Google is weird.
Davemon
google? for the search: E-commerce Prototype
The words appear in the title (although written Ecommerce), the second
word in a link at the bottom of the page, and it appears no-where else
on the page.
It just shocked me that its there! Obviously not a bad thing (for me) but...
Thanks
Davemon
-------
Big Bill
Not really a good thing, either. Only a handful of other sites contain
that phrase and I do believe that no-one, well, hardly anyone, will be
searching for that term.
I'm no.1 for
Good Search Experience
out of 63,000,000 but so what if no one is looking for it?
It's just a coincidence thing.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ s...@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--
Davemon
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:10:07 +0100, Davemon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>>Can anyone tell me why my site (http://www.nightsoil.co.uk) is at #2 in
>>google? for the search: E-commerce Prototype
>>
> that phrase and I do believe that no-one, well, hardly anyone, will be
> searching for that term.
Thanks Bill,
The "search effectiveness" of the phrase isn't important to me, I'm not
trying to generate traffic with it, but I would like to know what made
Google think it should go there!
Are you implying that because a phrase isn't searched for very often
that Google will "randomly" position the results for that query rather
than base it on some form of criteria?
any other suggetions?
Davemon
-------
Big Bill
No.
>any other suggetions?
Were you searching for
"your key phrase"
or
your key phrase
?
If you search for the former then Google looks for a page which ranks
highest for that specific search term.
If you search for the latter then Google will throw up a serps full of
pages that have those words somehwere on them in that order (but not
necessarily together), according to a criterion I couldn't define.
Roy Schestowitz
> any other suggestions?
What "made Google thought it should go there" is the coincidence in
combining the words "E-commerce" and "prototype". That site does not have
many words in it, so the density of these words is high and the title in
particular hits the key words.
What is the relevance of the phrase "E-commerce prototype" anyway? I am not
being sarcastic, but I try to think from the point-of-view of a Google
user. Will someone have particular interest in so-called E-commerce
prototypes? Sounds a little fluffy to me.
As for your later question, Google optimise (manually) the more frequently
searched-for phrases. They need to divide their time and labour capacity to
assist most of their users and weed out spammers and irrelevancies where it
matters the most.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
SEO Dave
OK do this search in Google-
"E-commerce Prototype"
208 pages found.
Now read this page
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html and if you
understand the page you'll understand why.
That page is top 10 for the MSN Today SERP for the same reason, they
are very easy SERPs.
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Stacey
message news:j7o2c1pgtsvhae205...@4ax.com...
<Snip>
> Now read this page
> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html and if you
> understand the page you'll understand why.
>
> That page is top 10 for the MSN Today SERP for the same reason, they
> are very easy SERPs.
#6 that I just seen, it moved up.:-)
Stacey
Davemon
> Davemon wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:10:07 +0100, Davemon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can anyone tell me why my site (http://www.nightsoil.co.uk) is at #2 in
>>>>google? for the search: E-commerce Prototype
> What "made Google thought it should go there" is the coincidence in
> combining the words "E-commerce" and "prototype".
It's no more a coincidence than the order of the words in this sentance!
Often software is developed through prototypes, then beta versions
before a final release, so an "Ecommerce Prototype" would relate to a
stage of development of an Ecommerce website.
That site does not have
> many words in it, so the density of these words is high and the title in
> particular hits the key words.
>
That makes sence to me, thank you.
> What is the relevance of the phrase "E-commerce prototype" anyway? I am not
> being sarcastic, but I try to think from the point-of-view of a Google
> user. Will someone have particular interest in so-called E-commerce
> prototypes? Sounds a little fluffy to me.
I understand the point you're making, but as I said before, I'm
interested in why google ranks my site at #2 for that phrase, I'm *not*
trying to generate traffic though that page, so it's not relevant to me
whether it's a 'fluffy' phrase or whether people search for it or not
(unless Google behaves differently because of that).
> As for your later question, Google optimise (manually) the more frequently
> searched-for phrases. They need to divide their time and labour capacity to
> assist most of their users and weed out spammers and irrelevancies where it
> matters the most.
>
Ok, so (unlike Big Bill) you believe that Google behaves differently for
popular search phrases then? Thats interesting. Do you have any idea
what kind of thresholds that google have with regards search-frequency
and manual-optimisation?
Cheers
Davemon
-------
Davemon
>
No, but its #1 for: "Ecommerce Prototype"
> your key phrase
>
Yes, its #2 for: Ecommerce Prototype
>
> If you search for the former then Google looks for a page which ranks
> highest for that specific search term.
> If you search for the latter then Google will throw up a serps full of
> pages that have those words somehwere on them in that order (but not
> necessarily together), according to a criterion I couldn't define.
>
BTW, how do you do SEO if you don't know the criteria used to rank a
site? Do you just base everything on phrase popularity?
Thanks
davemon
-------
Davemon
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:10:07 +0100, Davemon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Can anyone tell me why my site (http://www.nightsoil.co.uk) is at #2 in
>>google? for the search: E-commerce Prototype
>>
>>The words appear in the title (although written Ecommerce), the second
>>word in a link at the bottom of the page, and it appears no-where else
>>on the page.
>
>
> "E-commerce Prototype"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-16%2CGGLD%3Aen&biw=773&q=%22E-commerce+Prototype%22&btnG=Search
>
> 208 pages found.
>
> Now read this page
> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html and if you
> understand the page you'll understand why.
>
What I understood from it is that Google will always match "my exact
phrase" over 'my not very exact but otherwise searched phrase' Even
though a page with 'my not very exact but otherwise searched phrase' in
it might actually have more useful and pertinent content for someone
searching for "my exact phrase".
Therefore, because of the lack of 'competition' for that precise phrase,
the signal to noise ratio is very low (or conversely very high). Add to
that the content-keyword weighting that Roy pointed out, the lack of PR
of 'competitor' pages, and voila, this page with no content and no
inbound links gets a #2 ranking (for a term which nobody would search for).
Does that sound correct?
Can I ask where you stand on Google behaving differently depending on
how frequently a given term is searched for? Big Bill and Roy seem to
think this might have some bearing on the situation.
Thanks again.
Davemon
-------
John Bokma
> BTW, how do you do SEO if you don't know the criteria used to rank a
> site?
Like everybody else :-)
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
Big Bill
Successfully. Actually no seo knows the absolute criteria engines use
to rank pages for search terms. I don't think Google's legion PHD's do
either.
> Do you just base everything on phrase popularity?
I suppose the short answer's no! I think a lot of it is "feel" and you
can't really box that up or properly articulate it.
Big Bill
>Davemon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>
>> BTW, how do you do SEO if you don't know the criteria used to rank a
>> site?
>
>Like everybody else :-)
only "better". John!!! You forgot the "better"!
John Bokma
> On 28 Jun 2005 20:14:11 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Davemon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, how do you do SEO if you don't know the criteria used to rank a
>>> site?
>>
>>Like everybody else :-)
>
> only "better". John!!! You forgot the "better"!
I was in a hurry :-D.
Roy Schestowitz
Google keep me in the dark, very much as they do with the rest of us. From
what I have heard/read, Google pay a branch of their staff $10-20 per hour
to sit and search the Web, identifying spam sites and scrapers in the
process. There is also the "Dissatisfied with the results? Tell us" feature
at the bottom and I assume it plays a role.
There were rumours that Google's placement of sites is somehow affected
(i.e. becomes more lenient) when Google AdSense sites -- affiliates that is
-- are involved. I do not believe this is so.
In any case, I imagine that common search phrases have some results
handpicked, while others are ordered naturally, as suggested by the
algorithm. I must say that I am often impressed by the 'correctness', if
one may call it that, of the impact factor taking account in the results.
Perhaps you ought to use the 'dissatisfied' widget if the results bother
you.
Davemon
>
> BTW, how do you do SEO if you don't know the criteria used to rank a
>site?
>
>Successfully. Actually no seo knows the absolute criteria engines use
>to rank pages for search terms. I don't think Google's legion PHD's do
>either.
Obviously, I don't expect google to publish its algorythms, but you must
have *some* idea of what criteria it's using, otherwise you wouldn't be
successfull!
>
> I suppose the short answer's no! I think a lot of it is "feel" and you
> can't really box that up or properly articulate it.
>
Sorry Bill, thats a far too wooly an answer for me!
Surely Google is a machine and behaves like a machine? You must be able
to work out, in part, its behaviour by observing its actions. For
example, Roy mentioned the title tag, and and some idea about the
relative density of the keywords, and seoDave pointed to some behaviours
regarding exact string matching.
Whilst obviously not the whole picture, it gives some indication that
both Roy and seoDave have a model of how Google works, and can use that
to explain (usefully in this case) the results Google shows.
Whether you personally can (or want) to articulate your ideas is another
matter. I would be interested if you'd like to try.
