David wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:03:12 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:43:21 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was deceived too at first. It was only once I went to his sites that I
>>>>realised it was somewhat a monkey business. Don't get me wrong, he does
>>>>everything he does quite well, but he cannot mention and present the
>>>>high numbers to someone with a 5-page Web site and the desire to lure
>>>>more customers.
>>>
>>> Can you show me one 5 page web site that gets high traffic?
>>
>>
>>Wordpress.org. PageRank 9 and not much more than 20 /significant/ pages.
>>Good sites with many references present themselves gracefully.
>
> What a load of crap, that site has thousands of pages and presumably
> makes a lot of money.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff...
>
> You might not like the site, but it's not what you said or I asked
> for, so again do you know of a 5 page web site that gets high traffic?
It's the support forums that make the numbers high. These are /not/
significant pages. The statistics to use is number of views _per page_.
Some WordPress pages will be viewed tens of thousands of times a day. With
your sites, you probably have less than 1 view per day.
> Just so we are clear this time, not a 50 page site, 1000 page, 632,000
> page site a 5 page web site. If you are going try to put someone down
> at least back it up with something rather than trash posts like-
>
> Oh look Dave can't get lots of search engine traffic to a 5 page web
> site therefore he's full of crap and deceives people.
The challenge is to take a 5-page site and increase the traffic using
keyword density, SERP investigation, nicer graphics, etc. Admittedly, it is
a hard task.
If Google accepted content that is appended to sites en masse, Google would
perish. The guys at Google know that. They need to devise an automated way
of identifying good and authentic content. Due to benevolent mirroring, it
is a hard task, again.
> BTW I have a 10 page site that get ~500 visitors a day and took a lot
> of effort to get there. But, then I don't consider 500 visitors a lot
> of traffic.
>
> If you dislike Wordpress.org so much why do you link to them from
> http://www.schestowitz.com/Weblog/
I love WordPress. I am an active part of the community. Where did you get
the false idea that I dislike them?
>>> Be realistic, for almost any site to do well in Google's organic
>>> listings it needs a reasonable amount of content pages. There are
>>> exceptions, but if a 5 page site can get high traffic they don't need
>>> organic SEO, they most likely have a great word of mouth service.
>>
>>
>>I fully agree. Does that justify adding organic content to all pages on
>>the Net? What will cyberspace benefit from the most? I am having mixed
>>feelings about this, but what if 80 millions domains or so (including
>>parked ones) contained appended pages whose volume was 1000% of the master
>>content?
>
> Even though I didn't say add organic content to all pages on the net I
> honestly don't care about the above, I build web sites to make money,
> my clients own web sites to make money. If adding new content to a
> clients site will make them more money without harming the site as a
> business person that's a very good idea.
>
> Though this is very funny coming from someone who steals other people
> copyright material without their permission-
>
> http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/2005/June_2005_1/author.html
>
> I don't recall giving you permission to use my copyright material-
> http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/2005/June_2005_1/msg00041.html
UseNet is well(if not most)-renewned for being conversations in open
cyberspace. Seek your name in Google and you will see how many complete
newsgroups archives exist. I, on the contrary, store my own messages and
sometimes add a little interlinked context.
> You're a hypocrite.
>
> Please remove it and any other uses of my copyright works or I might
> start a DMC complaint.
It is not copyrighted. You needn't attack either. In this newsgroup we ough
to discuss ideas and try to help each other out. I am not an enemy and I
only want to discuss, along with the others, what search engines like or
dislike.
>>That's the same type of sites that Charly referred to as "a lot of spammy
>>sites" a few hours ago. Spam is evil. Greed drives spam. Greed is evil.
>>*smile*
>
> Tell me what's spammy about these pages
> http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/bram-stoker/
>
http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/book-store/Books/browse-10399-salesrank-1.html
>
http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/book-store/0316769487/The-Catcher-in-the-Rye.html
>
> The first is information (free) the second and third sells products
> people want. Visitors read the first page and order products from the
> other two, what is spammy about that?
I took a look. You're quite right about this one. I take my comment back as
Charly was talking about portal-like scraping.
> At least I don't make those waste of space Usenet mirrors that clog up
> some SERPs. What does everything under
> http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/ add to the net exactly, what if 80
> millions domains or so (including parked ones) contained Usenet mirror
> pages whose volume was 1000% of the master content?
My UseNet posts (if you look closely) display my solutions to problem that
rarely involve commercial software. For example, I talk about my Linux
experiences, ways in which I fixed my handheld and HTML tricks that I use.
People have thanked me for helping them solve some obscure problems in the
past as the posts are very problem-specific.
