SEO Dave wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2005 01:21:08 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>"
>>> Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related
>>> links going out.
>>
>>Uhm, that's not a paper, that's garbage.
>>"
>>
>>Is this a true statement? Yes. Did you miss the smiley? Yes.
>
> So you say any paper with 100 non relevant links is not a paper, it's
> garbage?
>
> Sorry John, but even if it had 1000 links it would still be a paper
> and so your statement is false.
Okay, I followed that odd direction that this thread had taken and I can't
hold back. I must comment.
Stacey, you are taking things too personally and throw flames.
John, I agree with your opinion that non-related links are garbage. That's
the point I was making.
Dave, with your ~100,000 page, random content sites, I am not surprised that
you defend the proposition that unrelated links are fine.
Unsocial behaviour like random content and unrelated links would shatter you
in the real world. I first joined this newsgroup in order to better
understand SE's, but not to fool them or fiddle with them.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
