Hello
nicole
I have a site www.ramdulari.com .Why google not crawling all my
webpages.Can anybody tell?
Thanks
Paul
wrote:
Would help if your pages worked :
http://www.ramdulari.com/exporters.php Service Unavailable
http://www.ramdulari.com/importers.php page cannot be displayed.
plh
Paul
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> >Hello,
> > Why google not crawling all my
> >webpages.Can anybody tell?
> > Thanks
Not having a robots.txt file is a sure sign that you still have a lot
of work to do before you should be worried about what your rank is.
- Brett (www.SEOwebMarket.com)
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Paul wrote:
>> >Hello,
>> > Why google not crawling all my
>> >webpages.Can anybody tell?
>> > Thanks
>
>Not having a robots.txt file is a sure sign that you still have a lot
>of work to do before you should be worried about what your rank is.
what rubbish.
what has not having a robots.txt file got to do with anything ?
Different if he had one and blocked everything.
Not having a robots.txt never affects SERPS or crawling.
plh
Paul
--
Advertise your American Indian Art http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Forums/rent.html or web site.
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> Not having a robots.txt never affects SERPS or crawling.
Don't be a fool.
Have you ever tracked one to see how often it is read?
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Paul wrote:
>> Not having a robots.txt never affects SERPS or crawling.
>
>Don't be a fool.
I had my site up for over 1.5 years without a robots.txt file. ALL
pages cached and PR'd. No effect in serps whatsoever.
>Have you ever tracked one to see how often it is read?
and ?
how does that affect crawling ?
here's a site that has no robots.txt
tell me that those pages have not been crawled.
http://www.eaglerocktradingpost.com/robots.txt
Now who is the fool ?
Want me to show you a 1000 sites more like it ?
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
Any reason why your pages on your site are not cached then ? <G>
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
Huh?
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/affordable-website-promotion-services.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-home-page.htm
John Bokma
Doesn't matter, the default is:
User-agent: *
Disallow:
when there is no robots.txt.
--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Quick Bookmarks:http://johnbokma.com/firefox/quick-launch-bookmarks.html
Jezsta Web Productions
news:1155771037.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul wrote:
>> Not having a robots.txt never affects SERPS or crawling.
>
> Don't be a fool.
Sorry, but you do not need a robots.txt for robots to crawl and cache your
site. Where ever you are getting your info is wrong!
> Have you ever tracked one to see how often it is read?
What my site, well one is crawled about every 2 to 3 days.
Stacey
--
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
http://www.ecraftsonline.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com
Jezsta Web Productions
>
> Paul wrote:
>> >Hello,
>> > Why google not crawling all my
>> >webpages.Can anybody tell?
>> > Thanks
>
> Not having a robots.txt file is a sure sign that you still have a lot
> of work to do before you should be worried about what your rank is.
Looks like you need to learn a little more yourself.:-)
<meta name="robots" content="all">
<meta name="revisit-after" content="7 Days">
<meta name="expires" content="never">
<meta name="distribution" content="Global">
<meta name="rating" content="GENERAL">
<meta name="author" content="seowebmarket.com">
<meta name="copyright" content="Copyright © 2006 www.SEOwebMarket.com,
All rights reserved">
<meta name="email" content="web...@seowebmarket.com">
None of those meta tags are needed.
"We will manually submit your site to major search engines on a regular
basis and send you a monthly report on your site rank and search engine
listings for your main keywords." ----LOL!!! Simply not needed, who are you
trying to kid and take money for this?
There is a few more little tidbits on your site that well isn't correct.
John Bokma
> "We will manually submit your site to major search engines on a
> regular basis and send you a monthly report on your site rank and
> search engine listings for your main keywords." ----LOL!!! Simply not
> needed, who are you trying to kid and take money for this?
Wouldn't amaze me if people working like this make actually more money
then some white hat ethical SEO experts :-D.
--
John Skilled Perl programmer for hire: http://castleamber.com/
Fox noGO:http://johnbokma.com/firefox/removing-go-button-search-bar.html
Jezsta Web Productions
news:Xns9821D32A4F...@130.133.1.4...
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "We will manually submit your site to major search engines on a
>> regular basis and send you a monthly report on your site rank and
>> search engine listings for your main keywords." ----LOL!!! Simply not
>> needed, who are you trying to kid and take money for this?
>
> Wouldn't amaze me if people working like this make actually more money
> then some white hat ethical SEO experts :-D.
Yeah, because so many actually state they submit, I wonder how many of then
really do submit. Amazing isn't it?:-)
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9821D32A4F...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "We will manually submit your site to major search engines on a
>>> regular basis and send you a monthly report on your site rank and
>>> search engine listings for your main keywords." ----LOL!!! Simply not
>>> needed, who are you trying to kid and take money for this?
>>
>> Wouldn't amaze me if people working like this make actually more money
>> then some white hat ethical SEO experts :-D.
>
>Yeah, because so many actually state they submit, I wonder how many of then
>really do submit. Amazing isn't it?:-)
>
>Stacey
How many of them could offer proof of submission? Proof that we'd
verify? My guess would be none at all.
Big Bill
Yet another SEO noob coming here trying to make a name for themselves.
SEOwebMarket.com
Big Bill wrote:
> Yet another SEO noob coming here trying to make a name for themselves.
Are you the local expert at marketing, tiny?
Because you are spamming a page with a description that reads:
"Need an SEO strategy for your home page? Here it is..."
"The truth is, you can't do much SEO for a home page, not really."
adwords adwords adwords adwords adwords
"in general you have to treat almost every page as if it were your seo
home page"
Did your kids make that site for you in school?
Do your clients have a gay blue gradient on all of their pages too?
My clients get damn nice sites with #1 listings. They don't complain.
bihtrophy
-------------------------------------
You can go to google sitemap for submit your sitemap.
https://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps/
Robot will go to your site.
-------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/groupforseo/
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Big Bill wrote:
>> Yet another SEO noob coming here trying to make a name for themselves.
>
>Are you the local expert at marketing, tiny?
>
>Because you are spamming a page with a description that reads:
>"Need an SEO strategy for your home page? Here it is..."
>"The truth is, you can't do much SEO for a home page, not really."
>adwords adwords adwords adwords adwords
>"in general you have to treat almost every page as if it were your seo
>home page"
Spamming? Where is there spamming? I suspect you've got hold of the
wrong end of the stick there.
>Did your kids make that site for you in school?
>Do your clients have a gay blue gradient on all of their pages too?
>
>
>My clients get damn nice sites with #1 listings. They don't complain.
Evidence of any? We've already got one idiot on here forever bragging
about his happy clients and oddly enough he can't produce evidence of
any either. Maybe you two could get together and have a convention.
Changing the subject, hey Stacey, he doesn't like your graphics...
Mind you, I'm beginning to think "Troll"...
Paul
wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2006 00:46:16 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
><web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>> Yet another SEO noob coming here trying to make a name for themselves.
>>
>>Are you the local expert at marketing, tiny?