Thanks
Davemon
-------
Davemon
Lots of searches still come up with 'spam sites' and 'scrapers', tho'.
Do Google advertise these jobs? Do we know they exist?
> There were rumours that Google's placement of sites is somehow affected
> (i.e. becomes more lenient) when Google AdSense sites -- affiliates that is
> -- are involved. I do not believe this is so.
Makes sence though, but it seems like the kind of thing someone who is
trying to sell AdSense and Seo services would say.
> In any case, I imagine that common search phrases have some results
> handpicked, while others are ordered naturally, as suggested by the
> algorithm. I must say that I am often impressed by the 'correctness', if
> one may call it that, of the impact factor taking account in the results.
I read somewhere that a studies had been done, where top level
librarians placed websites in order of relevance to a subject and the
correlation to Googles results was nearly 90% or something incredibly
high like that.
> Perhaps you ought to use the 'dissatisfied' widget if the results bother
> you.
>
Hmm, good point. However, Google aren't paying me to improve their
service, so I don't think I will!
Davemon
-------
Big Bill
>> Google keep me in the dark, very much as they do with the rest of us. From
>> what I have heard/read, Google pay a branch of their staff $10-20 per hour
>> to sit and search the Web, identifying spam sites and scrapers in the
>> process. There is also the "Dissatisfied with the results? Tell us" feature
>> at the bottom and I assume it plays a role.
>
>Lots of searches still come up with 'spam sites' and 'scrapers', tho'.
>Do Google advertise these jobs? Do we know they exist?
It does and we do. Why, you want one?
>> There were rumours that Google's placement of sites is somehow affected
>> (i.e. becomes more lenient) when Google AdSense sites -- affiliates that is
>> -- are involved. I do not believe this is so.
>
>Makes sence though, but it seems like the kind of thing someone who is
>trying to sell AdSense and Seo services would say.
>
>> In any case, I imagine that common search phrases have some results
>> handpicked, while others are ordered naturally, as suggested by the
>> algorithm. I must say that I am often impressed by the 'correctness', if
>> one may call it that, of the impact factor taking account in the results.
>
>I read somewhere that a studies had been done, where top level
>librarians placed websites in order of relevance to a subject and the
>correlation to Googles results was nearly 90% or something incredibly
>high like that.
>
>> Perhaps you ought to use the 'dissatisfied' widget if the results bother
>> you.
>>
>
>Hmm, good point. However, Google aren't paying me to improve their
>service, so I don't think I will!
You aren't paying us, either!
Big Bill
>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>> BTW, how do you do SEO if you don't know the criteria used to rank a
>>site?
>>
>>Successfully. Actually no seo knows the absolute criteria engines use
>>to rank pages for search terms. I don't think Google's legion PHD's do
>>either.
>
>Obviously, I don't expect google to publish its algorythms, but you must
>have *some* idea of what criteria it's using, otherwise you wouldn't be
>successfull!
You can go and read my site. Loads of my opinons and the whyfore of
the wherefore of the whywork.
>> I suppose the short answer's no! I think a lot of it is "feel" and you
>> can't really box that up or properly articulate it.
>>
>Sorry Bill, thats a far too wooly an answer for me!
>
>Surely Google is a machine and behaves like a machine? You must be able
>to work out, in part, its behaviour by observing its actions. For
>example, Roy mentioned the title tag, and and some idea about the
>relative density of the keywords, and seoDave pointed to some behaviours
>regarding exact string matching.
>
>Whilst obviously not the whole picture, it gives some indication that
>both Roy and seoDave have a model of how Google works, and can use that
>to explain (usefully in this case) the results Google shows.
>
>Whether you personally can (or want) to articulate your ideas is another
>matter. I would be interested if you'd like to try.
>
>Thanks
>
>Davemon
Why is everyone wanting blow-by-blow analysis from me lately? Take a
trawl round my site, DM, take all the time you need.
SEO Dave
LOL, I haven't added the links yet either.
David
SEO Dave
>SEO Dave wrote:
>> Now read this page
>> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html and if you
>> understand the page you'll understand why.
>>
>I read that, thank you.
No problem.
>What I understood from it is that Google will always match "my exact
>phrase" over 'my not very exact but otherwise searched phrase' Even
>though a page with 'my not very exact but otherwise searched phrase' in
>it might actually have more useful and pertinent content for someone
>searching for "my exact phrase".
Not always, don't forget the effects of masses of links using the
phrase as the anchor text. In that situation you might not need any
match at all. But generally you'd expect an exact match to do better
than a not exact match.
>Therefore, because of the lack of 'competition' for that precise phrase,
>the signal to noise ratio is very low (or conversely very high). Add to
>that the content-keyword weighting that Roy pointed out, the lack of PR
>of 'competitor' pages, and voila, this page with no content and no
>inbound links gets a #2 ranking (for a term which nobody would search for).
>
>Does that sound correct?
Something like that.
>Can I ask where you stand on Google behaving differently depending on
>how frequently a given term is searched for? Big Bill and Roy seem to
>think this might have some bearing on the situation.
I haven't seen any evidence or even a convincing argument that Google
micro manipulates some SERPs, Google has made it clear it likes to
automate it's algo. Yes it bans and penalizes sites manually, but I
don't think Google looks at a high traffic type SERP and thinks that's
not a good match, lets rearrange the top 30 or whatever manually.
I guess people who think Google does some manipulation are finding it
difficult to break into the top 10 for competitive SERPs. If you don't
understand how to determine how difficult a SERP is and you rely
instead on flawed methods like the number of pages found for a search
to determine difficulty. You won't appreciate why you have one SERP
and not another.
Like the MSN Today SERP vs the Psychology today SERP, the former is
easy the latter is hard, looking at the number of pages found you'd
think they are equally difficult. So when you get a SERP like MSN
today but not a SERP like psychology today you could come to the
conclusion the latter is manually edited by Google since it's the
'only' explanation why you didn't get it. When the reality is a SERP
like psychology today needs far more effort than MSN Today does.
>Thanks again.
>
>Davemon
Davemon
>>>what I have heard/read, Google pay a branch of their staff $10-20 per hour
>>Lots of searches still come up with 'spam sites' and 'scrapers', tho'.
>>Do Google advertise these jobs? Do we know they exist?
>
> It does and we do. Why, you want one?
>
No thank you. I was just wondering where your sources were for this
activity, you say from what you've 'read/heard', so the idea of a Google
surfer-sweatshop could be an unsubstantiated rumour. I was just looking
for some evidence.
>>
>>Hmm, good point. However, Google aren't paying me to improve their
>>service, so I don't think I will!
>
> You aren't paying us, either!
>
Google retains whole ownership of the information input into its system
by users. You don't get to find out why I thought search result X was
rubbish, only Google does. Google then use that information as a method
to refine their search tool, which is a profit-making enterprise.
on Usenet everyone can profit equally from reading the questions and
answers published there, no single entity gains an advantage, so by
posting to usenet, we aren't entering into a value-creation chain where
one party gains a competitive advantage, instead many parties do.
Thats why I expect google to pay me if i help refine its search, and why
I don't expect to pay for the information I recieve through usenet.
Cheers
------
Davemon
Davemon
>
> Why is everyone wanting blow-by-blow analysis from me lately? Take a
> trawl round my site, DM, take all the time you need.
>
opinions without providing the evidence to back them up? You might very
well know exactly what you're talking about, but I don't know that you
know, so I need a little convincing!
I'll have another wade around your site.
Davemon
-------
Big Bill
>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>what I have heard/read, Google pay a branch of their staff $10-20 per hour
>>>>to sit and search the Web.
>
>>>Lots of searches still come up with 'spam sites' and 'scrapers', tho'.
>>>Do Google advertise these jobs? Do we know they exist?
>>
>> It does and we do. Why, you want one?
>>
>
>No thank you. I was just wondering where your sources were for this
>activity, you say from what you've 'read/heard', so the idea of a Google
>surfer-sweatshop could be an unsubstantiated rumour. I was just looking
>for some evidence.
I can't be bothered to look it up. It only came up recently. Made big
nres too. Anybody?
>>>Hmm, good point. However, Google aren't paying me to improve their
>>>service, so I don't think I will!
>>
>> You aren't paying us, either!
>>
>Google retains whole ownership of the information input into its system
>by users. You don't get to find out why I thought search result X was
>rubbish, only Google does. Google then use that information as a method
>to refine their search tool, which is a profit-making enterprise.
>
>on Usenet everyone can profit equally from reading the questions and
>answers published there, no single entity gains an advantage, so by
>posting to usenet, we aren't entering into a value-creation chain where
>one party gains a competitive advantage, instead many parties do.
>
>Thats why I expect google to pay me if i help refine its search, and why
>I don't expect to pay for the information I recieve through usenet.
Then go ask Google where they hire their personell from!
