollow.
Well and because wikipedia has such a high general value
it will soon rank over the the small expert site sometimes
even with the name of the site as the keyword.
Theoreticaly your website then can recive a punishment by G
for "duplical content" - well we all know how many people set
up wikipedia clones -.-
I understand the intention to make it uninteresting for SEOs to
set up links in wikipedia but that argument doesn't work cause
there would be other better possibilitys. This really crushes the
idea of seeing links as recomendation for SE.
Greetings
Danie|
Danie|
Borek
> Some imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
> back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before.
Wikipedia is (or wants to be) an encyclopedia. IMHO your entry is an
example of journalism. I mean - you may post such an article on your site
to state what what is your opinion, you may post it as an article for
discussion somewhere else, but it doesn't fit Wikipedia style.
just $.02
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&right=pH-calculator
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-electrode
http://www.bpp.com.pl/?left=dysleksja&right=dysleksja
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl
1100000
> 3rd option is to use Greasemonkey. I use that to highlight links to
> johnbokma.com [1] which helps to see if there is a real IBL or someone is
> referer spamming :-)
>
> [1] <http://johnbokma.com/firefox/greasemonkey/link-highlighter.html>
Great idea... I'm going to try that...
tonnie
> "Denise" <dio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jez" <j....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:51m4mbF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> I just saw that wikipedia are now using nofollow on all external
>>> links.
>>>
>> Rats. There are 18 links from Wikipedia pages (mostly PR5 & 6) to my
>> primary website.
>>
>> So this sucks. But, there's nothing to be done,
>
> Sure there is, you can complain like many other people are doing. The
> weird thing is that one guy enforced this while not long ago the option
> was voted away.
>
> * It's not going to stop spam *
It is not, indeed. But the whole idea is to make it less attractive.
It's the same with speeding, every one knows one should not, but still
some do. What now? Drop the speedlimits?
> Spam only stops when the people responsible are kicked in the balls, hard.
> Sadly people are looking everywhere for automated solutions, while
> spammers are already using automated solutions that are several steps
> ahead.
Jepp, but some spammers do get kicked in the balls, loosing their
account, getting fined and even put behind bars.
> On the positive site, lets hope that all big sites are going to clutter up
> their HTML with nofollow and that PageRank gets killed.
Their page rank or page rank as suchs?
--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html
Ignoramus15927
> Ignoramus20599 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.20599.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Denise, I mean in terms of visits per day, that would be what I am
>> interested in, thanks.
>
> 45/day here, 1018 as of today.
>
I see. Yes, that's consistent with my experiences also, though to me
it was of minor nature (given that I get about 5k visits to my site
from other sources).
I am a big fan of wikipedia as information source, various pettiness
notwithstanding.
i
1100000
Just tried it -- very useful...
N-H-P
On Jan 23, 4:15 pm, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> DeniseSome imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
> back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before. What can I
> do about that, anyone know? Do we keep overwriting each other till one
> gives up?
YES
Do it too often and they will lock the article. Participate in too
many edit wars and you will end up being banned, and banned for life
from editing your favorite articles.
To quote WikiPedia, nobody owns an article.
Your criticism of WikiPedia indicates that you just have a bad
attitude. :(
John Bokma
> I didn't miss anything. I read what you wrote. Yours obviously got
> taken down and the other put back up so they want it in the format
> that it was as they didn't like yours.
No, they /don't/ want it in it's current format (like an ad), they want a
replacement, but Bill's didn't qualify as such.
John Bokma
Thanks :-)
John Bokma
[ nofollow ]
> It's the same with speeding, every one knows one should not, but still
> some do. What now? Drop the speedlimits?
email filtering -> the whole idea is to make it less attractive. The odd
thing is that somehow it just increases.
So, no, it's not the same with speeding. Wiki spam should be compared with
strongly related forms of spam, not with driving a car.
>> Spam only stops when the people responsible are kicked in the balls,
>> hard. Sadly people are looking everywhere for automated solutions,
>> while spammers are already using automated solutions that are several
>> steps ahead.
>
> Jepp, but some spammers do get kicked in the balls, loosing their
> account, getting fined and even put behind bars.
Yeah, it really helps to arrest one guy, and give him 101 years...
>> On the positive site, lets hope that all big sites are going to
>> clutter up their HTML with nofollow and that PageRank gets killed.
>
> Their page rank or page rank as suchs?
The latter. What I am afraid of is that big sites will start to nofollow
all their links just because.
Denise
Don't understand why my visitor stats are important here, beyond a
percentage, but it would come to nearly 7000 visitors per month, or 200 or
so a day.
Our site does sell something - but it's also a voluminous resource site,
offering hundreds of (original) articles & other features (art galleries,
interviews, etc.) related to what we're selling. In fact, most of the
visitors to our site are looking for information, rather than to make a
purchase. Not a lot of those 250 Wikipedia visitors convert into sales, but
we're OK with that.
cheers ~
Denise
John Bokma
> On 24 Jan 2007 04:55:00 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus20599 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.20599.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Denise, I mean in terms of visits per day, that would be what I am
>>> interested in, thanks.