>>
>>Because you are spamming a page with a description that reads:
>>"Need an SEO strategy for your home page? Here it is..."
>>"The truth is, you can't do much SEO for a home page, not really."
>>adwords adwords adwords adwords adwords
>>"in general you have to treat almost every page as if it were your seo
>>home page"
>
>Spamming? Where is there spamming? I suspect you've got hold of the
>wrong end of the stick there.
I wouldn't worry about him Bill
Only one of his pages is cached. LOL
His site states that it is valid HTML when it is not.
His menu is spammy.
No portfolio on site - strange for an SEO company not to have one.
I could go on, but I have better things to do.
>>My clients get damn nice sites with #1 listings. They don't complain.
What ? for obscure keywords ? Low targetted markets ?
>Evidence of any? We've already got one idiot on here forever bragging
>about his happy clients and oddly enough he can't produce evidence of
>any either. Maybe you two could get together and have a convention.
He won't show any proof because there are none to show. And if he does
have any, they will be ripped to shreds by people in here.
>Changing the subject, hey Stacey, he doesn't like your graphics...
>
>Mind you, I'm beginning to think "Troll"...
beginning to ? <G>
>BB
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> I wouldn't worry about him Bill
LOL, why are you worrying about me? Are you intimidated?
> I could go on, but I have better things to do.
Doesn't seem like it.
> >>My clients get damn nice sites with #1 listings. They don't complain.
>
> What ? for obscure keywords ? Low targetted markets ?
Heh, is that how YOU do seo? In YOUR mind, that is the only way to get
#1 listings. Why would you waste your time with "obscure" keywords?
Using words like "targetted" (that aren't in the dictionary dummy)
isn't my style. Don't assume that I am anything like you.
I use natural keywords because that is what gets ROI.
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Paul wrote:
>> I wouldn't worry about him Bill
>
>LOL, why are you worrying about me? Are you intimidated?
intimidated ?
By you ?
ROFLMAO
>> I could go on, but I have better things to do.
>
>Doesn't seem like it.
Cos you bore me with your BS.
>> >>My clients get damn nice sites with #1 listings. They don't complain.
>>
>> What ? for obscure keywords ? Low targetted markets ?
>Heh, is that how YOU do seo?
No.
I have SERPS in 497 million mark and one or 2 in the billion.
I don't make sites for a living, I do it for fun.
> In YOUR mind, that is the only way to get #1 listings.
ROFL
Like you know what my sites are or what keywords I target.
> Why would you waste your time with "obscure" keywords?
I was asking you.
>Using words like "targetted" (that aren't in the dictionary dummy)
Oh, I made a bloody typo, whoppie do.
It was in the early hours of the morning.
Like you have never made a typo.
>isn't my style. Don't assume that I am anything like you.
I don't. I am above you.
>I use natural keywords because that is what gets ROI.
Jezsta Web Productions
news:avb8e2lpuhk4srj2c...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> Changing the subject, hey Stacey, he doesn't like your graphics...
LOL! That is just a background.
>
> Mind you, I'm beginning to think "Troll"...
He came before not for long and left.:-)
Paul
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>He came before not for long and left.:-)
Probably went to SEO india sites to get the latest tips ;)
Jezsta Web Productions
> <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>> Yet another SEO noob coming here trying to make a name for themselves.
>>
>>Are you the local expert at marketing, tiny?
>>
>>Because you are spamming a page with a description that reads:
>>"Need an SEO strategy for your home page? Here it is..."
>>"The truth is, you can't do much SEO for a home page, not really."
>>adwords adwords adwords adwords adwords
>>"in general you have to treat almost every page as if it were your seo
>>home page"
>
> Spamming? Where is there spamming? I suspect you've got hold of the
> wrong end of the stick there.
Explain how that is spammy Bret? It is long, but not spammy.
<snip>
>>Do your clients have a gay blue gradient on all of their pages too?
Gay? Well at least it is a happy color!:-)
>>My clients get damn nice sites with #1 listings. They don't complain.
> Evidence of any? We've already got one idiot on here forever bragging
> about his happy clients and oddly enough he can't produce evidence of
> any either. Maybe you two could get together and have a convention.
Come to think of it Bill, you have never shown any evidence either.:-)
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> >> >>My clients get damn nice sites with #1 listings. They don't complain.
> >> What ? for obscure keywords ? Low targetted markets ?
> > Heh, is that how YOU do seo?
> > In YOUR mind, that is the only way to get #1 listings.
> ROFL
> Like you know what my sites are or what keywords I target.
Why not? YOU assumed that I only run one company and that everything I
know was spelt out for you on the site. Are you now assuming that I am
not foolish enough to think the same about you and your lame web site?
I do know that YOU immediately assumed that one would have had to do
something like that to get a #1 listing. Such an obvious fool.
> > Why would you waste your time with "obscure" keywords?
>
> I was asking you.
And I am wondering what kind of idiot would ask such a stupid question.
> > Don't assume that I am anything like you.
>
> I don't. I am above you.
Just another of your lame assumptions about someone that you know
nothing about.
> Probably went to SEO india sites to get the latest tips ;)
Heh, is that where YOU go? I'm a proud American.
Don'cha think it might be a little wiser to assume that I would join
Google groups for the latest info on search engines?
> I don't make sites for a living, I do it for fun.
well then enjoy it instead of being a dick all day long
Big Bill
Is there not anything up there still? Used to be a few on there.
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:avb8e2lpuhk4srj2c...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>>
>> Changing the subject, hey Stacey, he doesn't like your graphics...
>
>LOL! That is just a background.
>>
>> Mind you, I'm beginning to think "Troll"...
>
>He came before not for long and left.:-)
>
>Stacey
I don't remember him. But why would I? - a-ha-ha-ha-ha...:-)
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
Er, no, given the quality of information on GG, no, we wouldn't think
that. Mind, if it's so good there, why are you here?
Jezsta Web Productions
Oh, we have to go to your site to see. To much work.:-)
SEOwebMarket.com
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
> Gay? Well at least it is a happy color!:-)
It might as well be pink or rainbow colored.
I'm not going back to look at that horrid thing, but I recall it having
nasty distortions near the right third of the gradient & was too close
to boring cyan. That's what you get for imaging on a windows box. And
I didn't know it was your work, sorry (just looking to see how
respectable the guy talking about me is).
> Come to think of it Bill, you have never shown any evidence either.:-)
It would be foolish to, especially in a forum of this sort.
> >>Because you are spamming a page with a description that reads:
> >>"Need an SEO strategy for your home page? Here it is..."
> >>"The truth is, you can't do much SEO for a home page, not really."
> >>adwords adwords adwords adwords adwords
> >>"in general you have to treat almost every page as if it were your seo
> >>home page"
> Explain how that is spammy Brett? It is long, but not spammy.
Spam = words with no value.