Big Bill
Here I'd make a further distinction. You're arguablt alking about four
serps here,
MSN Today
"MSN Today"
psycholgy today
"psychology today"
And ideally you'd want to be top dog for both your target serps, with
"" and without. You can't assume searchers know the most accurate way
to search.
Also I'd have included validation as a factor. Does one serp bring up
a top ten full of validating sites? It do? Eek-a-mighty, there's a
tough one!
> So when you get a SERP like MSN
>today but not a SERP like psychology today you could come to the
>conclusion the latter is manually edited by Google since it's the
>'only' explanation why you didn't get it.
I wouldn't!
Davemon
>>>>Hmm, good point. However, Google aren't paying me to improve their
>>>>service, so I don't think I will!
>>>
>>>You aren't paying us, either!
>>>
>>
>>Google retains whole ownership of the information input into its system
>>by users. You don't get to find out why I thought search result X was
>>rubbish, only Google does. Google then use that information as a method
>>to refine their search tool, which is a profit-making enterprise.
>>
>>on Usenet everyone can profit equally from reading the questions and
>>answers published there, no single entity gains an advantage, so by
>>posting to usenet, we aren't entering into a value-creation chain where
>>one party gains a competitive advantage, instead many parties do.
>>
>>Thats why I expect google to pay me if i help refine its search, and why
>>I don't expect to pay for the information I recieve through usenet.
>
>
> Then go ask Google where they hire their personell from!
>
there is no benefit to me or the wider internet community, only benefits
Google.
<rant>
If I do something that only benefits Google, they, in return should do
something that benefits only me (ie. give me money or free ad listings
or whatever).
Its same bloody-minded attitude that Microsoft have. Release a buggy OS,
then every time it crashes, ask me if I want to send them a de-bug
report. If they'd bothered to debug it themselves, they'd have incurred
costs. By getting me to debug it for them, they're effectively getting
free labour. Does that mean I benefit from lower OS costs? No. It means
more profit for Microsoft (or Google in this case).
Personally, I think its part of the arrogance that comes with being a
technology monopoly (or near monopoly anyway), treating your users as
beta-testers, and giving them no reward for their efforts. Why people
insist on treating Google like it's still ran by a couple of college
kids who just want to make the internet a better place is beyond me.
</rant>
davemon
-------
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk
Big Bill
>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>>Hmm, good point. However, Google aren't paying me to improve their
>>>>>service, so I don't think I will!
>>>>
>>>>You aren't paying us, either!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Google retains whole ownership of the information input into its system
>>>by users. You don't get to find out why I thought search result X was
>>>rubbish, only Google does. Google then use that information as a method
>>>to refine their search tool, which is a profit-making enterprise.
>>>
>>>on Usenet everyone can profit equally from reading the questions and
>>>answers published there, no single entity gains an advantage, so by
>>>posting to usenet, we aren't entering into a value-creation chain where
>>>one party gains a competitive advantage, instead many parties do.
>>>
>>>Thats why I expect google to pay me if i help refine its search, and why
>>>I don't expect to pay for the information I recieve through usenet.
>>
>>
>> Then go ask Google where they hire their personell from!
>>
>You missed my point. I won't use their 'Unhappy with results' because
>there is no benefit to me or the wider internet community, only benefits
>Google.
But they are the ones who use use Google.
If the wider internet community find what they're looking for easier
from Google as a result of your complaint then isn't that a good thing
by your definition?
><rant>
>
>If I do something that only benefits Google, they, in return should do
>something that benefits only me (ie. give me money or free ad listings
>or whatever).
They do, they make your site more visible or they make it easier for
you to find the info you're looking for.
>Its same bloody-minded attitude that Microsoft have. Release a buggy OS,
>then every time it crashes, ask me if I want to send them a de-bug
>report. If they'd bothered to debug it themselves, they'd have incurred
>costs. By getting me to debug it for them, they're effectively getting
>free labour. Does that mean I benefit from lower OS costs? No. It means
>more profit for Microsoft (or Google in this case).
We won't be using MSN then.
>Personally, I think its part of the arrogance that comes with being a
>technology monopoly (or near monopoly anyway), treating your users as
>beta-testers, and giving them no reward for their efforts.
Can I tell you my Microsoft joke? I have some good news and some bad
news. The good news is, I'm no longer an unpaid beta tester for Bill
Gates. The bad news is, I'm an unpaid alpha tester for Bill Gates!
Heh-heh. They just keep on coming...
SEO Dave
wrote:
>>Like the MSN Today SERP vs the Psychology today SERP, the former is
>>easy the latter is hard, looking at the number of pages found you'd
>>think they are equally difficult.
>
>Here I'd make a further distinction. You're arguablt alking about four
>serps here,
If you've read http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html
or recall the discussion a while back about this you've misunderstood
what we were discussing.
The specific searches like "MSN Today" are not the issue, using speech
marks is ONE tool to help determine true competitiveness of a SERP.
Very few searches use speech marks, so I don't specifically target
SERPs that include them (and doubt many real SEOs do either), though
when targeting a SERP like MSN Today you are going to use the two
words together and so will target "MSN Today" also.
As you can see the page above is in the top 10 for both MSN Today and
"MSN Today" but as expected is no where for either psychology today or
"psychology today".
>MSN Today
>"MSN Today"
>psycholgy today
>"psychology today"
>
>And ideally you'd want to be top dog for both your target serps, with
>"" and without. You can't assume searchers know the most accurate way
>to search.
That's a big assumption, based on logs I have access to, search engine
users using "" are rare. Does anyone see a significant number of hits
using speech marks?
>Also I'd have included validation as a factor. Does one serp bring up
>a top ten full of validating sites? It do? Eek-a-mighty, there's a
>tough one!
No it doesn't, since my page doesn't validate because it has this
text-
(http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nN5QSrDSCpAJ:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today&hl=en).
Just goes to show how bad a guide validation is, I add some text to a
page and the page doesn't validate! Why would that text (it's not a
link on the page, just text) result in a validation error, seems the
validator thinks it's a link and fails it because of the &, why!
Also the top page for MSN Today doesn't validate either.
If you mean the psychology today SERP then the first result doesn't
validate-
So in all four SERPs at least one site doesn't validate (didn't bother
checking any more). So you are wrong the SERPs are not "full of
validating sites".
>> So when you get a SERP like MSN
>>today but not a SERP like psychology today you could come to the
>>conclusion the latter is manually edited by Google since it's the
>>'only' explanation why you didn't get it.
>
>I wouldn't!
Well done :-)
Stacey
I am not the tooth fairy, but I predicted you would move up.:-) There were
some *more* links added, but not by the tooth fairy either, remember I don't
believe in the tooth fairy.:-) They weren't high in PR, but mostly content
on page was related. So, I guess that helped.
Stacey
Blackbe...@gmail.com
Basically, alt tags, meta tags, all in achor, all in text, and beleive
it or not page rank does matter. Those factors determine the SERPS.
SEO Dave
<sta...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>"SEO Dave" <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:ict4c110d3pg02jrg...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:58:13 -0400, "Stacey"
>> <sta...@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"SEO Dave" <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote in
>>>message news:j7o2c1pgtsvhae205...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>><Snip>
>>>
>>>> Now read this page
>>>> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html and if you
>>>> understand the page you'll understand why.
>>>>
>>>> That page is top 10 for the MSN Today SERP for the same reason, they
>>>> are very easy SERPs.
>>>
>>>#6 that I just seen, it moved up.:-)
>>>
>>>Stacey
>>>
>>
>> LOL, I haven't added the links yet either.
>
>I am not the tooth fairy, but I predicted you would move up.:-) There were
>some *more* links added, but not by the tooth fairy either, remember I don't
>believe in the tooth fairy.:-) They weren't high in PR, but mostly content
>on page was related. So, I guess that helped.
Thanks very much then Stacey :-)
I think if I did put some effort into that SERP I'd get no higher than
the 3rd domain without really going for it.
Might be interesting to see what it takes to get it to 3rd though, add
one link at a time with MSN Today as anchor text until it moves. Just
added the first link right now, PR5.
>Stacey
Stacey
news:1120096772.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Quite simply SEO-Sucks. http://www.seo-sucks.com
LOL!!! I had a good laugh with my look around the site!! Good job the humor
was great!
Stacey
Stacey
>>> LOL, I haven't added the links yet either.
>>
>>I am not the tooth fairy, but I predicted you would move up.:-) There were
>>some *more* links added, but not by the tooth fairy either, remember I
>>don't
>>believe in the tooth fairy.:-) They weren't high in PR, but mostly content
>>on page was related. So, I guess that helped.
>
> Thanks very much then Stacey :-)
Don't have to thank me.:-) It was the fairy godmother.:-) I think she was
handing links out to everyone in that SERP that she thought could use a few
more.
