The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
From: cass-hacks
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Jan 31 2008 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: Keywords Meta Tag - Should I use it? How many keywords?
> I honestly can't understand this SEO craziness. Why are there not
In music, it is not only important to play all the notes, but also,
> Google guidelines (maybe I missed them) that say. all of the rests. > "Don't bother with keyword metas. They are a relic and best left
Why not spend your time writing what people should do and not what
> ignored. Why not spend your time writing more content for your users > or improving the features on your site." they shouldn't? I'm not trying to be rhetorical, just trying to point out that usually
> I know Google is the greatest engine. It's the only one I ever
Of course.
> personally use but you can't just disregard the millions of people > that use the other big engines. > If keyword metas are still important
I don't know of a single engine that mentions in too much detail how
> to them, then you need to pay some attention to their needs. they use any particular signal. I would think they would talk more about things that are more important to ranking and being good search bait than spending time on little things that likely don't matter as much. > I feel the current Google engine / method will eventually die a death
"Community" is anarchy. I don't see community based systems having
> to a more community based system. the cohesion they would need. > (I believe Wikia is taking this
I don't see how one follows from the other.
> approach) When you keep everything computed, ultra secretive and have > really vague guidelines you're going to prevent a lot of worthwhile > sites from ever being found. We're not talking about fairy tale princes turned to toads. If you
> A site doesn't need hundreds of links to
Exactly.
> be useful. > Or have huge amounts of content. I know - I've built them!
I don't know about "huge amounts", I try to hit "enough" though. ;-)
> In the transition period, between methods, it would make sense to do
Assuming there is a transition. They will both be used, or not,
> one community powered search and one computationally powered search. depending on their facility. If a tool is useful for a given task, it will more than likely get used over a tool that is not. > Does anyone use Foxmarks? It synchronises and backups bookmarks online
Oh, so you mean like instead of having backlinks, you have backlinks,
> with one account that is usable on numerous machines. The idea is to > not only provide this handy functionality but also to build a bookmark > map that will help quantify the quality of any given URL. Once the > user base is at a sufficient size and variety of course. but call them bookmarks? > The more sites that come online the worse the whole problem becomes.
I don't know that it makes searching near impossible although I would
> Interestingly enough I've seen forums suffer from what can only be > described as data flood. It makes searching near impossible. The same > thing is happening with standard web searches. agree that it makes the result of searching much more dependent on how one searches. > Please don't get me wrong. I love Google! They are the only giant that
:-()
> have any idea how to make huge amounts of money without seriously > pissing people off. As opposed to Microsoft who are world renowned > experts. > I just hate this constant greyness. i.e. there is no right or wrong,
There is no black nor white, only shades of gray.
> you guess and if you guess wrong, well... you guess again. > This is
You're going hate this one, "if it were easy, everyone would be doing
> both time consuming and infuriating. it." ;-) > I guess Google is more a friend
I think that has been their plan and goal from the outset. I don't
> to the searcher than the publisher. begrudge them that, it raises the bar of performance. > Maybe the greyness bothers me
(checking to make sure) Yep, I'm a guy and I don't feel inclined to
> because men are more inclined to look at things in black and white :) look for black and white so it can't really be a "guy thing". > Who knows
Only the shadow knows.
But he died a few years ago I think.
> Thanks for the advice though. I'll go back to writing more content :)
Good idea! :-)
Craig You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||