Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: what constitutes an AUTORITIVE link

  • Subject: Re: what constitutes an AUTORITIVE link
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:30:22 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <1134198010.926690.105340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <e66lp15plvvh7hlnn604ebv042fs4q414s@4ax.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [Big Bill] on Saturday 10 December 2005 09:02 \__

> On 9 Dec 2005 23:00:11 -0800, "mark r" <markrush@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>... and how do i source them?
>>
>>ive searched for jewellery directory and loads of other phrases but
>>cant see any difference from sites ive already submited to - i used
>>hubfinder which said (surprise surprise( that yahoo and dmoz were
>>significant hubs...
> 
> I'd think famous jewellery manufacturers (God springs to mind!). You
> know what I mean - trade names. You might be ok linking to sites whose
> lines you don't actually carry if they have enough prestige.
> Maybe write a few pages about the refining processes for silver etc.

Yes, no harm in some original and properly-related content, provided that it
is not grabbed from elsewhere, e.g. Wikipedia. I spotted that as a
disturbing pattern, which some Webmasters cling onto and re-enforce through
the "if my competitor does it, then so can I" argument.

Roy

-- 
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  9:25am  up 3 days  6:36,  6 users,  load average: 1.18, 0.93, 0.85

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index