>>
>> 45/day here, 1018 as of today.
>>
>
> I see. Yes, that's consistent with my experiences also, though to me
> it was of minor nature (given that I get about 5k visits to my site
> from other sources).
Yes, here as well, I mean if I add 5 pages to my site I get 50/day on
average extra, so it's insignificant in one way. In the other way it's
very targetted traffic.
> I am a big fan of wikipedia as information source, various pettiness
> notwithstanding.
Ditto. That just one guy can decide on the nofollow issue "shortly" after
a majority has voted against makes we really wonder what's going to happen
in the feature. The biggest back stabbing would be adding ads. I have been
wondering for quite some time if I wanted to provide Wikipedia with
photo's I have made (have been asked) and since the whim of one cofounder
(?) can have such impact I have decided against it.
tonnie
> tonnie <t.pr...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> [ nofollow ]
>
>> It's the same with speeding, every one knows one should not, but still
>> some do. What now? Drop the speedlimits?
>
> email filtering -> the whole idea is to make it less attractive. The odd
> thing is that somehow it just increases.
And that, has nothing to do with the filter, or are you trying to tell
me that due to the filter the spam has increased?
That it increases has to do with governments and their lack of knowledge
and that they don't care, because they can't put up a nice show on an
important issue. Hey, i made internet a less spammy place doesn't show
as good as 'hey i saved the world by reducing CO2 with 0.00001%.
> So, no, it's not the same with speeding. Wiki spam should be compared with
> strongly related forms of spam, not with driving a car.
That's your opinion, but if you look at how people work, what they do
and don't regarding to rules, the example is a perfect one. It's all
about 'give a shit' about others.
So to reduce spam, you should make people aware of the problem and try
to alter their attitude.
>>> Spam only stops when the people responsible are kicked in the balls,
>>> hard. Sadly people are looking everywhere for automated solutions,
>>> while spammers are already using automated solutions that are several
>>> steps ahead.
>> Jepp, but some spammers do get kicked in the balls, loosing their
>> account, getting fined and even put behind bars.
>
> Yeah, it really helps to arrest one guy, and give him 101 years...
It most certainly doesn't help doing nothing. John, you are angry about
spam, but all that is done is wrong in your eyes.
Don't you think that by setting an example, people might think 'hey, he
got arrested and so could i' certainly some might think about that and
stop spamming?
Or do you think your action against spammers here is useless?
You catch one, and if enough of them see that people get caught, it damn
well can make a difference.
>>> On the positive site, lets hope that all big sites are going to
>>> clutter up their HTML with nofollow and that PageRank gets killed.
>> Their page rank or page rank as suchs?
>
> The latter. What I am afraid of is that big sites will start to nofollow
> all their links just because.
Verry large open community's and other sites, already do and i know
that's not good for the internet. But what else can a site do to stop
spam that is flooding their pages? Stop their services? Or try to make
people aware that spam isn't a good thing and block it by nofollow?
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't miss anything. I read what you wrote. Yours obviously got
>> taken down and the other put back up so they want it in the format
>> that it was as they didn't like yours.
>
> No, they /don't/ want it in it's current format (like an ad), they want a
> replacement, but Bill's didn't qualify as such.
Well I don't know who thinks it looks like a real ad anyway. To me it is
listing things and not advertising anything. :-) I personally am not
bothered with what is up there. And it has been there for over 6 mos.
Ahh, it looks like our pal "John Gohde" took it over anyway. :-)
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <bi...@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:m9udr25msljnh6b2l...@4ax.com...
>> On 24 Jan 2007 00:53:49 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No looking like an advert for the style. You wrote your like a
>>>> paragraph when it states on the page that it has to be written like an
>>>> advert.
>>>
>>>"This article or section is written like an advertisement.
>>> Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per
>>> Wikipedia policy."
>>>
>>>In short: write it neutral, /not/ like an ad.
>>
>> I did, I rewrote what was there and what I wrote isn't like an advert.
>> Interesting how Stacey misses things sometimes.
>
>I didn't miss anything. I read what you wrote. Yours obviously got taken
>down and the other put back up so they want it in the format that it was as
>they didn't like yours.
>
>Stacey
They *want* it wrong? In the Wikipedia? Anyhoo it's just some wiki
version of a netcop took it down, not any *they*.
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
But this is a page about search engine submission.
>> --------------------------------------
>> Search Engine Submission is a way to promote a website. Webmasters
>> highly desire that their sites be among the top 10 in such search
>> engines as Google, Yahoo, and MSN.
>
>Yep. Remember it doesn't have to be the act of submitting the form.
>
>> To maximize website visibility for search engines, webmasters build
>> backlinks on other pages. Many ways to build backlinks are available.
>
>Yeah, stills works in my book to get your site seen and crawled.
but it isn't related to search engine submission, is my point. Useful
seo, maybe, but not under the category. I write pertinent stuff and a
lot of it.
>>
>> Create a unique context so that links will appear in various online
>> forums and discussions. Other websites will link your website without
>> charge if they find it useful and interesting.
>
>Yeah still works.
for getting indexed, not SSS.