> I think if I did put some effort into that SERP I'd get no higher than
> the 3rd domain without really going for it.
LOL!! You have moved up to #5. I think the bot is still picking up the fairy
godmother links. :-)
> Might be interesting to see what it takes to get it to 3rd though, add
> one link at a time with MSN Today as anchor text until it moves. Just
> added the first link right now, PR5.
It sure will!!
Stacey
Blackbe...@gmail.com
http:www.seo-sucks.com
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:09:41 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>Like the MSN Today SERP vs the Psychology today SERP, the former is
>>>easy the latter is hard, looking at the number of pages found you'd
>>>think they are equally difficult.
>>
>>Here I'd make a further distinction. You're arguablt alking about four
>>serps here,
>
>If you've read http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html
>or recall the discussion a while back about this you've misunderstood
>what we were discussing.
>
>The specific searches like "MSN Today" are not the issue, using speech
>marks is ONE tool to help determine true competitiveness of a SERP.
>
>Very few searches use speech marks, so I don't specifically target
>SERPs that include them (and doubt many real SEOs do either),
A "real" SEO? What's a real SEO?
Not hard to rectify.
>Also the top page for MSN Today doesn't validate either.
Irrelevant. Outside the point.
>If you mean the psychology today SERP then the first result doesn't
>validate-
>
>www.psychologytoday.com/
Also irrelevant.
>So in all four SERPs at least one site doesn't validate (didn't bother
>checking any more). So you are wrong the SERPs are not "full of
>validating sites".
I was speaking hypothetically.
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
> Just goes to show how bad a guide validation is, I add some text to a
> page and the page doesn't validate! Why would that text (it's not a
> link on the page, just text) result in a validation error, seems the
> validator thinks it's a link and fails it because of the &, why!
shouldn't it be & ?
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
pH lectures - guide to hand pH calculation with examples
SEO Dave
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:08:52 GMT, SEO Dave
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The specific searches like "MSN Today" are not the issue, using speech
>>marks is ONE tool to help determine true competitiveness of a SERP.
>>
>>Very few searches use speech marks, so I don't specifically target
>>SERPs that include them (and doubt many real SEOs do either),
>
>A "real" SEO? What's a real SEO?
SEO's who have SERPs that don't require the use of speech marks.
I think it's embarrassing when an SEO uses obscure search phrases to
show how '"good they are", so imagine how I feel when I see one using
obscure search phrase with speech marks as well! If someone needs to
use that marketing technique to make it sound like they get good SERPs
to potential clients they are not a real SEO.
<snip>
>>>Also I'd have included validation as a factor. Does one serp bring up
>>>a top ten full of validating sites? It do? Eek-a-mighty, there's a
>>>tough one!
>>
>>No it doesn't, since my page doesn't validate because it has this
>>text-
>>
>>(http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nN5QSrDSCpAJ:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today&hl=en).
>>
>>Just goes to show how bad a guide validation is, I add some text to a
>>page and the page doesn't validate! Why would that text (it's not a
>>link on the page, just text) result in a validation error, seems the
>>validator thinks it's a link and fails it because of the &, why!
>
>Not hard to rectify.
How would I "rectify" this when the content is as I want it? The TEXT
should be MSN+Today&hl=en because it's TEXT not a URL. It's the
validator that makes no sense, not the code.
>>Also the top page for MSN Today doesn't validate either.
>
>Irrelevant. Outside the point.
Why?
>
>>If you mean the psychology today SERP then the first result doesn't
>>validate-
>>
>>www.psychologytoday.com/
>
>Also irrelevant.
Why?
>
>>So in all four SERPs at least one site doesn't validate (didn't bother
>>checking any more). So you are wrong the SERPs are not "full of
>>validating sites".
>
>I was speaking hypothetically.
You should have said so then, I don't know what you are thinking when
you create a post!!
So to go back to your "hypothetical points", why would you "have
included validation as a factor" for the examples we've been
discussing?
Are you mentioning validation to cause an argument as your posts make
no sense otherwise!
SEO Dave
<bo...@parts.bpp.to.com.remove.pl> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:08:52 +0200, SEO Dave
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just goes to show how bad a guide validation is, I add some text to a
>> page and the page doesn't validate! Why would that text (it's not a
>> link on the page, just text) result in a validation error, seems the
>> validator thinks it's a link and fails it because of the &, why!
>
>shouldn't it be & ?
If it was a link and you wanted the validator not to throw up errors
yes. This is just body text, so there is no reason I can think of why
a validator should treat this as invalid code-
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seo-gold.com%2Ftutorial%2Fserps-competition.html
Just shows how over the top they are when it comes to determining
valid code!
I could change the text to-
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nN5QSrDSCpAJ:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today&hl=en
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nN5QSrDSCpAJ:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nN5QSrDSCpAJ:www.slate.com/
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:www.slate.com/
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today
And if you paste it as a link it still works, but that's not the
point. Although the last one is much cleaner so will use that next
update.
If the text was say
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nN5QSrDSCpAJ:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today
& hl=en
or even
MSN & Today
It wouldn't cause a validator error.
>Best,
>Borek
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>> shouldn't it be & ?
>
> If it was a link and you wanted the validator not to throw up errors
> yes. This is just body text, so there is no reason I can think of why
> a validator should treat this as invalid code-
Junior is not here so I can't ask him (and he _is_ real good when it
comes to these things), but I believe & is a special sign regardless
of whether it constitutes part of the link or not. If it is somewhere
in the <hmtl></html> block & means 'begin of an entity' and should be
followed by some recognizable HTML entity - if it is not, you have
validation error. But I can be wrong on that.
Simplest thing - try to change and check if it validates :)
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>> shouldn't it be & ?
> If it was a link and you wanted the validator not to throw up errors
> yes. This is just body text, so there is no reason I can think of why
> a validator should treat this as invalid code-
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpp.com.pl%2Famp.html
No idea what it wants from the </head> tag, but & validates only if
it is followed by space or entity (perhaps other then space cheracters
too, I didn't check).
Brent Atkerson
http://www.quadaenterprises.com/amp.html
--
Brent Atkerson
Anrod Screen Cylinder Co.
www.anrodscreen.com
"Borek" <bo...@parts.bpp.to.com.remove.pl> wrote in message
news:op.ss6w5u1t584cds@borek...
John Bokma
> How would I "rectify" this when the content is as I want it? The TEXT
> should be MSN+Today&hl=en because it's TEXT not a URL. It's the
> validator that makes no sense, not the code.
*sigh* you still don't get it do you?
in HTML the & is reserved. Like the < is. It's a special character, and it
means: we start an entity. So if you want to use an & you must escape it,
e.g. use & since you are giving the parser a disambiguous message.
You understand that you have to escape < by using < good
Now just do the same for every &.
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
John Bokma
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:00:35 +0200, Borek
> <bo...@parts.bpp.to.com.remove.pl> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:08:52 +0200, SEO Dave
>><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Just goes to show how bad a guide validation is, I add some text to
>>> a page and the page doesn't validate! Why would that text (it's not
>>> a link on the page, just text) result in a validation error, seems
>>> the validator thinks it's a link and fails it because of the &, why!
>>
>>shouldn't it be & ?
>
> If it was a link and you wanted the validator not to throw up errors
> yes. This is just body text,
So yes too Dave, as I already have explained how many times?
> so there is no reason I can think of why
> a validator should treat this as invalid code-
It does, since as I explained a few times, the & is special like <.
> Just shows how over the top they are when it comes to determining
> valid code!
No, it just shows how little clue you have about HTML, and lets just
hope you never get customers using XHTML or XML.
> MSN & Today
>
> It wouldn't cause a validator error.
That's because & is followed by a whitespace. &hl is the problem,
because it's ambiguous.
John Bokma
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:08:48 +0200, SEO Dave
> <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> shouldn't it be & ?
>>
>> If it was a link and you wanted the validator not to throw up errors
>> yes. This is just body text, so there is no reason I can think of why
>> a validator should treat this as invalid code-
>
> Junior is not here so I can't ask him (and he _is_ real good when it
> comes to these things), but I believe & is a special sign regardless
> of whether it constitutes part of the link or not. If it is somewhere
> in the <hmtl></html> block & means 'begin of an entity' and should be
> followed by some recognizable HTML entity - if it is not, you have
> validation error. But I can be wrong on that.
>
> Simplest thing - try to change and check if it validates :)
You're right. Has been explained several times by me to Dave, but he has
problems grasping the mere basics of HTML.
John Bokma
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:08:48 +0200, SEO Dave
> <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> shouldn't it be & ?
>
>> If it was a link and you wanted the validator not to throw up errors
>> yes. This is just body text, so there is no reason I can think of why
>> a validator should treat this as invalid code-
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpp.com.pl%2Famp.html
>
> No idea what it wants from the </head> tag, but & validates only if
> it is followed by space or entity (perhaps other then space cheracters
> too, I didn't check).
very likely white space.