He's clearly listing off 3 full URLs from the same domain in an attempt
to either create links to his site or to solicit clicks. Readers eyes
have become accustomed to ignoring spam (which you might have read
about while researching ad placement). By adding multiple lines of ads
under his post, he is partially discrediting himself subliminally to
everyone that reads it.
But worse - when you go to his page to learn about what he can do for
you, he says that he has an SEO strategy for your home page where he
doesn't really do much with it and that he will treat all of your pages
like that. This is very disturbingly and uncomfortably confusing.
Lil' Bill, what your site says is one of the most insanely idiotic
things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent page
text were you even close to anything that could be considered a
rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
soul.
SEOwebMarket.com
Big Bill wrote:
> Er, no, given the quality of information on GG, no, we wouldn't think
> that. Mind, if it's so good there, why are you here?
Well I guess you really are dumber than I thought.
It's the internet. Think about it . . .
Maybe "here" is actually there, too.
W˙rm
"SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:1155824701....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Maybe "here" is actually there, too.
More like "there" is actually here. After all, Google Groups are just a
interface to usenet...
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>It would be foolish to, especially in a forum of this sort.
Then again, you come in here giving false info about robots.txt
Yet *your* pages are not cached.
You offer SEO for money [your website]
I don't.
I just made a web site for myself which happened to turn out that
others like it too. I get a lot of *quality* inbound links as well as
pointless ones.
I also created and maintain a site for someone else - for free.
You "do SEO" for a business, I do it for fun. BIG difference.
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>> Like you know what my sites are or what keywords I target.
>
>Why not? YOU assumed that I only run one company and that everything I
>know was spelt out for you on the site. Are you now assuming that I am
>not foolish enough to think the same about you and your lame web site?
See, you cannot even read what people write.
I didn't say would you like to know.
I said Like you know what my sites are.
I see that you cannot accept that you were wrong about the robots.txt
so you have to deflect from that and start fighting. That's okay. I
will play your game for a while. Till I get bored and plonk you.
If you are going to give advice on the group, just make sure its the
*correct* advice.
And I bet my lame web site gets far more visitors than yours.
At least I don't claim to have my pages valiadated like you do.
Thing is, mine *are* validated and yours are not.
Not that is makes any difference but it makes yours looks rather silly
to be claiming something thats not.
Any fool can click on that logo on your site and see that the page is
not validated.
You may want to find out why your pages are not cached. I would have
put that at the top of my priorities if I had a company that dealt
with SEO.
ttfn
Jezsta Web Productions
>
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>> Gay? Well at least it is a happy color!:-)
>
> It might as well be pink or rainbow colored.
Oh, so you were in fact putting down the Gay community.:-)
> I'm not going back to look at that horrid thing, but I recall it having
> nasty distortions near the right third of the gradient & was too close
> to boring cyan. That's what you get for imaging on a windows box. And
> I didn't know it was your work, sorry (just looking to see how
> respectable the guy talking about me is).
Cyan? Not even close to that color. Not really my graphic. Just used Bill's
first one to make this one. Bill has been around for awhile. I can make
pretty good graphics BTW.
>> Come to think of it Bill, you have never shown any evidence either.:-)
>
> It would be foolish to, especially in a forum of this sort.
Hmm, well we do have a client as we just came out with our website a couple
of weeks ago. We have several #1 SERPs and many top 5 SERPs.:-)
>> >>Because you are spamming a page with a description that reads:
>> >>"Need an SEO strategy for your home page? Here it is..."
>> >>"The truth is, you can't do much SEO for a home page, not really."
>> >>adwords adwords adwords adwords adwords
>> >>"in general you have to treat almost every page as if it were your seo
>> >>home page"
>
>> Explain how that is spammy Brett? It is long, but not spammy.
>
> Spam = words with no value.
That is not spam, sorry.
> He's clearly listing off 3 full URLs from the same domain in an attempt
> to either create links to his site or to solicit clicks. Readers eyes
> have become accustomed to ignoring spam (which you might have read
> about while researching ad placement). By adding multiple lines of ads
> under his post, he is partially discrediting himself subliminally to
> everyone that reads it.
Hi sig? You can list anything in a signature. That is not listing URL's it
is a sig.:-)
<snip>. This is very disturbingly and uncomfortably confusing.
Well, that is Bill.:-)
> Lil' Bill, what your site says is one of the most insanely idiotic
> things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent page
> text were you even close to anything that could be considered a
> rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
> listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
> soul.
Oh, wow. Bill to think you think I need to learn the English. He doesn't
understand you.:-)
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> Then again, you come in here giving false info about robots.txt
I was offering a helpful hint to a person asking for help.
"Not having a robots.txt file is a sure sign that you still have a lot
of work to do before you should be worried about what your rank is."
The first day that I watched Googlebot visit one of my sites, it went
for the robots.txt file 1000 times on a new site that was only getting
100 page views a day. I know exactly what I'm talking about, do you?
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
I thought you and Dave were there more than I am.
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote in message
>news:1155824250.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>> Gay? Well at least it is a happy color!:-)
>>
>> It might as well be pink or rainbow colored.
>
>Oh, so you were in fact putting down the Gay community.:-)
>
>> I'm not going back to look at that horrid thing, but I recall it having
>> nasty distortions near the right third of the gradient & was too close
>> to boring cyan. That's what you get for imaging on a windows box. And
>> I didn't know it was your work, sorry (just looking to see how
>> respectable the guy talking about me is).
>
>Cyan? Not even close to that color. Not really my graphic. Just used Bill's
>first one to make this one.
It wasn't mine, some girl did it. She has a page where you can get
them in various colours.
Hey!
>> Lil' Bill, what your site says is one of the most insanely idiotic
>> things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent page
>> text were you even close to anything that could be considered a
>> rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
>> listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
>> soul.
>
>Oh, wow. Bill to think you think I need to learn the English. He doesn't
>understand you.:-)
Not everyone gets me. That works for me.
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:14:39 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Oh, we have to go to your site to see. To much work.:-)
>
> I thought you and Dave were there more than I am.
Haven't been since I fixed your graphic.:-)
Jezsta Web Productions
Having a robots.txt doesn't make the robot cache more or come more. Sorry,
it just doesn't. Of course it checks for that file, that is only to see if
it is allowed to visit. If none is in place then by default the robot is
allowed.
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:48:59 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote in message
>>news:1155824250.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>>> Gay? Well at least it is a happy color!:-)
>>>
>>> It might as well be pink or rainbow colored.
>>
>>Oh, so you were in fact putting down the Gay community.:-)
>>
>>> I'm not going back to look at that horrid thing, but I recall it having
>>> nasty distortions near the right third of the gradient & was too close
>>> to boring cyan. That's what you get for imaging on a windows box. And
>>> I didn't know it was your work, sorry (just looking to see how
>>> respectable the guy talking about me is).
>>
>>Cyan? Not even close to that color. Not really my graphic. Just used
>>Bill's
>>first one to make this one.
>
> It wasn't mine, some girl did it. She has a page where you can get
> them in various colours.