>> Submit your website to various online directories.
>
>Still works.
True. Never said otherwise, but it isn't about SSS. Mine was, and it's
better.
>> Post your links in various online forums.
>
>Kind of works.
But they aren't search engines!
>> Use link exchange -- some services can help with this.
>
>Yep still works.
>
>> Write articles -- thousands of websites can help with this.
>
>Lots of time for this, but still works. I would much rather keep my
>articles than to have them everywhere.
>
>> Buy links on other websites.
>
>Still works.
>
>All of those are WAYS they listed to have your site "considered" for their
>index. Considered and compliant is submission.
>
>> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_submission"
>>
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> end they. Are we talking about the same page here? I actually wrote;
>
>Yes.
>
>
>> Search Engine Submission is one of the most-searched for terms in
>> relation to seo or search engine optimisation.
>
>And where did you get your data here?
I looked! Why, do you think that I should have put some numbers in
from Wordtracker results? I suppose I could at that. Not a bad idea,
maybe.
>>Many people are
>> searching for a way to increase their prominence in the search
>> engines, most particularly Google, and seem to believe that submission
>> to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of engines is the best way to do
>> it.
>
>I feel most people don't believe that. It is SEO's and "add me type sites"
>who try and con them into that.
And there seems to be a huge market for it. There's a huge market for
dumb stuff people don't want or need. SSS demonstrates that.
> I don't think people think you have to
>submit to a million SE's to gain rankings. I didn't when I started out. I
>didn't know what made the rankings. But I sure didn't think bugging people
>with submissions all the time was going to get me in faster or gain me
>rankings.
I suspect you knew more than most.
>> That's not true.
>
>> A search engine is basically a database. If a database contains
>> details of the number of tractor manufacturers in Oregon, USA, and
>> invites submissions from any newly-arrived firms dealing with that
>> market, there's not a lot of point in submitting your site about Kylie
>> to it. You can submit it, sure, and there are people on the web, in
>> prominent positions in Google no less, who will happily take your
>> money from you to do just that.
>
>This above to me isn't to the point. You aren't really saying anything. You
>are stating that these don't work. Have you any proof? Now we know you don't
>need to do that, as all you need is a couple of links. But it isn't going to
>hurt you to do it.
Sure it is, it costs you money to pay people and it's pointless. I
could expand it maybe though, say it won't hurt to submit to Google
etc. if they really want to.
>> But it's pointless.
>
>That isn't a neutral statement. That is your opinion. As you can not say
>that physically submitting your site to the SE's doesn't work. Do you have
>proof that it doesn't work, because there are free companies that will do it
>also.
I go on to make clear that submitting to multiple (tens, hundreds
etc.)is a waste of time and why.
>> The same goes for your web site about your business, the one that
>> you've worked hard to build up that now supports both you and your
>> family, perhaps a handful or more of employees too. Is there really
>> any point in submitting details of your site to a database that is
>> only concerned with matters relating to tractor manufacture in Oregon,
>> Ohio? Or, indeed, to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of similarly
>> specialised databases?
>>
>> Obviously not.
>
>See now you are getting into more than SE form submittal.
It's directly involved in why you shouldn't do this kind of thing.
>> It's long been held in the SEO world that submission to search engines
>> is a waste of time. The best way to get indexed by Google, Yahoo, MSN
>> or Ask is to get a link to your site from another site that's already
>> in their index, has good Page Rank, and thus will be frequently
>> spidered.
>>
>> That's it. That's all you need to do.
>>
>> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_submission"
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> end what I wrote.
>>
>> What's wrong with what I wrote? And from the look of it, the original
>> has a problem *because* it's written like and advert. That's why it
>> has the ! sign with it. I think that means danger; this article is
>> written like an advert so it can't fully be trusted.
>
>Well you see I interpret it differently. It didn't look like a warning to
>me. But hey that is me. The person who is a user there obviously liked the
>one before over yours. So there you have it.:-) I am not the one complaining
>about having what I wrote removed.
>
>> What's wrong with what I wrote?
>
>To long and not to the point of what can be done. You left out things that
>is obviously good things like submitting site maps which is a form of
>physical submission.
That isn't what the page is supposed to be about, not when it was
first envisaged, I imagine, since I doubt there were site maps in them
far-off days. But I'll agree, I could have mentioned it.
> There was nothing wrong really with what they had if
>you think about what is submission, look at it by not way of a submitting a
>form. They never said to submit to 1000's of SE's and directories. In fact
>the little advert type way of the bullet statements was good advise and will
>get your site submitted(indexed).
Submission is not indexing. That's a different subject. Feel free to
write a page.
BB
Big Bill
>>> On the positive site, lets hope that all big sites are going to
>>> clutter up their HTML with nofollow and that PageRank gets killed.
>>
>> Their page rank or page rank as suchs?
>
>The latter. What I am afraid of is that big sites will start to nofollow
>all their links just because.
Yay - back to on-page optimisation!
Big Bill
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.whats.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:15:22 +0100, Big Bill <bi...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Some imbecile netcop changed my entirely pertinent wiki submissoin
>> back to the heap of irrelevant crap that was there before.