John Bokma
> SEO Dave <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> How would I "rectify" this when the content is as I want it? The TEXT
>> should be MSN+Today&hl=en because it's TEXT not a URL. It's the
>> validator that makes no sense, not the code.
>
> *sigh* you still don't get it do you?
>
> in HTML the & is reserved. Like the < is. It's a special character,
> and it means: we start an entity. So if you want to use an & you must
> escape it, e.g. use & since you are giving the parser a
> disambiguous message.
read: ambiguous.
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
Because a site that validates, when all other factors are equal, has a
better chance of ranking than one which doesn't because the engines
can understand the content better.
This means that, where you have a top ten full of non-validating
sites, validatin can be one point ion your favour. Another weapon in
your arsenal.
SEO Dave
<bo...@parts.bpp.to.com.remove.pl> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:08:48 +0200, SEO Dave
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> shouldn't it be & ?
>>
>> If it was a link and you wanted the validator not to throw up errors
>> yes. This is just body text, so there is no reason I can think of why
>> a validator should treat this as invalid code-
>
>Junior is not here so I can't ask him (and he _is_ real good when it
>comes to these things), but I believe & is a special sign regardless
>of whether it constitutes part of the link or not. If it is somewhere
>in the <hmtl></html> block & means 'begin of an entity' and should be
>followed by some recognizable HTML entity - if it is not, you have
>validation error. But I can be wrong on that.
You can use & as body text without causing a validation error-
See this page http://www.free-recipes.co.uk/gourmet-food-store/ uses &
over 30 times as part of the anchor text of various links, it
validates
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.free-recipes.co.uk%2Fgourmet-food-store%2F
The only difference between the above page and
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html is the former
has a space either side of the &, the latter doesn't. The validator
has mistaken the & for something it is not.
>Simplest thing - try to change and check if it validates :)
I'm not trying to fix the validation error (that's easy) since I can
be sure it won't cause harm so don't have to fix it. I will change
this text though
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nN5QSrDSCpAJ:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today&hl=en
to http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:www.slate.com/+MSN+Today not
because it removes the error, but because it's cleaner to read.
SEO Dave
>> Just shows how over the top they are when it comes to determining
>> valid code!
>
>No, it just shows how little clue you have about HTML, and lets just
>hope you never get customers using XHTML or XML.
If you want to believe I don't understand HTML feel free, the reality
is I do far more interesting HTML designs than you do. You ever used
floating div's to rearrange content above the menu for example?
My goal is optimized website's that bring in targeted traffic, not to
validate for the sake of it.
>> MSN & Today
>>
>> It wouldn't cause a validator error.
>
>That's because & is followed by a whitespace. &hl is the problem,
>because it's ambiguous.
John I need your help with some HTML, what's this bit mean <title>, I
don't get it.
ROFLOL
David
John Bokma
> On 30 Jun 2005 17:38:05 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>> Just shows how over the top they are when it comes to determining
>>> valid code!
>>
>>No, it just shows how little clue you have about HTML, and lets just
>>hope you never get customers using XHTML or XML.
>
> If you want to believe I don't understand HTML feel free, the reality
> is I do far more interesting HTML designs than you do.
Yes, and there are people who do even more interesting designs that only
work in IE 6.0.
> You ever used floating div's
Wow... now there is a hard thing to use (*sniggers*)
> My goal is optimized website's that bring in targeted traffic, not to
> validate for the sake of it.
Translation: Yeah, my HTML skills are lacking, but who cares.
Lets just hope you don't get customers that run an XHTML or XML site.
>>> MSN & Today
>>>
>>> It wouldn't cause a validator error.
>>
>>That's because & is followed by a whitespace. &hl is the problem,
>>because it's ambiguous.
>
> John I need your help with some HTML, what's this bit mean <title>, I
> don't get it.
>
> ROFLOL
And on the other hand you still think that a validator is wrong when it
has a problem if a non-whitespace is following an &.
It has been explained several times, yet you keep on blaming it on a
validator. Dave doesn't get it, so yeah, it must be the dumb validator.
Also, finally managed to get that JavaScript validated?
John Bokma
> The only difference between the above page and
> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html is the former
> has a space either side of the &, the latter doesn't. The validator
> has mistaken the & for something it is not.
No Dave, the validator thinks you start an entity, but forgot to close it,
and hence gives out an error. I explained that quite some time ago:
http://example.com/foo=bar&=bla
the validator doesn't know if the author meant & and forgot the ; or
that the author want to set the parameter amp to bla. And hence it gives an
error.
For the same reason, if you want to show <title> in a paragraph, you use:
<p>
the <title> element ...
</p>
instead of:
<p>
the <title> element ...
</p>
Davemon
> You can use & as body text without causing a validation error-
>
> See this page http://www.free-recipes.co.uk/gourmet-food-store/ uses &
> over 30 times as part of the anchor text of various links,
Nope. it uses &
> it validates
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.free-recipes.co.uk%2Fgourmet-food-store%2F
>
yes, because it uses &
> The only difference between the above page and
> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html is the former
> has a space either side of the &, the latter doesn't. The validator
> has mistaken the & for something it is not.
>
Nope. Your HTML is not valid because you have a & in a string of characters.
>>Simplest thing - try to change and check if it validates :)
>
> I'm not trying to fix the validation error (that's easy) since I can
> be sure it won't cause harm so don't have to fix it.
It *might* be causing harm to a user agent that you're not aware of.
That might be a new spider, a new browser, or an SE database. It really
is best to change it, and such a simple thing to do too!
Davemon
-------
Davemon
>>You missed my point. I won't use their 'Unhappy with results' because
>>there is no benefit to me or the wider internet community, only benefits
>>Google.
>
>
> But they are the ones who use use Google.
>
> If the wider internet community find what they're looking for easier
> from Google as a result of your complaint then isn't that a good thing
> by your definition?
>
>
Oh dear.
Google is a business:
Google supplies product (users) to its customers (advertisers) by
attracting users with 'useful search results'.
Those search results *must* strike a balance between:
1)the illusion of "relevance" (create products)
2)getting advertisers to pay to be listed (sell product)
As a business, it's only responsibility is to make a profit for it's
share-holders. If it can achieve that by producing crap search results,
or cutting costs by getting unpaid volunteers to validate its results
for it, it will, so why on earth should I, and everyone else on the
internet trust Google?
>>If I do something that only benefits Google, they, in return should do
>>something that benefits only me (ie. give me money or free ad listings
>>or whatever).
>
>
> They do, they make your site more visible or they make it easier for
> you to find the info you're looking for.
>
Which helps Google generate product, which they then sell to
advertisers, which earns them profit, directly.
>
> We won't be using MSN then.
>
Of course we will, and yahoo and whatever. We just won't be responding
to their beta-testing questions for free.
Davemon
-------
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> shouldn't it be & ?
> The only difference between the above page and
> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html is the former
> has a space either side of the &, the latter doesn't. The validator
> has mistaken the & for something it is not.
As John pointed out - validator is right, you are wrong.
Big Bill
Nothing wrong with profit. I like it!
Big Bill
Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!
SEO Dave
>SEO Dave wrote:
>> You can use & as body text without causing a validation error-
>>
>yes.
>
>> See this page http://www.free-recipes.co.uk/gourmet-food-store/ uses &
>> over 30 times as part of the anchor text of various links,
>
>Nope. it uses &
Errr, no it doesn't, view source.
>> it validates
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.free-recipes.co.uk%2Fgourmet-food-store%2F
>>
>
>yes, because it uses &
No it doesn't. Did you look or just guess?
>> The only difference between the above page and
>> http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html is the former
>> has a space either side of the &, the latter doesn't. The validator
>> has mistaken the & for something it is not.
>>
>
>Nope. Your HTML is not valid because you have a & in a string of characters.
Show me one browser that's in or has been in general use where
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/serps-competition.html doesn't work
correctly due to the body text +MSN+Today&hl=en ?
Show me one and I'll admit I'm wrong.
The code is fine, it's the validator that due to an older browser that
can choke on URLs using & instead of & reports body text as an
error. I think it's overkill on the part of the validator.
>>>Simplest thing - try to change and check if it validates :)
>>
>> I'm not trying to fix the validation error (that's easy) since I can
>> be sure it won't cause harm so don't have to fix it.
>
>It *might* be causing harm to a user agent that you're not aware of.
>That might be a new spider, a new browser, or an SE database. It really
>is best to change it, and such a simple thing to do too!
It's body text, it won't cause any problems with any spiders or search
engines I care about. If you even do the smallest amount of research
on this you'll find the majority of sites (you look at) use & not
& in URLs and body text. Amazon affiliate links for example use &
as do most other affiliates I've seen.