Oh, well then we can blame her.:-)
<snip>
>>
>><snip>. This is very disturbingly and uncomfortably confusing.
>>
>>Well, that is Bill.:-)
>
> Hey!
I meant it in a good way Bill.:-)
>>> Lil' Bill, what your site says is one of the most insanely idiotic
>>> things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent page
>>> text were you even close to anything that could be considered a
>>> rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
>>> listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
>>> soul.
>>
>>Oh, wow. Bill to think you think I need to learn the English. He doesn't
>>understand you.:-)
>
> Not everyone gets me. That works for me.
Of course. :-)
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> I didn't say would you like to know.
> I said Like you know what my sites are.
I know what you wrote. I don't assume to know about your sites, just
like you shouldn't assume to know everything about mine. Read it three
or four times and it might start to sink into your thick skull.
> At least I don't claim to have my pages valiadated like you do.
> Thing is, mine *are* validated and yours are not.
The only items on that site that don't validate are the ads.
Which pages do you see as not valid?
> You may want to find out why your pages are not cached. I would have
> put that at the top of my priorities if I had a company that dealt
> with SEO.
You would have, huh? Well, you are also an ignorant all-assuming fool.
Did it ever occur to you that the site might only be a couple months
old? You shouldn't be so concerned about MY priorities. Stop whining
about "if I had" and go get your own.
SEOwebMarket.com
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
> Oh, so you were in fact putting down the Gay community.:-)
I hadn't thought of it like that. I apologize.
I guess I did insult the gays by indirectly associating them with
Bill's site.
> Hi sig? You can list anything in a signature. That is not listing URL's it
> is a sig.:-)
Regardless of what you call it, when guests finish reading it they will
sigh as they realize that they just got suckered into reading an ad.
The longer the ad, the more you looks like a salesman.
> > "Lil' Bill, what your site says is one of the most insanely idiotic
> > things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent page
> > text were you even close to anything that could be considered a
> > rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
> > listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
> > soul."
>
> Oh, wow. Bill to think you think I need to learn the English. He doesn't
> understand you.:-)
That was a quote from a movie about a genius named Billy (well, a
genius when compared to this Billy).
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Paul wrote:
>> I didn't say would you like to know.
>> I said Like you know what my sites are.
>> At least I don't claim to have my pages valiadated like you do.
>> Thing is, mine *are* validated and yours are not.
>
>The only items on that site that don't validate are the ads.
>
>Which pages do you see as not valid?
Only checked the first page.
to have that logo means the *whole* page validates.
adverts are not an excuse.
>
>> You may want to find out why your pages are not cached. I would have
>> put that at the top of my priorities if I had a company that dealt
>> with SEO.
>
>You would have, huh? Well, you are also an ignorant all-assuming fool.
Speak for yourself.
> Did it ever occur to you that the site might only be a couple months
>old?
Yes, but listen here fool. Those pages HAVE been cached in the past
because they show PR [most do anyway]
So it has nothing to do with that. Fool.
> You shouldn't be so concerned about MY priorities. Stop whining
>about "if I had" and go get your own.
Trying to help and show you that your site has problems. True, not my
concern.
Just explain to me then why these pages have PR then ?
For a page to gain PR it *must* have been seen by google and cached.
[With the exception of black hat]
So, you are stating that the site is a couple of months old.
Okay, no problem in that.
So why do some of your pages have PR yet not cached.
Simple question.
http://66.249.93.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seowebmarket.com%2Fseo_services.htm
http://66.249.93.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seowebmarket.com%2Fseo_tutorial.htm
http://66.249.93.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seowebmarket.com%2Fabout_seo.htm
http://66.249.93.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-36,GGLD:en&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seowebmarket.com%2Fseo_faq.htm
I didn't check the whole site out, but as you can see for yourself the
pages are NOT cached, yet DO have PR - which means in the past they
were cached.
For someone in the SEO industry, those pages ought to be cached, yes ?
Sorry for trying to help. I shall leave you in peace.
W˙rm
"SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:1155828919.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Regardless of what you call it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block
<snip>
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> >Which pages do you see as not valid?
>
> Only checked the first page.
> to have that logo means the *whole* page validates.
> adverts are not an excuse.
I removed the W3C logo from the ad page (which you do not have a link
to) and fixed the main ads so they validate. When I push the W3C
buttons, I get all green lights. Am I missing something, or are you?
> Yes, but listen here fool. Those pages HAVE been cached in the past
> because they show PR [most do anyway]
They shouldn't, I barely even started adding content.
> Sorry for trying to help. I shall leave you in peace.
Yeah, you tried so hard. Thanks.
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Paul wrote:
>> >Which pages do you see as not valid?
>>
>> Only checked the first page.
>> to have that logo means the *whole* page validates.
>> adverts are not an excuse.
>
>I removed the W3C logo from the ad page (which you do not have a link
>to) and fixed the main ads so they validate. When I push the W3C
>buttons, I get all green lights. Am I missing something, or are you?
I am not missing anything. I get "green lights" NOW that you have
altered the code so it validates.
>
>> Yes, but listen here fool. Those pages HAVE been cached in the past
>> because they show PR [most do anyway]
>
>They shouldn't, I barely even started adding content.
Well they do. I can give you screen grabs if you wish.
Some have PR2 others PR1. But they do have PR which means google did
once see it. It no longer does.
>> Sorry for trying to help. I shall leave you in peace.
>
>Yeah, you tried so hard. Thanks.
No problem. :)
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote in message
>news:1155826230.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Then again, you come in here giving false info about robots.txt
>>
>> I was offering a helpful hint to a person asking for help.
>>
>> "Not having a robots.txt file is a sure sign that you still have a lot
>> of work to do before you should be worried about what your rank is."
>>
>> The first day that I watched Googlebot visit one of my sites, it went
>> for the robots.txt file 1000 times on a new site that was only getting
>> 100 page views a day. I know exactly what I'm talking about, do you?
>
>
>Having a robots.txt doesn't make the robot cache more or come more. Sorry,
>it just doesn't. Of course it checks for that file, that is only to see if
>it is allowed to visit. If none is in place then by default the robot is
>allowed.
>
>Stacey
See, the problem is, the guy is inexperienced. You can't assume any
one day or series of days will produce typical behaviour.
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
You've been in seo for a whole couple of months, eh? Scuse me while I
genuflect...
Big Bill
<lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2006 08:58:50 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
><web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Paul wrote:
>>> >Which pages do you see as not valid?
>>>
>>> Only checked the first page.
>>> to have that logo means the *whole* page validates.
>>> adverts are not an excuse.
>>
>>I removed the W3C logo from the ad page (which you do not have a link
>>to) and fixed the main ads so they validate. When I push the W3C
>>buttons, I get all green lights. Am I missing something, or are you?
>
>I am not missing anything. I get "green lights" NOW that you have
>altered the code so it validates.
>
>>
>>> Yes, but listen here fool. Those pages HAVE been cached in the past
>>> because they show PR [most do anyway]
>>
>>They shouldn't, I barely even started adding content.