>
>Wikipedia is (or wants to be) an encyclopedia. IMHO your entry is an
>example of journalism. I mean - you may post such an article on your site
>to state what what is your opinion, you may post it as an article for
>discussion somewhere else, but it doesn't fit Wikipedia style.
>
>just $.02
>
>Borek
I'll try and make it more neutral.
Jezsta Web Productions
John Bokma
> John Bokma schreef:
>> tonnie <t.pr...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>> [ nofollow ]
>>
>>> It's the same with speeding, every one knows one should not, but
>>> still some do. What now? Drop the speedlimits?
>>
>> email filtering -> the whole idea is to make it less attractive. The
>> odd thing is that somehow it just increases.
>
> And that, has nothing to do with the filter, or are you trying to tell
> me that due to the filter the spam has increased?
Yes.
Same reason why comment spam is (in my experience) on the rise.
>> So, no, it's not the same with speeding. Wiki spam should be compared
>> with strongly related forms of spam, not with driving a car.
>
> That's your opinion, but if you look at how people work, what they do
> and don't regarding to rules, the example is a perfect one. It's all
> about 'give a shit' about others.
I couldn't have said it better: nofollow is exactly that, not giving a
shit about others.
> So to reduce spam, you should make people aware of the problem and try
> to alter their attitude.
Yup, and adding a value to some attribute of a language most users of
Wikipedia have no clue about is exactly /not/ doing that.
>> Yeah, it really helps to arrest one guy, and give him 101 years...
>
> It most certainly doesn't help doing nothing. John, you are angry
> about spam, but all that is done is wrong in your eyes.
I call it ridiculous to give someone 101 years, it makes spam an even
bigger joke. It's unreal.
And nope, there are people who do /right/ and do help stopping spam. But
mistakes like Akismet and nofollow are not helping, I am afraid it's the
opposite.
> Don't you think that by setting an example, people might think 'hey,
> he got arrested and so could i' certainly some might think about that
> and stop spamming?
How many spammers have been arrested the past 10 years? Ten?
> Or do you think your action against spammers here is useless?
In several cases, yes. But you understand that what others and I do here
is /active/ versus the /passive/ nofollow, Akismet, and general
filtering of spam?
> You catch one, and if enough of them see that people get caught, it
> damn well can make a difference.
Usenet spam has in my opinion been stable for the past 10 years or so.
Furthermore, you can't compare Usenet spam with email spam and comment
spam. Usenet is nowadays an extra that doesn't come with most ISPs as
far as I know. This means that there is no point to run a program on a
hijacked computer to spam Usenet. The probability that you can connect
to Usenet is very slim other then via Google Groups which is possible
but cumbersome and slow.
Now for sending out email spam, or modifying webpages or posting to
webpages, that's a piece of cake. Some providers already block port 25
(hope I got the no right) outgoing, which stop the former. However,
editing webpages or posting is port 80. Much harder to stop.
>> The latter. What I am afraid of is that big sites will start to
>> nofollow all their links just because.
>
> Verry large open community's and other sites, already do and i know
> that's not good for the internet. But what else can a site do to stop
> spam that is flooding their pages? Stop their services? Or try to make
> people aware that spam isn't a good thing and block it by nofollow?
Uhm, spammers already know it's not a good thing. And they don't care
that much about nofollow. For example, blogspot is heavily abused as
follow: edit the blog template, inject JavaScript which redirects the
visitor to an affiliate URL. You know enough about this to understand
that from a technical point this is even worse compared to nofollow.
Yet it's done.
But at an extremely big scale, and hence, it makes money.
We're not talking about someone who tries to get 3,000 inbound links.
No, we are talking about spamming thousands and thousands of pages,
blogs, etc. to get 20,000 or more IBLs /per/ redirecting blog using
large zombienetworks.
Or at least, that's what I am guessing based on what I have seen so far.
nofollow tries to stop the little fishes while hurting everybody else.
John Bokma
[ SE submission Wikipedia entry ]
> Well I don't know who thinks it looks like a real ad anyway.
Same here, but nor the version we're talking about nor Bill's version
looked like a Wikipedia entry to me.
John Bokma
> They *want* it wrong?
No, Stacey misread it. They /don't/ want it written like an advertisement.
It must be a neutral informative sounding article. Not a personal vision,
nor an advertisement.
> In the Wikipedia? Anyhoo it's just some wiki
> version of a netcop took it down, not any *they*.
The version I saw, nor your version, looked like a Wikipedia entry to me,
so it's /they/. It's easy to call it "netcop" or worse, but Wikipedia is
what it is because there are guidelines and a lot of people understanding
those guidelines better compared to you or me, who keep it that way.
Like Stacey (?) said, your entry looked like a blog post (no offense).
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:12:40 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
Sorry about the last posting, accidentally hit the send without any posting.
<SNIP since Bill can't>
>>> To maximize website visibility for search engines, webmasters build
>>> backlinks on other pages. Many ways to build backlinks are available.
>>
>>Yeah, stills works in my book to get your site seen and crawled.