Using & is the norm, therefore browser and search engines know this
and treat it appropriately. There is only one browser I know of that
chokes on a & in a URL, Netscape 3. I've not seen it choke on a & in
body text though, so throwing up a validator error for &blah is over
kill and can safely be ignored.
SEO Dave
wrote:
>Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
>it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
>Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
>beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!
ROFLOL, this from the "SEO expert" *cough, splutter* who can't even
work out how to do his sig separator correctly, thinks PageRank
involves apples, has to use speech marks around searches to make it
look like he gets SERPs, only gets 40 visitors a day and can only work
with HTML files because doesn't understand PHP etc...
Yep, you got me there Bill :-D
Seriously Bill what do you really do for a living, not your spare time
but the 9-5 job you must have?
>BB
<deleted your malformed sig again>
SEO Dave
wrote:
>>You should have said so then, I don't know what you are thinking when
>>you create a post!!
>>
>>So to go back to your "hypothetical points", why would you "have
>>included validation as a factor" for the examples we've been
>>discussing?
>
>Because a site that validates, when all other factors are equal, has a
>better chance of ranking than one which doesn't because the engines
>can understand the content better.
And your evidence for this is?
>This means that, where you have a top ten full of non-validating
>sites, validatin can be one point ion your favour. Another weapon in
>your arsenal.
>
>BB
You know Bill if you say something long enough to enough people some
will believe it and consider it a fact, also you'll believe it's a
fact. Doesn't make it a fact though, you've plucked a theory out the
air, done no research, no tests and because it sounds right gone with
it.
That's not SEO, that's guessing.
Show me one SERP where validation clearly has an impact.
Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.
Do some research to either prove or discount your belief.
Although your validation theory does have more logic to it than your
PageRank theory :-)
SEO Dave
>SEO Dave <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> How would I "rectify" this when the content is as I want it? The TEXT
>> should be MSN+Today&hl=en because it's TEXT not a URL. It's the
>> validator that makes no sense, not the code.
>
>*sigh* you still don't get it do you?
Of course I get it, if you use something like £s in a URL like-
?eatme=2£s=4
?eatme=2¥tle=4
It could be mistaken for the start of an entity
?eatme=2£s=4
?eatme=2¥tle=4
In I believe just one browser, Netscape 3 those links would fail.
To avoid this you would use-
?eatme=2&pounds=4
?eatme=2&yentle=4
SEO Dave
>SEO Dave <seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jun 2005 17:38:05 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Just shows how over the top they are when it comes to determining
>>>> valid code!
>>>
>>>No, it just shows how little clue you have about HTML, and lets just
>>>hope you never get customers using XHTML or XML.
>>
>> If you want to believe I don't understand HTML feel free, the reality
>> is I do far more interesting HTML designs than you do.
>
>Yes, and there are people who do even more interesting designs that only
>work in IE 6.0.
Touché :-)
>> You ever used floating div's
>
>Wow... now there is a hard thing to use (*sniggers*)
So you haven't then. How many sites have you built John?
>> My goal is optimized website's that bring in targeted traffic, not to
>> validate for the sake of it.
>
>Translation: Yeah, my HTML skills are lacking, but who cares.
Or I have so many pages online I don't have the time to worry about
validator errors for perfectly valid code that won't cause problems.
You might only have a few hundred pages, I have about half a million,
would you spend your time removing validator errors like the one I
posted in this thread that won't cause harm or making more money?
>Lets just hope you don't get customers that run an XHTML or XML site.
Already have them, not a problem so far.
>>>> MSN & Today
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't cause a validator error.
>>>
>>>That's because & is followed by a whitespace. &hl is the problem,
>>>because it's ambiguous.
>>
>> John I need your help with some HTML, what's this bit mean <title>, I
>> don't get it.
>>
>> ROFLOL
>
>And on the other hand you still think that a validator is wrong when it
>has a problem if a non-whitespace is following an &.
>
>It has been explained several times, yet you keep on blaming it on a
>validator. Dave doesn't get it, so yeah, it must be the dumb validator.
Yep ;-D
>Also, finally managed to get that JavaScript validated?
Never tried because I know it won't cause harm.
You just don't get it do you.
I use a validator as a tool to remove important errors from templates
that will be used to create thousands of pages, I don't validate every
page.
You uses a validator so you can say a page validates.
Does validation per se result in better SERPS, more visitors? No.
Does not validating result in worse SERPs, less visitors? No.
There is no evidence validation is an SEO factor and I've done some
research now and everything points to it not being a factor.
John Bokma
> To avoid this you would use-
>
> ?eatme=2&pounds=4
> ?eatme=2&yentle=4
And hence the validator is not wrong, or whatever.
John Bokma
> On 1 Jul 2005 03:23:52 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
>>Yes, and there are people who do even more interesting designs that
>>only work in IE 6.0.
>
> Touché :-)
More follow...
>>> You ever used floating div's
>>
>>Wow... now there is a hard thing to use (*sniggers*)
>
> So you haven't then.
http://castleamber.com/style.css
:
:
#leftcontent {
float:left;
(rest snipped)
http://johnbokma.com/styles.css
div.logo {
float: left;
:
:
div.leftnav {
width: 46%;
float: left;
( rest snipped)
http://searchengineoptimizationcompanyservices.com/styles.css
div.menu {
float: right;
( rest snipped )
>>Translation: Yeah, my HTML skills are lacking, but who cares.
>
> Or I have so many pages online I don't have the time to worry about
> validator errors for perfectly valid code that won't cause problems.
It's easy to automate, both the validating as well as the URL fixing.
> You might only have a few hundred pages, I have about half a million,
> would you spend your time removing validator errors like the one I
> posted in this thread that won't cause harm or making more money?
Yes, simply because if I already generate those pages automatically it's
a piece of cake to do such fixes. Moreover, I then can automatically
validate each and every one without having the software report 1001
pages invalid because of a simple thing as not encoding an & properly.
>>Lets just hope you don't get customers that run an XHTML or XML site.
>
> Already have them, not a problem so far.
Amazing, really.
>>Also, finally managed to get that JavaScript validated?
>
> Never tried because I know it won't cause harm.
Then why did you ask? Trying to get a point when again there was none?
> I use a validator as a tool to remove important errors from templates
> that will be used to create thousands of pages, I don't validate every
> page.
There is little point in validating a template if the content can be
invalid. Waste of time.
> You uses a validator so you can say a page validates.
If that was the case I would flaunt w3c links on every page. Which I
don't so again your assumption is wrong.
> Does not validating result in worse SERPs, less visitors? No.
Wrong: you generalize, which you can't. It's simple to create
non-validating pages that do worse in SERPs and hence result in less
visitors. Also, a page that doesn't validate might render wrong in some
browsers, and hence what is the point if one gets 10,000 visitors, and
10% can't see the page?
Yeah, I know you think SEO is about big numbers visitors and page wise,
but it has been explained to you several times (not only by me) that
such a method is not the right one for every SEO customer. Yet it seems
to be the only trick up on your sleeve: get a shit load of free content,
blog spam, and presto there are 10.000 visitors.
And since you like big numbers: 10% of 10.000 is a big number.
> There is no evidence validation is an SEO factor and I've done some
> research now and everything points to it not being a factor.
Research done just to prove you're right is not research.
John Bokma
> Using & is the norm, therefore browser and search engines know this
> and treat it appropriately. There is only one browser I know of that
> chokes on a & in a URL, Netscape 3. I've not seen it choke on a & in
> body text though, so throwing up a validator error for &blah is over
> kill and can safely be ignored.
Until you wake up and discover XML :-)
Davemon
>>>See this page http://www.free-recipes.co.uk/gourmet-food-store/ uses &
>>>over 30 times as part of the anchor text of various links,
>>
>>Nope. it uses &
>
>
> Errr, no it doesn't, view source.
>
>
However, Firefox's "show selction source" actually converts the & to
& (which is nice, or not, as the case may be). View source on the
page shows that it's actually a &.
As for the rest of the argument, FWIW, I like to live up to the
standards because it futureproofs things. The HTML specification is what
everyone when designing a user-agent will always refer to, whether they
remember to treat "&" differently because lazy coders use it wrongly,
thats up to them, but I don't really want to rely on them being
charitable to my sloppy code.
-------
Davemon
Borek
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>> Nope. Your HTML is not valid because you have a & in a string of
>> characters.
> The code is fine, it's the validator that due to an older browser that
> can choke on URLs using & instead of & reports body text as an
> error. I think it's overkill on the part of the validator.
> Using & is the norm, therefore browser and search engines know this
> and treat it appropriately. There is only one browser I know of that
> chokes on a & in a URL, Netscape 3. I've not seen it choke on a & in
> body text though, so throwing up a validator error for &blah is over
> kill and can safely be ignored.