>
>Well they do. I can give you screen grabs if you wish.
>Some have PR2 others PR1. But they do have PR which means google did
>once see it. It no longer does.
>
>>> Sorry for trying to help. I shall leave you in peace.
>>
>>Yeah, you tried so hard. Thanks.
>
>No problem. :)
I wonder if he has the non-functioning toolbar problem we're beginning
to hear about.
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>> Oh, so you were in fact putting down the Gay community.:-)
>
>I hadn't thought of it like that. I apologize.
>I guess I did insult the gays by indirectly associating them with
>Bill's site.
>
>
>> Hi sig? You can list anything in a signature. That is not listing URL's it
>> is a sig.:-)
>
>Regardless of what you call it, when guests finish reading it they will
>sigh as they realize that they just got suckered into reading an ad.
>The longer the ad, the more you looks like a salesman.
Ah, that's ok. No-one reads my stuff.
>> > "Lil' Bill, what your site says is one of the most insanely idiotic
>> > things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent page
>> > text were you even close to anything that could be considered a
>> > rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
>> > listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
>> > soul."
>>
>> Oh, wow. Bill to think you think I need to learn the English. He doesn't
>> understand you.:-)
>
>That was a quote from a movie about a genius named Billy (well, a
>genius when compared to this Billy).
Oh, there's such a lot of them!!
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> >I removed the W3C logo from the ad page (which you do not have a link
> >to) and fixed the main ads so they validate. When I push the W3C
> >buttons, I get all green lights. Am I missing something, or are you?
>
> I am not missing anything. I get "green lights" NOW that you have
> altered the code so it validates.
The code validated the day I put the badge on it.
I didn't upload anything, check their modification dates. You sure are
full of accusations for someone who seems to know nothing. In trying
so hard to make me look bad, you have succeded only in making yourself
look bad 20x over. If you're that stupid, don't post.
> Well they do. I can give you screen grabs if you wish.
> Some have PR2 others PR1. But they do have PR which means google did
> once see it. It no longer does.
Sure, and why don't you wash my car and mow my lawn too.
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Paul wrote:
>> >I removed the W3C logo from the ad page (which you do not have a link
>> >to) and fixed the main ads so they validate. When I push the W3C
>> >buttons, I get all green lights. Am I missing something, or are you?
>>
>> I am not missing anything. I get "green lights" NOW that you have
>> altered the code so it validates.
>
>The code validated the day I put the badge on it.
>
>I didn't upload anything, check their modification dates. You sure are
>full of accusations for someone who seems to know nothing. In trying
>so hard to make me look bad, you have succeded only in making yourself
>look bad 20x over. If you're that stupid, don't post.
So you are calling me a liar now ?
One of your adverts - I think it was the go daddy one created a
warning.
Why did I have a reason to lie about it ?
Anyone here could have read what I wrote and immediately clicked on
it.
1: I don't lie
2: It would be stupid to lie when it could have been proven wrong so
quickly, easily and in front of everyone.
>> Well they do. I can give you screen grabs if you wish.
>> Some have PR2 others PR1. But they do have PR which means google did
>> once see it. It no longer does.
>
>Sure, and why don't you wash my car and mow my lawn too.
Why don't you just kiss my ass.
Plonk !
Paul
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>Paul wrote:
>> >I removed the W3C logo from the ad page (which you do not have a link
>> >to) and fixed the main ads so they validate. When I push the W3C
>> >buttons, I get all green lights. Am I missing something, or are you?
>>
>> I am not missing anything. I get "green lights" NOW that you have
>> altered the code so it validates.
>
>The code validated the day I put the badge on it.
>
>I didn't upload anything, check their modification dates. You sure are
>full of accusations for someone who seems to know nothing. In trying
>so hard to make me look bad, you have succeded only in making yourself
>look bad 20x over. If you're that stupid, don't post.
Well go to this page then
http://www.seowebmarket.com/seo_blog.htm
check to see if :
1: it validates
2: I am lying.
Want the screen grab ?
I kept proof this time as you doubted me.
SEOwebMarket.com
Big Bill wrote:
> You've been in seo for a whole couple of months, eh? Scuse me while I
> genuflect...
Assuming is only going to make you look like a fool. That web site has
only been online for a couple months. I did marketing for a firm that
grosses over $100 mil/year for about 4 years. I own 5 companies and
market for 5 more (that I chose). Do you need a DNA sample?
Go find something productive to do, troll.
Jezsta Web Productions
news:qo99e2lgd2nefgb33...@4ax.com...
>>I didn't upload anything, check their modification dates. You sure are
>>full of accusations for someone who seems to know nothing. In trying
>>so hard to make me look bad, you have succeded only in making yourself
>>look bad 20x over. If you're that stupid, don't post.
>
> Well go to this page then
> http://www.seowebmarket.com/seo_blog.htm
> check to see if :
>
> 1: it validates
> 2: I am lying.
>
> Want the screen grab ?
> I kept proof this time as you doubted me.
Failed validation, 1 error. Also if you are going to slap the button badge
of it being valid then you should have it go straight to the validation
without it stating no referrer header.
SEOwebMarket.com
Paul wrote:
> http://www.seowebmarket.com/seo_blog.htm
It's code from my traffic tracker (that I fixed on the rest of the
pages weeks ago). So out of all of the insults that you've thrown
around, you have succeded in finding ONE single validation error on
only ONE of my pages (and it isn't even from my code). Doesn't the
fact that I fixed the errors in the rest of the third party ads prove
that I don't have a problem with validation?
You said that my home page didn't validate (was all you checked). You
said I modified them and re-uploaded. You're either full of shit, or
just plain stupid.
Maybe you should spend less time worrying about whether or not I
validate, and spend a little more time validating your own person -
because you obviously have some personal issues regarding acceptance
(validation).
SEOwebMarket.com
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
> Failed validation, 1 error. Also if you are going to slap the button badge
> of it being valid then you should have it go straight to the validation
> without it stating no referrer header.
W3C gave me the code after it validated. I added it exactly as it
came.
I checked all of the pages to make sure they validate. That blog page
isn't even supposed to be there, I have a better page to replace it
that I am testing on another site. Like I said, I haven't even added
most of the content to that site yet. You are wasting time criticizing
a site that is not complete, in order to feel more complete yourself.
I would appreciate the help, but pointing out one validation error
while wasting a hundred man hours - isn't help. I thought you guys
knew something about optimization.
Jezsta Web Productions
>
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>> Failed validation, 1 error. Also if you are going to slap the button
>> badge
>> of it being valid then you should have it go straight to the validation
>> without it stating no referrer header.
>
> W3C gave me the code after it validated. I added it exactly as it
> came.
Well you need to add the referrer on there. In fact most of the pages don't
have the referrer. At least all the opnes I checked.
> I checked all of the pages to make sure they validate. That blog page
> isn't even supposed to be there, I have a better page to replace it
> that I am testing on another site. Like I said, I haven't even added
> most of the content to that site yet. You are wasting time criticizing
> a site that is not complete, in order to feel more complete yourself.