>
> but it isn't related to search engine submission, is my point. Useful
> seo, maybe, but not under the category. I write pertinent stuff and a
> lot of it.
That really wasn't pertinent in my opinion. Your seem to go on about a lot
of stuff that didn't matter, keep it straight and to the point without all
the bells and whistles of so called humor writing. "Search Engine
Submission" to me is getting your site "considered for inclusion" in the
index.
>>>
>>> Create a unique context so that links will appear in various online
>>> forums and discussions. Other websites will link your website without
>>> charge if they find it useful and interesting.
>>
>>Yeah still works.
>
> for getting indexed, not SSS.
And for getting your site in the "consideration for inclusion" =
"submission".
>>> Submit your website to various online directories.
>>
>>Still works.
>
> True. Never said otherwise, but it isn't about SSS. Mine was, and it's
> better.
And for getting your site in the "consideration for inclusion" =
"submission". Of course you would think yours is better:-), I already seen
that from your outrage that it got removed.:-)
>
>>> Post your links in various online forums.
>>
>>Kind of works.
>
> But they aren't search engines!
But it is for getting your site in the "consideration for inclusion" =
"submission".
<snip again>
>>> Search Engine Submission is one of the most-searched for terms in
>>> relation to seo or search engine optimisation.
>>
>>And where did you get your data here?
>
> I looked! Why, do you think that I should have put some numbers in
> from Wordtracker results? I suppose I could at that. Not a bad idea,
> maybe.
I checked and it has high #'s but doesn't beat out SEO or search engine
optimization, or the rest of the terms like services etc.
>
>>>Many people are
>>> searching for a way to increase their prominence in the search
>>> engines, most particularly Google, and seem to believe that submission
>>> to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of engines is the best way to do
>>> it.
>>
>>I feel most people don't believe that. It is SEO's and "add me type sites"
>>who try and con them into that.
>
> And there seems to be a huge market for it. There's a huge market for
> dumb stuff people don't want or need. SSS demonstrates that.
There is a lot of free services out there also. Won't hurt to do it. Just
don't pay a bundle. But what you should have stated is that a service is not
needed not pointless, etc.
>> I don't think people think you have to
>>submit to a million SE's to gain rankings. I didn't when I started out. I
>>didn't know what made the rankings. But I sure didn't think bugging people
>>with submissions all the time was going to get me in faster or gain me
>>rankings.
>
> I suspect you knew more than most.
Yeah, like you thought your article was better.:-)
I am putting myself back to day 1 of my website and what I did and what I
know others had done. I do know I did the freebie service from "Addme" and
it worked. I didn't have any links into my site. My site didn't get into the
DMOZ until 3 months when I found the person who did my category and also
sold fabric that I purchased. He told me to submit to the DMOZ. Every I did
a change with my website and had the service resubmit manually it got
changed quicker than having to wait.
Shoot I didn't really start doing any links until about 8 to 10 months
later. It was 1 year until I started really learning what was going on.
<snip>
>>This above to me isn't to the point. You aren't really saying anything.
>>You
>>are stating that these don't work. Have you any proof? Now we know you
>>don't
>>need to do that, as all you need is a couple of links. But it isn't going
>>to
>>hurt you to do it.
>
> Sure it is, it costs you money to pay people and it's pointless. I
> could expand it maybe though, say it won't hurt to submit to Google
> etc. if they really want to.
Yes, you should. And no it may not be pointless as there are some free
places like I told you. You have no idea if it can help you or not help you.
You just say it is pointless, instead of stating the facts. Like it isn't
necessary to do so.
>>> But it's pointless.
>>
>>That isn't a neutral statement. That is your opinion. As you can not say
>>that physically submitting your site to the SE's doesn't work. Do you have
>>proof that it doesn't work, because there are free companies that will do
>>it
>>also.
>
> I go on to make clear that submitting to multiple (tens, hundreds
> etc.)is a waste of time and why.
Still in your opinion.
>>> The same goes for your web site about your business, the one that
>>> you've worked hard to build up that now supports both you and your
>>> family, perhaps a handful or more of employees too. Is there really
>>> any point in submitting details of your site to a database that is
>>> only concerned with matters relating to tractor manufacture in Oregon,
>>> Ohio? Or, indeed, to tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of similarly
>>> specialised databases?
>>>
>>> Obviously not.
>>
>>See now you are getting into more than SE form submittal.
>
> It's directly involved in why you shouldn't do this kind of thing.
No in short you are stating that having your site linked from non related
sources hasn't got any worth. You don't know that.
<snip>
>
>> There was nothing wrong really with what they had if
>>you think about what is submission, look at it by not way of a submitting
>>a
>>form. They never said to submit to 1000's of SE's and directories. In fact
>>the little advert type way of the bullet statements was good advise and
>>will
>>get your site submitted(indexed).
>
> Submission is not indexing. That's a different subject. Feel free to
> write a page.
No but being found and being consider for inclusion is submission to the
index is. Which is close to the same as being indexed. As once the bot finds
you your site is usually indexed somewhere.
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:25:26 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>I didn't miss anything. I read what you wrote. Yours obviously got taken
>>down and the other put back up so they want it in the format that it was
>>as
>>they didn't like yours.