Use of & is norm, because many peoples do it not knowing that it is
against of SGML (ISO8879) rules (HTML is a subset of SGML). Browsers
are forced to properly displayed & as if they don't, too many web
pages will be displayed incorrectly and every new browser that will
choke on this will be seen by users as bugged. Validator checks if
the code conforms to the stringent rules - and as such displays error.
Simply speaking: fact, that something is a norm doesn't mean it is correct.
Unfortunately your approach (erros can be safely ignored, as page
displays well) generates mess. Browser that will correctly display
error on single & will be considered by Joe Public bugged, so it has
to ignore errors. It is similar situation as IE displaying incorrectly
correct pages - Joe Public think page is wrong, not IE. In effect many
pages uses stupid tricks to obey IE inefficiencies, further other browsers
have to copy the same errors (or at least conform to the wrong behavior).
That's not a good approach. If you can't help, at least do no harm.
John Bokma
> As for the rest of the argument, FWIW, I like to live up to the
> standards because it futureproofs things. The HTML specification is what
> everyone when designing a user-agent will always refer to, whether they
> remember to treat "&" differently because lazy coders use it wrongly,
> thats up to them, but I don't really want to rely on them being
> charitable to my sloppy code.
Yup, and with XML there is no such thing as "hey, we fix this", an invalid
XML document should be dropped. Maybe browsers will become more relaxed
regarding this ([1]), but other applications not, since per design an XML
parser should drop an invalid document.
If I was generating 100,000 pages I would probably use XML as an in between
(or even storage) format, and transform it to HTML, or XHTML, or whatever.
[1] let's hope not.
Big Bill
>Davemon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>
>> As for the rest of the argument, FWIW, I like to live up to the
>> standards because it futureproofs things. The HTML specification is what
>> everyone when designing a user-agent will always refer to, whether they
>> remember to treat "&" differently because lazy coders use it wrongly,
>> thats up to them, but I don't really want to rely on them being
>> charitable to my sloppy code.
>
>Yup, and with XML there is no such thing as "hey, we fix this", an invalid
>XML document should be dropped. Maybe browsers will become more relaxed
>regarding this ([1]), but other applications not, since per design an XML
>parser should drop an invalid document.
>
>If I was generating 100,000 pages I would probably use XML as an in between
>(or even storage) format,
This is pretty much the idea of XML in the first place.
BB (rare technical observation there!!)
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:48:49 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>You should have said so then, I don't know what you are thinking when
>>>you create a post!!
>>>
>>>So to go back to your "hypothetical points", why would you "have
>>>included validation as a factor" for the examples we've been
>>>discussing?
>>
>>Because a site that validates, when all other factors are equal, has a
>>better chance of ranking than one which doesn't because the engines
>>can understand the content better.
>
>And your evidence for this is?
Dave, as you really should know by now, I don't run round geared up to
defend my every observation. I observe, deduce and move on, I don't
write down chapter and verse.
>
>>This means that, where you have a top ten full of non-validating
>>sites, validatin can be one point ion your favour. Another weapon in
>>your arsenal.
>>
>>BB
>
>You know Bill if you say something long enough to enough people some
>will believe it and consider it a fact, also you'll believe it's a
>fact. Doesn't make it a fact though, you've plucked a theory out the
>air, done no research, no tests and because it sounds right gone with
>it.
Um, nearly right.
>That's not SEO, that's guessing.
>
>Show me one SERP where validation clearly has an impact.
Use logic. Use intuition. It makes sense!
>Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
>validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
>clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.
I've not thought to look at that! I'll go see.
>Do some research to either prove or discount your belief.
>
>Although your validation theory does have more logic to it than your
>PageRank theory :-)
I thought that was very well expressed, I'm pleased with that.
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:16:31 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
>>it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
>>Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
>>beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!
>
>ROFLOL, this from the "SEO expert" *cough, splutter* who can't even
>work out how to do his sig separator correctly, thinks PageRank
>involves apples,
You read that, huh? Obviously you missed the page on seo experts. Dave
makes it up AGAIN!
Why is no-one surprised?
Big Bill
wrote:
>>Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
>>validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
>>clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.
DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
attention or what?
SEO Dave
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
>>>validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
>>>clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.
>
>
>DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
>attention or what?
>
>BB
LOL, I wasn't really paying attention to the sites, just quick
validation check for the number that validated.
Why aren't you number one for this phrase then, you've got a validated
page that fits your theory-
"If a page is validated, an engine can perfectly well understand the
contents without needing to be convinced by the anchor text of
innumerable inbound links."
Sounds like validating is a big deal to better SERPs, you don't need
as many links apparently, what a load of tosh.
SEO Dave
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:16:31 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
>>>it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
>>>Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
>>>beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!
>>
>>ROFLOL, this from the "SEO expert" *cough, splutter* who can't even
>>work out how to do his sig separator correctly, thinks PageRank
>>involves apples,
>
>You read that, huh? Obviously you missed the page on seo experts. Dave
>makes it up AGAIN!
I only looked at a few of your pages as they have no value, the small
amount of fact is drowned out by so much garbage it's one of the worst
SEO advice sites I've seen yet.
Anyway, I apologize for suggesting you think of yourself as an expert.
I've edited my last post to this-
ROFLOL, this from the "SEO Guru/Authority/Specialist/Professional"
*cough, splutter* who can't even work out how to do his sig separator
correctly, thinks PageRank involves apples,
Is that more accurate? You refer to yourself as all the above on that
page you mentioned. Really though you should know they basically mean
expert or similar though-
Expert definition- http://www.answers.com/expert&r=67
A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, master, past master,
professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
Chiefly British dab2. See ability/inability.
Authority definition- http://www.answers.com/authority&r=67
A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
Chiefly British dab. See ability/inability.
Professional definition- http://www.answers.com/professional&r=67
A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack. Chiefly British
dab2. See ability/inability.
So do you think you are an SEO authority with "a high degree of
knowledge or skill in a particular field"?
LOL
>Why is no-one surprised?
>
>BB
<deletion of malformed sig again>
SEO Dave
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:48:49 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>You should have said so then, I don't know what you are thinking when
>>>>you create a post!!
>>>>
>>>>So to go back to your "hypothetical points", why would you "have
>>>>included validation as a factor" for the examples we've been
>>>>discussing?
>>>
>>>Because a site that validates, when all other factors are equal, has a
>>>better chance of ranking than one which doesn't because the engines
>>>can understand the content better.
>>
>>And your evidence for this is?
>
>Dave, as you really should know by now, I don't run round geared up to
>defend my every observation. I observe, deduce and move on, I don't
>write down chapter and verse.
But on this page http://www.kruse.co.uk/validation.htm you say-
"There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that pages that
correctly validate will rank higher than similar pages that don't."
Where is this growing body of evidence?
>
>>
>>>This means that, where you have a top ten full of non-validating
>>>sites, validatin can be one point ion your favour. Another weapon in
>>>your arsenal.
>>>
>>>BB
>>
>>You know Bill if you say something long enough to enough people some
>>will believe it and consider it a fact, also you'll believe it's a
>>fact. Doesn't make it a fact though, you've plucked a theory out the
>>air, done no research, no tests and because it sounds right gone with
>>it.
>
>Um, nearly right.
Care to expand?
>>That's not SEO, that's guessing.
>>
>>Show me one SERP where validation clearly has an impact.
>
>Use logic. Use intuition. It makes sense!
So you don't know of any SERP where validation is a factor. Do you
have anything to backup your theory?
>>Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
>>validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
>>clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.
>
>I've not thought to look at that! I'll go see.
>
>>Do some research to either prove or discount your belief.
>>
>>Although your validation theory does have more logic to it than your
>>PageRank theory :-)
>
>I thought that was very well expressed, I'm pleased with that.
It makes no sense at all-
Here you go, maybe you'll learn something for once Bill-
From http://www.kruse.co.uk/page-rank.htm
>If I have several apples, and I give you some, I have less apples than before.
>
>If I have a Page Rank of several, and I give you some links, I may well still have the same Page Rank I had before.
Trying to make an analogy, but fail to explain what PageRank is and
why it's not like giving apples away!
>Assuming, that is, that you are a good and worthy site, both appropriate and thematically related to mine, in the eyes of the great god Google.
Not true, the only proviso on PR is if one of the pages linked to/from
is penalized. So you don't need your site to be "good and worthy"
(whatever that means, sounds like fluff) nor "appropriate and
thematically related".
>In fact, if Google thinks you're a better site on the subject than I am, then because I gave you some of my apples/PR, I may now myself have more than the several apples/PR that I had before.
So you think linking to external, but related sites increases PR. If
you believe that you are an idiot, the mathematics of PR should tell
you this.
>But if Google thinks you're giving your apples/PR to a "bad neighbourhood" site (porn, etc) or a site entirely unrelated to yours (think "reciprocal linking schemes" here) then you may well end up with less apples/PR or even no apples/PR at all.
