On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:21:37 -0400, Stacey <stacey@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> d7a5hq$1c16$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:d7a5hq$1c16$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>> Borek wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 15:57:53 +0200, Ken Benoit <nospam@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good riddens to Google page rank! I'm sick of watching that damn green
>>>> bar moving up and down, fighting with link partners about where their
>>>> damn link should be placed because one page has a little more green shit
>>>> in it than another.
>>>
>>> In a few months you will be doing the same, just the bar you will be
>>> observing will be different.
>>
>> That is an interesting thread, but the poster fails to provide any
>> information which supports the claim. Also, wouldn't the transition to a
>> new ranking system be seamless? Are Google preparing some announcement and
>> halt PR in the interim? And if so, why?
>>
>> Whatever the planned change is (and whenever it may come), it should be a
>> step forward. The only ones to suffer will be spammers so I, for once,
>> welcome any changes.
>
> The only ones to suffer won't be the spammers as someone in this thread just
> said they would be losing money per month. The thing is that is why they
> have to change it. Because PR can be bought.
This is very true. As much as I would regret my loss of $$ per month
from links that I sell, I realize that google searches would be more
relevant when links are not bought and sold to boost PR.
i
|
|