>
> They *want* it wrong? In the Wikipedia? Anyhoo it's just some wiki
> version of a netcop took it down, not any *they*.
They were users in the past 6 to 7 months, and it was put back to that style
several times.:-)
Borek
> And that, has nothing to do with the filter, or are you trying to tell
> me that due to the filter the spam has increased?
>
> That it increases has to do with governments and their lack of knowledge
> and that they don't care, because they can't put up a nice show on an
> important issue. Hey, i made internet a less spammy place doesn't show
> as good as 'hey i saved the world by reducing CO2 with 0.00001%.
Now as I think about it - spam sending cost energy, thus eliminating spam
you can reduce CO2 emissions ;)
N-H-P
On Jan 24, 1:17 am, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> What's wrong with what I wrote? And from the look of it, the original
> has a problem *because* it's written like and advert. That's why it
> has the ! sign with it. I think that means danger; this article is
> written like an advert so it can't fully be trusted.
>
> What's wrong with what I wrote?
I saw what is wrong with it right off. :)
Is that how you write web page copy?
I fixed the article. Now, other editors can edit it. No problem'o
when you have experience writing for wikipedia.
I could delete the entire backwards link section in a few days, as it
is totally off topic.
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
> [ SE submission Wikipedia entry ]
>> Well I don't know who thinks it looks like a real ad anyway.
>
> Same here, but nor the version we're talking about nor Bill's version
> looked like a Wikipedia entry to me.
Well as I posted of the part that got snipped it was being taken a hold of.
No problem though as I will restate it.
"Ahh, it looks like our pal "John Gohde" took it over anyway. :-)"
He seemed to be adding and changing and then he finally came up with the
correct Wiki write up and revised it with the before info and it really
isn't all that bad. I was rather surprised with it.
Seems our friend has been picking up some things here in the NG.:-)
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98C27B6312...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [ SE submission Wikipedia entry ]
>>> Well I don't know who thinks it looks like a real ad anyway.
>>
>> Same here, but nor the version we're talking about nor Bill's version
>> looked like a Wikipedia entry to me.
>
> Well as I posted of the part that got snipped it was being taken a
> hold of. No problem though as I will restate it.
I restate as well:
Wikipedia wanted the "before-Bill" version changed because it looked like
an ad. Not because it didn't look like an ad. "You" don't want ads on
Wikipedia but neutral writing.
The before version read like an ad, not a neutral entry.
Bill's version read like a blog post / an opinion and that's why Bill's
version got removed and the "ad" (pervious) version got restored.
Haven't seen our "friend"'s version yet though.
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98C27B6312...@130.133.1.4...
>>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ SE submission Wikipedia entry ]
>>>> Well I don't know who thinks it looks like a real ad anyway.
>>>
>>> Same here, but nor the version we're talking about nor Bill's version
>>> looked like a Wikipedia entry to me.
>>
>> Well as I posted of the part that got snipped it was being taken a
>> hold of. No problem though as I will restate it.
>
> I restate as well:
Oh, I agreed with you after reading it again. Wasn't disagreeing there just
coming in to state that "he" - Gohde rewrote it and was taking over. I was
worried when I first stated it.:-) Until I restated it here and found out he
didn't do so bad.
> Wikipedia wanted the "before-Bill" version changed because it looked like
> an ad. Not because it didn't look like an ad. "You" don't want ads on
> Wikipedia but neutral writing.
Yeah, you are right but concise bullet statements are fine also. But of
course then it looks like a dictionary.
> The before version read like an ad, not a neutral entry.
I don't know it, it just didn't seem addy to me, it may to some but stating
facts is OK as long as there is a little bit more so it won't be like I
mentioned above a dictionary. But maybe to others it looked like as ad.
> Bill's version read like a blog post / an opinion and that's why Bill's
> version got removed and the "ad" (pervious) version got restored.
Yes, I agree with it there. It said to much of the same stuff, but not
enough of data. Kind of like fluffing up paragraphs to make them longer. Not
that I mean to say anything to put Bill down it was he asked what he did
wrong. Not everyone know who Kylie is or anything like that. Also one has to
remember that when writing articles like that you have to keep things like
Kylie out of it. Plus keep in mind the spellings of the US as it is a.com
site.:-)
> Haven't seen our "friend"'s version yet though.
It is up and if you click on all the dates in the history you can see it
transform.:-)
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns98C27111AD...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't miss anything. I read what you wrote. Yours obviously got
>>> taken down and the other put back up so they want it in the format
>>> that it was as they didn't like yours.
>>
>> No, they /don't/ want it in it's current format (like an ad), they want a
>> replacement, but Bill's didn't qualify as such.
>
>Well I don't know who thinks it looks like a real ad anyway. To me it is
>listing things and not advertising anything. :-) I personally am not
>bothered with what is up there. And it has been there for over 6 mos.
>
>Ahh, it looks like our pal "John Gohde" took it over anyway. :-)
>
>Stacey
Well if that was him and it survives I'd say well done. It seems to do
the job ok. I guess I can use mine as an article.