Then why have the blog page there? You have no idea how I feel so you can
say anything about that. Better yet why have an unfinished site to where we
can see it at all? You had the same unfinished site 2 months ago here so
stop the excuses!
> I would appreciate the help, but pointing out one validation error
> while wasting a hundred man hours - isn't help. I thought you guys
> knew something about optimization.
Who in the heck is wasting 100 man hours. Are you crazy? I have seen some
exaggeration in my day but you take the cake! Plus, who said I was helping
you, I wasn't. I pointed out it had one error.
We do know quite a bit about optimization. And if you were a little bit
smarter you would have not been bothered about the one error. You are the
one that came here with wrong advice about the robots.txt. Also, if you
were better at SEO you wouldn't be sending PR to those sites., you would no
follow them.
John Bokma
> I checked all of the pages to make sure they validate. That blog page
> isn't even supposed to be there, I have a better page to replace it
> that I am testing on another site. Like I said, I haven't even added
> most of the content to that site yet. You are wasting time
> criticizing a site that is not complete, in order to feel more
> complete yourself.
You are wasting hundred man hours in waving away a piece of invalid code
while fixing it and posting "thanks" would have been so much easier.
Maybe time for some self-reflection instead of projecting your insecurity
on others? (Look mom, I can do psycho babble as well).
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Google Suggest Perl script http://johnbokma.com/perl/google-suggest.html
SEOwebMarket.com
and whine until you are out of tears. But after all of your tears have
dried, your sites will still look like a gradeschool project and you
will still all be immature, uneducated, disrespectful, worthless little
trolls that have no place in this world.
Jezsta Web Productions
> Y'all sound like a room full of bickering old ladies.
As far I know, I am the only old lady around here.:-)
>You can all cry,
> and whine until you are out of tears.
Who's whining? Sounds like you are now!
>But after all of your tears have
> dried, your sites will still look like a gradeschool project and you
> will still all be immature, uneducated, disrespectful, worthless little
> trolls that have no place in this world.
LOL!!! You really humor me putting down people's sites like that. No one
stated your site looks like grade school project now did they? But it seems
like you call everyone's like that. You don't know any of us or our sites.
You get upset because someone found fault in yours and you are the one who
appears to be whining.
You come in the beginning and tell someone they do not know anything about
the robots.txt but you were the one that was wrong on that one. Your html on
your SEO site is sloppy doesn't matter if it is valid <p align="justify"
class="text"><p> </p>. You use metas that are useless and you tell
someone they are spamming but you use a load of h1 headings on your pages.
Please come back once you have learned a little more.
Stacey
Borek
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
> html on your SEO site is sloppy doesn't matter if it is valid <p
> align="justify" class="text"><p> </p>.
My favorite is using table to format and div to center an object:
<td><div align="center"><a href="blah blah"><img src="blah"></a></div></td>
further to the right in the same table div is replaced by paragraph:
<td><p align="center"><a
href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401"
alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional" width="88" height="31"
border="0"></a>
</p>
</td>
No wonder it is not correctly displayed by Opera - default div block is
not necesarilly identical with default paragraph block :)
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-meter
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
You won't want to be wasting time here then.
dk_sz
> webpages.Can anybody tell?
In addition to what else has been said. You might
consider a Google XML sitemap. Check my signature
and http://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps/
--
best regards
Thomas Schulz
http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/sitemap-generator/
http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/website-analyzer/
http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/website-download/
John Bokma
> Y'all sound like a room full of bickering old ladies. You can all cry,
> and whine until you are out of tears. But after all of your tears have
> dried, your sites will still look like a gradeschool project
Well, one of the people who posts here has a site that even looks worse
then a *failed* gradeschool project: http://seowebmarket.com/
Maybe you can give this person some tips on how to make the site a bit
more attractive? It looks like those images come from one of those 25 USD
web button generators downloaded from a warez site...
> and you
> will still all be immature, uneducated, disrespectful, worthless little
> trolls that have no place in this world.
Can you show "us" how mature, educated, respectful and worthy you are? If
your previous postings are attempts at this, then the results are less
promising then the search for weapons of mass destruction.
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Apache on XP: http://johnbokma.com/windows/apache-virtual-hosts-xp.html
John Bokma
> No one stated your site looks like grade school project now did they?
Now that would be disrespectful towards grade school projects :-D.
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
A better start menu with Quick Launch:
http://johnbokma.com/windows/quick-launch.html
Paul
>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> No one stated your site looks like grade school project now did they?
>
>Now that would be disrespectful towards grade school projects :-D.
Looks like we all got A+++ then <G>
--
Handmade Jewelry
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston-crafts-handcrafted-jewelry/new-beaded-jewelry-june.html
http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/Treaty-Number-Three-Or-The-North-West-Angle-Treaty-Privy-Council.html
http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/Treaty-Number-Seven-Or-The-Blackfeet-Treaty.html
John Bokma
> On 17 Aug 2006 22:50:18 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No one stated your site looks like grade school project now did they?
>>
>>Now that would be disrespectful towards grade school projects :-D.
>
> Looks like we all got A+++ then <G>
perl support at #13. Not bad, but I was aiming at #9. We'll see next week
then :-)
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Creating a customized Command Prompt shortcut:
http://johnbokma.com/windows/command-prompt-shortcut.html
John Bokma
> Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17 Aug 2006 22:50:18 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> No one stated your site looks like grade school project now did
>>>> they?
>>>
>>>Now that would be disrespectful towards grade school projects :-D.
>>
>> Looks like we all got A+++ then <G>
>
> perl support at #13. Not bad, but I was aiming at #9. We'll see next
> week then :-)
Ding dong Florence!!!!
Ding dong Ding dong Florence!!!!
Ding dong Ding dong *knock knock* Florence!!!!
Ding dong *knockknocknockknock* Florence!!!!
Ding dong *knockkkkkknockkkk* ding dong ding dong diiiing dong
Florence!!!!
Ah, I got mail :-)
Lemme see....
Ah, it's form our well respected SEO expert group member :-D.
I almost overlooked it with all those SEO spam nowadays, which I stopped
reading, since every time they tell me that my site dropped out of Google,
and make me check :-D.
Anyway, I think that someone when told his site has 1 minor error (a
missing = ) wastes a lot of words on this, and even starts to email *is*
insecure. If you have enough self-confidence you just would have written:
Oops, I made a mistake, fixed, thanks.
I mean writing that sentence, and adding a = to a page, how much time does
that take comparing to posting, emailing etc?
OTOH, keep the fun coming.
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Firefox RSS: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/rss-and-live-bookmarks.html
SEOwebMarket.com
jealous starving trolls.
You shouldn't fear me, unless you are evil.