>>> When I take on clients with few pages first advice is add more content
>>> pages, fortunately for the client I have the tools to help them do
>>> this if they can't do it themselves.
>>>
>>> Took on a client with a 20 page site (never had a client with just 5
>>> pages) which isn't enough to do really well, now their site has over
>>> 3,000 pages indexed in Google with an increase in targeted traffic and
>>> sales (the client is happy and looking to expand their business).
>>
>>
>>That's great news for him and for you. I hope that not all of his
>>competitors follow suit though (see arguments above).
>
> Not concerned about your arguments above, my only concern would be a
> drop in sales for the client.
True. I accept that.
>>> I don't get full details of what my clients make, but when they stick
>>> with me for 6 months they generally don't leave due to the increase in
>>> profits.
>>>
>>> The clients who haven't done well have either quit the service early
>>> (under 6 months) or not made the changes recommended.
>>>
>>> So please tell me where the deception is Roy?
>>
>>
>>Using statistics as a tool for high self-portrait while neglecting the
>>very important 'details', which are the nature by which you scrape the
>>sites.
>
> Are the statistics false, are they even manipulated in a way to make
> them sound better than they are, what important 'details are
> supposedly missed out?
>
> Last time someone (Bill) suggested I was making visitor numbers up I
> removed the password from the sites basic statistics page for all to
> see for a few days. Everything I say is true and can be proved.
>
> So where is the deception?
No explicit deception. No lies. I won't deny the fact that you managed to
attract millions of people. It is just not a suitable 'case study' for the
clients.
> Also back up your statement above by showing a scraped site I own?
>
> You do know what a scraped site is?
>
>>You should become a prefessor. Publish some papers. Here is a place for
>>you to start:
>>
>>http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
>>
>>"SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research
>>papers"
>
> That's almost funny.
Okay, okay. It was redundant, but I just like that Web site.
>>> Do you really want me to post sale type stuff like this in the NG so
>>> you know how I work!! I'd probably get more clients from it, but I
>>> don't as a general rule chase new clients this way (currently turning
>>> clients away, not enough time in the day!).
>>>
>>> You'll note I don't advertise SEO Services in my sig, I advertise a
>>> free SEO tutorial, I don't need more clients and haven't for a long
>>> time. SEO practically sells itself, finding clients is easy since they
>>> find you in bulk (10 quote requests so far today, each with the
>>> potential to make over £4,000 a year from)!
>>
>>
>>...but how do you perceive your /contribution/ to the Web? Please tell me,
>>seriously.
>
> Who cares? The web is a tool not a utopian society, I use it to make
> money for-
>
> myself
> my clients
> Google
> Amazon
> other affiliates
>
> You want to get philosophical about it, the literature sites make it
> easier for students studying classic literature to obtain access to
> those works for free.
I can see that as valid.
> The sites selling Amazon products increase Amazon's sales (I'll
> probably sell well over half a million dollars worth of Amazon stock
> over the next 12 months), this helps make Amazon a more successful
> business keeping it in business and ensuring those employed by Amazon
> have a secure future.
>
> Since most of my sites have Adsense ads my sites make quite a bit of
> money for Google, I've no idea what percentage Google gives it's
> Adsense customers, but I'm guessing it will be less than 10%, so again
> Google could easily make half a million dollars from my sites over the
> next 12 months.
Google AdSense will not pay much, but it depends on the nature of the site.
I think you should stick with Amazon in your site. It will benefit your
better -- financially that is.
> My clients are more successful and like Amazon/Google helps keep their
> employees in a secure job.
>
> What can I say I'm a giver :-)
>
> So other than your Usenet crap what do you contribute?
Plenty. Most of my visitors read my Web log where I publish some opinions
and point out relatively interesting articles. I also built some free
software from scratch; people download and use it. Just to clarify, I don't
make a dime for what I do on the Web. In fact, I have to work at daytime to
cover part of the site maintenance costs and pay the bills.
>>By all means, I don't consider you to be a spammer (upcoming is
>>just a 'case study'), but here is the story of another man who thought he
>>just carried on 'business as usual':
>>
>>http://mosnews.com/news/2005/07/25/spammerdead.shtml
>>
>
> Why show this story then Roy other than to try to associate me with
> Russian email spammers?
>
> I don't consider you to be a paedophile, but here's a completely
> unrelated news story for you (just a case study)-
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1502035.stm
>
> Do you really think I don't understand the tactic of "throw enough mud
> and some sticks".
It was probably redundant again, but I wanted to point out another article
that I liked. Don't we /all/ hate spam?
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