Big Bill
<zx...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 24, 1:17 am, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with what I wrote? And from the look of it, the original
>> has a problem *because* it's written like and advert. That's why it
>> has the ! sign with it. I think that means danger; this article is
>> written like an advert so it can't fully be trusted.
>>
>> What's wrong with what I wrote?
>
>I saw what is wrong with it right off. :)
>
>Is that how you write web page copy?
Yup!
>I fixed the article. Now, other editors can edit it. No problem'o
>when you have experience writing for wikipedia.
>
>I could delete the entire backwards link section in a few days, as it
>is totally off topic.
I have no idea what you mean by that last. I have to say it looks like
you did the page ok though.
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>> I suspect you knew more than most.
>
>Yeah, like you thought your article was better.:-)
I meant it, you know more than most.
>I am putting myself back to day 1 of my website and what I did and what I
>know others had done. I do know I did the freebie service from "Addme" and
>it worked.
Good things then aren't necessarily good things now. We work in a
volatile environment.
>> I go on to make clear that submitting to multiple (tens, hundreds
>> etc.)is a waste of time and why.
>
>Still in your opinion.
I thought I made my case. Metaphorically. Am I supposed to detail
every online database that there is?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously not.
>>>
>>>See now you are getting into more than SE form submittal.
>>
>> It's directly involved in why you shouldn't do this kind of thing.
>
>No in short you are stating that having your site linked from non related
>sources hasn't got any worth. You don't know that.
I'm trying t point out that submissions are pointless because they are
irrelevant to the basic subect matter of the database and therefore
won't get included. God, how you twist things around.
>>
>> Submission is not indexing. That's a different subject. Feel free to
>> write a page.
>
>No but being found and being consider for inclusion is submission to the
>index is. Which is close to the same as being indexed.
No it isn't. There's a clear distinction. But what's up there now
seems to do the job of educating the public. Let's hope it stays.
N-H-P
On Jan 24, 11:29 pm, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-f...@jezsta.com> wrote:
> "John Bokma" <j...@castleamber.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns98C27B6312...@130.133.1.4...
> "Ahh, it looks like our pal "John Gohde" took it over anyway. :-)"
>
> He seemed to be adding and changing and then he finally came up with the
> correct Wiki write up and revised it with the before info and it really
> isn't all that bad. I was rather surprised with it.
I was testing in the morning to see if my edits would be reversed.
Since, there did NOT appear to be an edit war going on. Just a neutral
Admin reverting vandalism done to an article. I invested a little bit
more time in the evening. I never bothered to read any of those silly
notices on top of the article.
> Seems our friend has been picking up some things here in the NG.:-)
So, the problem when you guys attempted to do a simply edit update in
Wikipedia ... was?
Just my experience from being banned twice in Wikipedia. Ah! My first
article in 2007. Hah, ... Hah, Ha!
N-H-P
On Jan 25, 2:52 am, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> >> What's wrong with what I wrote?
You wrote a bunch of personal commentary that belonged more in the
discussion tab than on the article tab.
In short, you vandalized the article.
> >I saw what is wrong with it right off. :)
>
> >Is that how you write web page copy?Yup!
>
> >I fixed the article. Now, other editors can edit it. No problem'o
> >when you have experience writing for wikipedia.
>
> >I could delete the entire backwards link section in a few days, as it
> >is totally off topic.I have no idea what you mean by that last. I have to say it looks like
> you did the page ok though.
Google groups is forcing everyone to use their new interface that is
really bad. So, it was faster to write an article at Wikipedia.
I just lost my cursor in FF. The new message editor is really, really,
really bad.
Big Bill
<zx...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 25, 2:52 am, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> What's wrong with what I wrote?
>
>You wrote a bunch of personal commentary that belonged more in the
>discussion tab than on the article tab.
Ah.
>In short, you vandalized the article.
Did not!
>> >I saw what is wrong with it right off. :)
>>
>> >Is that how you write web page copy?Yup!
>>
>> >I fixed the article. Now, other editors can edit it. No problem'o
>> >when you have experience writing for wikipedia.
>>
>> >I could delete the entire backwards link section in a few days, as it
>> >is totally off topic.I have no idea what you mean by that last. I have to say it looks like
>> you did the page ok though.
>
>Google groups is forcing everyone to use their new interface that is
>really bad. So, it was faster to write an article at Wikipedia.
>
>I just lost my cursor in FF. The new message editor is really, really,
>really bad.
What's he on about here?
Big Bill
<zx...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 24, 11:29 pm, "Jezsta Web Productions"
><Please-use-our-contact-f...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>> "John Bokma" <j...@castleamber.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns98C27B6312...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> "Ahh, it looks like our pal "John Gohde" took it over anyway. :-)"
>>
>> He seemed to be adding and changing and then he finally came up with the
>> correct Wiki write up and revised it with the before info and it really
>> isn't all that bad. I was rather surprised with it.
>
>I was testing in the morning to see if my edits would be reversed.
>
>Since, there did NOT appear to be an edit war going on. Just a neutral
>Admin reverting vandalism done to an article. I invested a little bit
>more time in the evening. I never bothered to read any of those silly
>notices on top of the article.
