David wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:59:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Dave about the old domains thing, he'll need to be buying
>>> domains that were already associated with the subject he intends to
>>> fill them with though, dunno if he realises that but he probably does
>>> and should have mentioned.
>
> Didn't get the original post, so responding here.
>
> For visitor reasons and if you've purchased a site that's got links to
> it you'd ideally stick to the same theme, but the reality is it
> doesn't matter, you can make any domain rank well for any theme if you
> have the resources. If this wasn't true we'd not see the diversity of
> domains in the top 10 of almost every SERP.
It is more reasonable to pay the domain registration fee and avoid resource
expenditures. Incoming links that have been 'plugged-in' in advance are not
worth losing.
>>>And I agree with what he says about sub
>>> domains. It should be born in mind though, that when you or I say we
>>> added new content to a site we generally mean a few pages of original
>>> content here and there. Dave reproduces public domain content
>>> thousands of pages at a time, hence the large number of visitors he
>>> gets.
>
> Feeling a little jealous Bill, if only you understood PHP etc... you'd
> be able to make those Amazon and other affiliate sites you want ;-D
>
> There's a little more to it than that anyway, some content no matter
> how much you add will not gain masses of traffic.
>
> This site http://www.edward-bulwer-lytton.org/ (PR6) has enough links
> to rank well, but only gets ~220 visitors a day because the content
> isn't themed to high traffic SERPs. The site has 14,000 pages indexed
> in Google. Since I've known this all along why did I create site like
> those and put a lot of resources (PR) into them :-)
>
> My old Lingerie site had 2,000 pages indexed in Google, PR5 home page,
> less links than the above, but received 8,000 visitors a day before
> taking a dive. Why, because the lingerie sector has far more traffic
> than the bulwer-lytton sector. You could easily do very well with a
> few hundred visitors targeting lingerie type content, prior to adding
> extra pages my original lingerie site had about 250 pages and received
> over 4,000 visitors a day. Even now with a Google ban it gets over
> 1,000 visitors a day, this is from Yahoo, MSN etc... since nothing
> comes from Google.
It was later yesterday when I was about to point out Google bans. I can
think of one site that got 150,000 appended freebie content with AdSense
(giving Google more of a motive to take action). It got banned. Be careful
as Google considers this to be spamming (so do I) and as soon as Google get
the complaints from people competing for SERP's, they might investigate and
follow with a permanent ban. I am not a foe, but I send you this as a
cautionary note.
I think it's fair to point out and say OUT LOUD again that Google has banned
you in the past. How would the prospective cutomer perceive this??? Would
you tell them? What if you got your customers' sites banned? You could get
sued... welcoming the dark side.
>>>So if you or I add a few original pages to our little site about
>>> our Aunt Petunia's pressed flower collection, as is our wont, we can't
>>> expect the same kind of visitor figures. Which you might notice he
>>> entirely fails to mention.
>
> Not all my sites are public domain content or even large. As a
> percentage value most of my pages are either public domain content or
> use content supplied by affiliates.
By "most of my pages" you mean 99% as you later explicitly state.
> ...It is hypocritical complaining
> about something you want to do yourself, but lack the skills to
> complete. Your loss Bill, how do you survive on just 40 visitors a
> day!
>
>
> Roy's post-
>
>>I have learned to accept Dave's conduct over time.
>
> LOL, sounds like you think/thought I was doing something
> wrong/unethical Roy?
Gosh, no. I have too much to lose and if I was ever to serve the Web with
content that is not contributory or genuine, I would not be able to live
with the shame.
>>There is no harm if the
>>content is public -- something _which I failed to grasp at first_.
>
> There is no difference between http://www.edward-bulwer-lytton.org/
> and a publisher creating a series of paperback books for that authors
> works. It's in the public domain so there is no payment to be made for
> it's use. If you wanted to make a complete works of Shakespeare in
> paperback no one can legally stop you and it's not unethical since you
> aren't harming anyone in doing this.
Similar arguments are used in spam/junk mail scenarios. Electronic copies
are free. Information is not physical. A spammer can flood cyberspace with
millions of messages using just one machine. So I dismiss your argument
altogether... sorry.
>>I think
>>he is doing a fine job delivering people what they search for, however at
>>the expense of smaller sites whose owners are the _authors_, who will get
>>greater gratification from visits. When I published a modified version of
>>a GPL'd (General Public Licence) project that I had hacked on, I had some
>>unjustified feelings of guilt. If not _all_ the code is genuinely mine, I
>>think the other authors must be credited (in terms of stats), which is not
>>possible. That's what the GPL is all about though.
>
> I generally don't use GPL content other than the odd primer for
> articles (sometimes difficult to start a new article, so take a little
> GPL content and expand it). So I think you might be getting me mixed
> up with someone else. I don't have a Wikipedia site or a DMOZ clone, I
> don't have any archived NG sites (which are copyright infringements).
>
> I use public domain content and content supplied by affiliates 99% of
> the time.
>
>>Getting back on topic, I have seen some sites that got acquired by
>>different owners but stuck to related topics (often restricted by the
>>domain name, e.g. palmnews.com will not become a family page).
>>
>>I wonder if pages that have _existed_ for many years are merited? I know
>>that a long-term registration entails an advantage.
>
> If the old pages have the links still you could argue they deserve it.
> I know where you are coming from though, there is a lot of stale
> content out there that would be better off removed and replaced with
> new sites, but sites are neglected with the links unchanged and the
> ranks remaining. It's not that hard to find PR7 pages on University
> servers that haven't been updated for years probably because the
> original author is no longer at that Uni.
>
> For example http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/works.html PR8 which
> funnily enough was created by a Google software engineer :-)
>
> BTW nothing wrong with the content at
> http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/works.html but checkout the dead
> links to other sites.
>
>>Roy
>
> David
This is a little off-topic, I think. Still, an intersting observation. I
still see academic articles with the mid-nineties that have outblown
PageRanks.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