SEOwebMarket.com
John Bokma wrote:
> > perl support at #13. Not bad, but I was aiming at #9. We'll see next
> > week then :-)
http://www.freewebmasters.net/viewtopic.php?p=86&sid=c4e509683926ecb49572c865f4c10290
Does anyone even use Perl anymore? I always hated having to put
everything in the cgi-bin so I never really liked it. PHP is definately
the way to go nowadays. Any thoughts?
Na i think everyone is over perl. It is fairly old...needs to be
updated.
John Bokma
OMG!!11ooneeleveneleven!1 u found it on teh internet so it mst be tru!!!!
Borek
Are you from Canada?
Jezsta Web Productions
news:op.tegye4jj26l578@borek...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:59:52 +0200, SEOwebMarket.com
> <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>> LOL
>>
>> jealous starving trolls.
>>
>> You shouldn't fear me, unless you are evil.
>
> Are you from Canada?
LOL!! He claims to be American. I don't think we are jealous, I know I am
not starving, and we were here before him. Who is the troll now!:-) I can be
evil and not fear also.:-)
Jezsta Web Productions
news:Xns9822C09D74...@130.133.1.4...
<snip>
> Ah, I got mail :-)
I get them in the acutal post.:-)
> Lemme see....
>
> Ah, it's form our well respected SEO expert group member :-D.
Hmm, I didn't get one.:-(
> I almost overlooked it with all those SEO spam nowadays, which I stopped
> reading, since every time they tell me that my site dropped out of Google,
> and make me check :-D.
LOL!! You have to look.:-) I like the ones that say you are not listed in
any of them. I always say then how did you find me?:-)
> Anyway, I think that someone when told his site has 1 minor error (a
> missing = ) wastes a lot of words on this, and even starts to email *is*
> insecure. If you have enough self-confidence you just would have written:
Hmm, and I wasted 100 manhours(womenhours) on showing it had one error.
> Oops, I made a mistake, fixed, thanks.
Not me I would have said so, it has nothing to do or would cause any trouble
for SEO. But I don't think he knew that.:-)
>
> I mean writing that sentence, and adding a = to a page, how much time does
> that take comparing to posting, emailing etc?
>
> OTOH, keep the fun coming.
I will stay out of this one.:-) I will just reply to you.
Paul
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>LOL!! He claims to be American.
In fact claims to be a Proud American. Which equates to a paranoid
American ;)
--
Advertise your American Indian Art http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Forums/rent.html or web site.
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9822C09D74...@130.133.1.4...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>
> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
No, he really emailed me ;-)
>> Lemme see....
>>
>> Ah, it's form our well respected SEO expert group member :-D.
>
> Hmm, I didn't get one.:-(
I noticed yesterday dat I should have written from :-)
>> I almost overlooked it with all those SEO spam nowadays, which I
>> stopped reading, since every time they tell me that my site dropped
>> out of Google, and make me check :-D.
>
> LOL!! You have to look.:-) I like the ones that say you are not listed
> in any of them. I always say then how did you find me?:-)
I won't repeat what I say when I get spam now and then :-)
>> Anyway, I think that someone when told his site has 1 minor error (a
>> missing = ) wastes a lot of words on this, and even starts to email
>> *is* insecure. If you have enough self-confidence you just would have
>> written:
>
> Hmm, and I wasted 100 manhours(womenhours) on showing it had one
> error.
Yes, he has problems with numbers. Ask him an estimate of "our" average
IQ, and then ask what's his.
>> Oops, I made a mistake, fixed, thanks.
>
> Not me I would have said so, it has nothing to do or would cause any
> trouble for SEO. But I don't think he knew that.:-)
Not sure about the latter, IIRC it was alt "some text". The question is,
does Google fix this and inserts the = or does it ignore "some text".
And yeah, saying "my bad" is harder then saying "Pah, it doesn't matter,
it's not important" :-D.
>> I mean writing that sentence, and adding a = to a page, how much time
>> does that take comparing to posting, emailing etc?
>>
>> OTOH, keep the fun coming.
>
> I will stay out of this one.:-) I will just reply to you.
Aaaah... the temptation the temptation.
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
TextPad + Tortoise: http://johnbokma.com/textpad/textpad-subversion.html
Borek
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>
> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
Acutal? Sounds like a medical condition ;)
Best,
Jezsta Web Productions
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:32:05 +0200, Jezsta Web Productions
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>>
>> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
>
> Acutal? Sounds like a medical condition ;)
Yep, getting the in the post is real acute!:-) But "actually" it is not so
good. Yeah, this company wants $35 to list in directories and SE's.:-)
John Bokma
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:32:05 +0200, Jezsta Web Productions
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>>
>> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
>
> Acutal? Sounds like a medical condition ;)
Or a company that sells big batteries :-)
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Firefox Keywords: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/keymarks-explained.html
John Bokma
> "Borek" <m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote in
> message news:op.tehr5qyq26l578@borek...
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:32:05 +0200, Jezsta Web Productions
>> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>>>
>>> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
>>
>> Acutal? Sounds like a medical condition ;)
>
> Yep, getting the in the post is real acute!:-) But "actually" it is
> not so good. Yeah, this company wants $35 to list in directories and
> SE's.:-)
Oops, there goes SEOwebMarket wasting 35 USD.
Should we tell him?
Nah :-D
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Textpad quick reference card (pdf): http://johnbokma.com/textpad/
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "Borek" <m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote in
>> message news:op.tehr5qyq26l578@borek...
>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:32:05 +0200, Jezsta Web Productions
>>> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>>>>
>>>> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
>>>
>>> Acutal? Sounds like a medical condition ;)
>>
>> Yep, getting the in the post is real acute!:-) But "actually" it is
>> not so good. Yeah, this company wants $35 to list in directories and
>> SE's.:-)
>
> Oops, there goes SEOwebMarket wasting 35 USD.
>
> Should we tell him?
>
> Nah :-D
listingcorp.com Go have a look if you want a big laugh. Every time I get a
new site these people will actually snail mail me. What is it with these
people that try to get people to believe that submission will get you to
rank. They make it sound as that is all you need. What a crock!
Big Bill
>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9822C09D74...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>>
>> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
>
>No, he really emailed me ;-)
Me too. Just crap.
Paul
wrote:
>On 18 Aug 2006 16:16:48 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9822C09D74...@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Ah, I got mail :-)
>>>
>>> I get them in the acutal post.:-)
>>
>>No, he really emailed me ;-)
>
>Me too. Just crap.
>
>BB
Didn't get me LOL
--
Advertise your American Indian Art http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Forums/rent.html or web site.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
SEOwebMarket.com
John Bokma wrote:
> Oops, there goes SEOwebMarket wasting 35 USD.
I don't think she was talking about me. My site says $19/month for
maintenance, not really for the manual submissions, but to analyse
their markets and produce reports.
I haven't been charging my current clients for submissions; I don't
even write that time down. I don't really accept clients from that
site, it's designed to support my current clients. And I haven't been
accepting work for flat fees (as listed on my site). Clients just pay
$75/hour for market research, design, and production. I submit their
sites for free.
