Big Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:18:08 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >__/ [ Phil Payne ] on Wednesday 09 August 2006 12:10 \__
> >
> >>> This could be a coincidence. Your conclusion is based on a
> >>> statistically-invalid case.
> >>
> >> Hence my "furtlingly trivial" opening.
> >
> >
> >True. I missed that one *smile*.
> >
> >
> >> Everything is statistically valid until it's misused, which I accept in
> >> this case is likely to be the norm.
> >
> >
> >
> >True. But too much lenient statistics lead to "damn lies".
> >Was it Stalin who said that?
>
> Lies, damn lies and statistics. Samuel Clemens - Mark Twain to you.
>
>
> >> With all of the search engines, indexing is an unpredictable process -
> >> days are wonderful, weeks are normal, and months are frustrating.
> >> Every now and then, the usuall months' delay has to be compensated by a
> >> quickie.
> >>
> >> It's neat to see such a rapid response. It's irritating that I get
> >> this on a hobby site and not on a business one.
> >
> >
> >A nicer model for the Internet would involve pinging
> >everything. There were some talks last year about submitting
> >our Web pages directly to search engines (notably Google)
> >rather than publish them independently. it saves traffic and
> >makes updates quicker. This make you want to take a shower.
> >*smile, shivirs* The private Web, with no neutrality?
>
> Google nor the other engines will want to be indexing every crap
> little site that's out there. Nor, as residents on this spinning ball,
> would we want them to be so doing. Running server farms uses up an
> awful lot of environment-unfriendly juice, and there's no point
> screwing up the environment (and paying big bucks to do it, if you're
> an engine) just to index every shitty little site (that no-one wants
> to link to anyway), pointless (read "thin") affiliate sites,
> content-less Adsense sites, and soon I'm guessing all the duplicated
> book content sites for the same reasons. You might suggest that Google
> won't de-index many of these as it makes money from Adsense but it
> makes more money overall from the continued existence of the web as a
> useful information resource and that's being threatened now by all the
> useless sites that are out there clogging up the indexes. We've seen
> Adsense sites taken to what might be their logical conclusion with
> Smarticle Composer sites where the only way out of a site, once you
> innocently stumble into it, is to click on an Adsense link. People
> could navigate out using the back button in their browser but I doubt
> that the majority of surfers would think of that first if at all. The
> only way to fight these is not to de-index them and the sites that
> link to them. As they have no merit in themselves, any Smarticle
> Composer site that shows up high in the ranks must necessarily be
> linked to by parties owning them or having an association with their
> owners so the PR they accrue is falsely generated and acts like a
> beacon to Google saying,"Lookee here: something not right going on!"
> and by tracing the backlinks Google can work out who the link-spammers
> are. This, I think, is one of the real reasons we still have page rank
> in any shape or form.
> So, for obvious reasons and in obvious ways, Google are cleaning
> house. Can't blame them, really, can you?
... and they must be encouraged to keep penalizing artificially
enhanced rankings and rewarding those that play by the rules.
Unfortunately, the rule book is so contradictory in nature. The reality
also exists that the search engine continue to reward the spammers.
It is tough choice for an SEO to make when deciding on a strategy for a
new web site promotion client. I am running out ways to level the
playing field myself to find ways to beat out the enhanced
mediocrities.
SEOs seem to be doing the trendy manipulation tactics in order to
attain a significant Internet presence; however temporary and feeble.
They choose for the web site clients to run the risk of jeopordizing a
web site's health. Most have not the innovativeness to invent a more
powerful plan that adhere to the wishy washy rules.
The alternatives for most web site owners is bleak. Pay more money to
the search engines in advertising is an option. Usually they take the
option for a while. That can bring exposure for a web site and make a
couple of telephone calls but this choice also keeps the spammers
interested in flooding out the SERPs, that's how they make a quick
buck.
In many countries including Canada, there exists better business
bureaus. My neighbours who get ripped off by a local business complain
to the BBB and the wrongdoer is punished, frequently in the form of a
fine. The real bad ones get their business licenses revoked. Canadians
are shocked when they get scammed. They are not used to buying a hollow
loaf of bread. They are easy prey to the Internet manipulators. These
are my neighbours that I go fishing with and sit around the fire pits
at nights freely singing songs at the full moon.
Not the same on the Internet, different rules in different countries.
Some countries don't even have child labour laws never mind business
ethics commissions. How can my neighbours in Canada who have business
web sites compete fairly in the organics against other businesses whose
countries who have no business ethics?
--
Internet Marketing Service http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/
|
|