You start well, linking to a "bad neighbourhood" could cause problems,
but there are no penalties for linking to porn sites per se and
linking to unrelated sites will not result in a penalty. "reciprocal
linking schemes" are an iffy one, if you mean link farms, some can
cause problems, but general reciprocal linking isn't going to result
in a problem.
>So you should maybe be a bit careful who you link to.
>
>I don't think this is something you should stress about too much though.
>
>If you mention in your Blog that you bumped into your buddy Vinnie on Tuesday and Vinnie's Bar & Grill does the best kebabs in town (and it does, this is no fooling), then there's absolutely no harm in putting up a link to Vinnie's Grill's web site. It's natural. Similarly, if you mention that you were talking to Big Frank about the Match when you were in his Shoe Repair Emporium on the Saturday, then again it's natural to link to the big man's site. Both Vinnie and Frank have a link back to your business site; after all, you're a regular customer and it's common courtesy to do this.
>
Although the above isn't wrong, it's not good SEO advice if your blog
is important in terms of the SERPs it gains.
>This is absolutely not the same, though, as having row after row of links to sites that have absolutely no relation to you or your neighbourhood or anything whatsoever to do with you. That's absurd, and it's asking for trouble; if Google gets a whiff of a reciprocal link scheme implemented for its own sake, your Page Rank will leak like a rusty sieve and your rankings will plummet as a consequence.
>
Not true, I can't think of a single instance where a site has setup
what could be described as a directory of reciprocal links and been
penalized for it.
>And you won't, as they say, like them apples.
So what little good information there is above, it's swamped with
tosh.
BTW PageRank does leak, it's a mathematical fact. If you don't
understand the maths behind PR don't make up a load of crap that makes
no sense at all.
Here's a good explanation with pictures
http://www.abcseo.com/seo-book/pagerank-leakage.htm
>BB
<malformed sig deleted>
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:42:36 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
>>>>validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
>>>>clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.
>>
>>
>>DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
>>attention or what?
>>
>>BB
>
>LOL, I wasn't really paying attention to the sites, just quick
>validation check for the number that validated.
>
>Why aren't you number one for this phrase then, you've got a validated
>page that fits your theory-
Early days, I've never pushed it. I was suprised it was there,
frankly.
>"If a page is validated, an engine can perfectly well understand the
>contents without needing to be convinced by the anchor text of
>innumerable inbound links."
>
>Sounds like validating is a big deal to better SERPs, you don't need
>as many links apparently, what a load of tosh.
And...you've checked all ten of the serps to determine how many ibls I
have compared to the others plus the page rank and the sources etc?
More to do, David, more to do!!
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
>><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:16:31 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
>>>>it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
>>>>Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
>>>>beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!
>>>
>>>ROFLOL, this from the "SEO expert" *cough, splutter* who can't even
>>>work out how to do his sig separator correctly, thinks PageRank
>>>involves apples,
>>
>>You read that, huh? Obviously you missed the page on seo experts. Dave
>>makes it up AGAIN!
>
>I only looked at a few of your pages as they have no value,
Says who?
> the small
>amount of fact is drowned out by so much garbage it's one of the worst
>SEO advice sites I've seen yet.
Say's who?
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
Yeah, I goofed. I forgot pundit.
>Expert definition- http://www.answers.com/expert&r=67
>
>A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
>field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, master, past master,
>professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
>Chiefly British dab2. See ability/inability.
>
>Authority definition- http://www.answers.com/authority&r=67
>
>A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
>field: ace, adept, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
>professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
>Chiefly British dab. See ability/inability.
>
>Professional definition- http://www.answers.com/professional&r=67
>
>A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
>field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
>proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack. Chiefly British
>dab2. See ability/inability.
Shit. I forgot most of those, too.
Big Bill
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:42:36 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
>>attention or what?
>>
>>BB
>
>LOL, I wasn't really paying attention to the sites, just quick
>validation check for the number that validated.
>
>Why aren't you number one for this phrase then, you've got a validated
>page that fits your theory-
>Sounds like validating is a big deal to better SERPs, you don't need
>as many links apparently, what a load of tosh.
You've been through all the IBL's for all ten then, collated all the
data, checked the sources, page rank, thematic-relations and so forth?
Big Bill
<seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
>><seo...@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:48:49 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You should have said so then, I don't know what you are thinking when
>>>>>you create a post!!
>>>>>
>>>>>So to go back to your "hypothetical points", why would you "have
>>>>>included validation as a factor" for the examples we've been
>>>>>discussing?
>>>>
>>>>Because a site that validates, when all other factors are equal, has a
>>>>better chance of ranking than one which doesn't because the engines
>>>>can understand the content better.
>>>
>>>And your evidence for this is?
>>
>>Dave, as you really should know by now, I don't run round geared up to
>>defend my every observation. I observe, deduce and move on, I don't
>>write down chapter and verse.
>
>But on this page http://www.kruse.co.uk/validation.htm you say-
>
>"There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that pages that
>correctly validate will rank higher than similar pages that don't."
>
>Where is this growing body of evidence?
Anecdotal.
>
>It makes no sense at all-
Sigh, no David, just because you don't see sense doesn't mean it sin't
there, you don't have the monopoly on what is or isn't sense.
John Bokma
> Sigh, no David, just because you don't see sense doesn't mean it sin't
> there, you don't have the monopoly on what is or isn't sense.
Sometimes I think it's best for everybody to just ploink Dave :-D. I
mean, we have had the Dave & Sam show, the Dave & John show, and now the
Dave and Bill show. (And I am sure I left out several other ego trips by
Dave).
What I really don't understand is why Dave, making gazillions of dollars
while sleeping, keeps on attacking people who somehow state that they do
SEO for *other* people. Moreover, why tries Dave, while making all those
gazillions with gazillions of visitors and 10 to the power gazillion
pages still care about 70 GBP / month customers...
Moreover, why does someone who is planning to get a big nice house
because of $$$$ coming in 24/7 just uses a tweaked template for his
professional business that at least hurts my eyes.
( Other questions I have:
- why is Dave so worried about my 1 PR 7 link and how I "waste"
my resources (well, at least I didn't gain it with blog spamming
(or "spamming"), but just by making a simple logo :-D )
- why is Dave so worried about my "sexual" examples (if you
consider comparing validation with safe sex, sexual), and how it
affects my customers while he has been in adult business
(failed), offers me sex toys (failed), and lingerie (sounds like
he failed there too). [1]
- why has Dave no problem at hinting at how many links I had based
on his PR calculations but has a major issue with making his
calculations (which must be simple, since why post the results)
public?
)
And finally, but that is paranoid me, sometimes I have the impression
that Stacey and Dave plan stuff (email), and then Stacey "suddenly"
discovers a Dave thingy. But that's just paranoid me.
Finally, #9 for SEO expert (here), with just a minor tweak :-D. As Dave
already stated, I have a lot of room ;-)
And congrats Bill, #11 (here).
Dave had to blog spam 260+ blogs to get at #14 :-D. (And I am to lazy to
find out how often he used "seo expert" as anchor text).
[1] Ok, there was the tits and car sales thing, but also that is
something I don't consider explicit. Doesn't Dave live in that
country where a woman discovered that her 9 yo, 12 yo and 14 yo
all were pregnant, and blamed the school system? (I might have
the ages wrong). So yeah, validation rulez.
Davemon
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:41:14 +0100, Davemon <nos...@nowhere.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>>>You missed my point. I won't use their 'Unhappy with results' because
>>>>there is no benefit to me or the wider internet community, only benefits
>>>>Google.
>>>
>>>
>>>But they are the ones who use use Google.
>>>
>>>If the wider internet community find what they're looking for easier
>>>from Google as a result of your complaint then isn't that a good thing
>>>by your definition?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh dear.
>>Google is a business:
>>
>>Google supplies product (users) to its customers (advertisers) by
>>attracting users with 'useful search results'.
>>
>>Those search results *must* strike a balance between:
>>
>> 1)the illusion of "relevance" (create products)
>> 2)getting advertisers to pay to be listed (sell product)
>>
>>As a business, it's only responsibility is to make a profit for it's
>>share-holders. If it can achieve that by producing crap search results,
>>or cutting costs by getting unpaid volunteers to validate its results
>>for it, it will, so why on earth should I, and everyone else on the
>>internet trust Google?
>>
>>
>>>>If I do something that only benefits Google, they, in return should do
>>>>something that benefits only me (ie. give me money or free ad listings
>>>>or whatever).
>>>
>>>
>>>They do, they make your site more visible or they make it easier for
>>>you to find the info you're looking for.
>>>
>>
>>Which helps Google generate product, which they then sell to
>>advertisers, which earns them profit, directly.
>
>
> Nothing wrong with profit. I like it!
>
duh!
Davemon
-------