John Bokma
>
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Oops, there goes SEOwebMarket wasting 35 USD.
>
> I don't think she was talking about me.
Nah, it was a bad joke.
> My site says $19/month for
> maintenance, not really for the manual submissions, but to analyse
> their markets and produce reports.
>
> I haven't been charging my current clients for submissions; I don't
> even write that time down. I don't really accept clients from that
> site, it's designed to support my current clients. And I haven't been
> accepting work for flat fees (as listed on my site). Clients just pay
> $75/hour for market research, design, and production. I submit their
> sites for free.
Sounds good.
--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
Google Suggest Perl script http://johnbokma.com/perl/google-suggest.html
Jezsta Web Productions
> "SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Oops, there goes SEOwebMarket wasting 35 USD.
>>
>> I don't think she was talking about me.
>
> Nah, it was a bad joke.
That was him (John) and not me.:-) I thought it to be an OK joke. :-)
>> My site says $19/month for
>> maintenance, not really for the manual submissions, but to analyse
>> their markets and produce reports.
You really submit? Really? Why waste that $75 an hour on that? Not really
free is it? Unless you don't count that. But you should know since you
promote SEO that submission is not needed and should not even be charged
ever.
>> I haven't been charging my current clients for submissions; I don't
>> even write that time down. I don't really accept clients from that
>> site, it's designed to support my current clients. And I haven't been
>> accepting work for flat fees (as listed on my site). Clients just pay
>> $75/hour for market research, design, and production. I submit their
>> sites for free.
So what site do you use to draw in clients? Why have $19 on your site for
maintenance then charge $75 an hour?
> Sounds good.
BTW John, I got an email from him.:-)
Big Bill
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9823CBA565...@130.133.1.4...
>> "SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> John Bokma wrote:
>>>> Oops, there goes SEOwebMarket wasting 35 USD.
>>>
>>> I don't think she was talking about me.
>>
>> Nah, it was a bad joke.
>
>That was him (John) and not me.:-) I thought it to be an OK joke. :-)
>
>>> My site says $19/month for
>>> maintenance, not really for the manual submissions, but to analyse
>>> their markets and produce reports.
>
>You really submit? Really? Why waste that $75 an hour on that? Not really
>free is it? Unless you don't count that. But you should know since you
>promote SEO that submission is not needed and should not even be charged
>ever.
Apart from Google Analytics/Web Tools and Yahoo Site Explorer. Putting
a ROR together and so forth.
Jezsta Web Productions
news:ujcde2p3n45r4mgbf...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:34:59 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9823CBA565...@130.133.1.4...
>>> "SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Bokma wrote:
>>>>> Oops, there goes SEOwebMarket wasting 35 USD.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think she was talking about me.
>>>
>>> Nah, it was a bad joke.
>>
>>That was him (John) and not me.:-) I thought it to be an OK joke. :-)
>>
>>>> My site says $19/month for
>>>> maintenance, not really for the manual submissions, but to analyse
>>>> their markets and produce reports.
>>
>>You really submit? Really? Why waste that $75 an hour on that? Not really
>>free is it? Unless you don't count that. But you should know since you
>>promote SEO that submission is not needed and should not even be charged
>>ever.
>
> Apart from Google Analytics/Web Tools and Yahoo Site Explorer. Putting
> a ROR together and so forth.
Bill, he was speaking of submitting. I don't care about the rest.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-40,GGLG:en&q=seo+web+market -
BTW he emailed me with this:
"http://www.google.com/search?seo+web+market
seo web market
#1 of 15.3 MILLION Google results"
I am showing 13,900,000 but that is besides the point. LOL! He thinks he has
himself a good competitive SERP. I don't even know why he emailed me with
that. I emailed him back and told him he needed to learn what a competitive
SERP is.
Of course he emailed back with obscenities and a tantrum.
I am off to enjoy myself at the pig fest. Yum, lots of roasted pig!
SEOwebMarket.com
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
> >> My site says $19/month for
> >> maintenance, not really for the manual submissions, but to analyse
> >> their markets and produce reports.
>
> You really submit? Really? Why waste that $75 an hour on that? Not really
> free is it?
Yeah it is free, dummy. I wrote that I don't bill my clients for that
time.
> Unless you don't count that. But you should know since you
> promote SEO that submission is not needed and should not even be charged
> ever.
And you would know (if you weren't so damn ignorant), that I DON'T
charge them - if you were smart enough to read what was written before
you interject such foolish comments.
I forgot that you can't read.
What does the first sentence say (below) right after you interrupted
with your ignorant assumptions (above)?
> >> I haven't been charging my current clients for submissions; I don't
> >> even write that time down. I don't really accept clients from that
> >> site, it's designed to support my current clients. And I haven't been
> >> accepting work for flat fees (as listed on my site). Clients just pay
> >> $75/hour for market research, design, and production. I submit their
> >> sites for free.
duh - Think before you respond, dummy.
Who are you trying to make look bad with your posts?
Me or YOU?
& why is it so important for you to insult me?
Jezsta Web Productions
news:1155973510.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>> >> My site says $19/month for
>> >> maintenance, not really for the manual submissions, but to analyse
>> >> their markets and produce reports.
>>
>> You really submit? Really? Why waste that $75 an hour on that? Not really
>> free is it?
>
> Yeah it is free, dummy. I wrote that I don't bill my clients for that
> time.
OK, let me try again. You DON'T have to submit!!!!! You are wasting time!!!!
Do you understand now? Or can you not understand that part of SEM?
SEOwebMarket.com
Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
You DON'T have to submit!!!!! You are wasting time!!!!
same thing I said when all you trolls said not to use a robots.txt
file:
lol, DON'T be a fool.
Big Bill
<Please-use-ou...@jezsta.com> wrote:
He needs to read www.kruse.co.uk/seo-competition.htm
Big Bill
<web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote:
Hey look, go read this, ok?
www.kruse.co.uk/seo-competition.htm
then read
www.kruse.co.uk/submissions.htm
then read the rest.
Paul
wrote:
>>Who are you trying to make look bad with your posts?
>>Me or YOU?
You're doing a grand job yourself. You don't need us to show you that
you are stupid.
--
Handmade Jewelry http://www.houstoncrafts.com/ Beaded with loving care.
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston-crafts-handcrafted-jewelry/new-beaded-jewelry-june.html
Windsun
bothered to put in a robot.txt file, and only reason we did it then was to
get rid of the error in the log file.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SEOwebMarket.com" <web...@seowebmarket.com> wrote in message
news:1155771037.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul wrote:
> Don't be a fool.
>
> Have you ever tracked one to see how often it is read?
>
Jezsta Web Productions
Like I said before he refuses to communicate professionally and he really
doesn't care. Let him waste his time and well he will never be above in a
competitive phrase because he doesn't know how. So, there shouldn't be any
worry in the SERPs.:-)
Jezsta Web Productions
It don't work Bill. He refuses to communicate in a professional way. He
emailed with this and I tried to explain it to him. He got verbally abusive.