>
>> Seems our friend has been picking up some things here in the NG.:-)
>
>So, the problem when you guys attempted to do a simply edit update in
>Wikipedia ... was?
No, me guys. Them guys were just spectators.
>Just my experience from being banned twice in Wikipedia. Ah! My first
>article in 2007. Hah, ... Hah, Ha!
Keep up the standard!
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
[..]
> Oh, I agreed with you after reading it again. Wasn't disagreeing there
> just coming in to state that "he" - Gohde rewrote it and was taking
> over. I was worried when I first stated it.:-)
I think that scared us all a bit :-) (If that's N-P-H)
[ WP ]
> Yeah, you are right but concise bullet statements are fine also. But
> of course then it looks like a dictionary.
Yes, but from what I recall the bullet statements was just a list with SE
submission as one of the statements :-D.
>> Haven't seen our "friend"'s version yet though.
>
> It is up and if you click on all the dates in the history you can see
> it transform.:-)
Yup, I like that a lot. I use software here on my computer that gives me
the ability to do that with all my files. It's called Subversion. When I
start a new project, I check it into a database. Everytime I make a major
edit to a file, I commit first the pre-edit version, and when done and
satisfied I do the same with the after-version. I can always compare two
versions (timewise) of the same file, which is great if something suddenly
stopped working :-)
Will write on this a bit more detailed when I have time. I think it's
great to use with web site dev as well.
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>
> [..]
>
>> Oh, I agreed with you after reading it again. Wasn't disagreeing there
>> just coming in to state that "he" - Gohde rewrote it and was taking
>> over. I was worried when I first stated it.:-)
>
> I think that scared us all a bit :-) (If that's N-P-H)
It is NHP.:-)
>
> [ WP ]
>> Yeah, you are right but concise bullet statements are fine also. But
>> of course then it looks like a dictionary.
>
> Yes, but from what I recall the bullet statements was just a list with SE
> submission as one of the statements :-D.
Right it will then look like a dictionary entry almost.:-)
>>> Haven't seen our "friend"'s version yet though.
>>
>> It is up and if you click on all the dates in the history you can see
>> it transform.:-)
>
> Yup, I like that a lot. I use software here on my computer that gives me
> the ability to do that with all my files. It's called Subversion. When I
> start a new project, I check it into a database. Everytime I make a major
> edit to a file, I commit first the pre-edit version, and when done and
> satisfied I do the same with the after-version. I can always compare two
> versions (timewise) of the same file, which is great if something suddenly
> stopped working :-)
It seems like something that would be good to use.
> Will write on this a bit more detailed when I have time. I think it's
> great to use with web site dev as well.
I think it would and something good to write about.:-)
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:40:35 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I suspect you knew more than most.
>>
>>Yeah, like you thought your article was better.:-)
>
> I meant it, you know more than most.
>
>>I am putting myself back to day 1 of my website and what I did and what I
>>know others had done. I do know I did the freebie service from "Addme" and
>>it worked.
>
> Good things then aren't necessarily good things now. We work in a
> volatile environment.
But if you haven't tested it then you can not be a good judge on it.
>>> I go on to make clear that submitting to multiple (tens, hundreds
>>> etc.)is a waste of time and why.
>>
>>Still in your opinion.
>
> I thought I made my case. Metaphorically. Am I supposed to detail
> every online database that there is?
No, but you have to write it objectively giving both sides kind of. You
can't be for or against. You can't make a case. You have to state facts and
that is it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously not.
>>>>
>>>>See now you are getting into more than SE form submittal.
>>>
>>> It's directly involved in why you shouldn't do this kind of thing.
>>
>>No in short you are stating that having your site linked from non related
>>sources hasn't got any worth. You don't know that.
>
> I'm trying t point out that submissions are pointless because they are
> irrelevant to the basic subect matter of the database and therefore
> won't get included. God, how you twist things around.
You don't know that they won't get included now do you? I am not twisting
things around. You just said it above, "won't get included."
>>> Submission is not indexing. That's a different subject. Feel free to
>>> write a page.
>>
>>No but being found and being consider for inclusion is submission to the
>>index is. Which is close to the same as being indexed.
>
> No it isn't. There's a clear distinction. But what's up there now
> seems to do the job of educating the public. Let's hope it stays.
Not really, but I don't have time to keep arguing. I have sites to build and
get them submitted into the SE's index. I will go about getting them
submitted through a crawl from links though.:-)
N-H-P
On Jan 25, 12:21 pm, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2007 07:24:53 -0800, "N-H-P"
>
> <z...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 25, 2:52 am, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> What's wrong with what I wrote?
>
> >You wrote a bunch of personal commentary that belonged more in the
> >discussion tab than on the article tab.
>
>Ah.
>
> >In short, you vandalized the article.
>
> Did not!
Wikipedia does not make mistakes. In Wikipedia, Form is more important
than Substance.
Nut jobs can mess up perfectly good articles with those stupid notice
on top of it. But, editors are not allowed to get creative in their
editing.
That is just how Wikipedia operates.