rel=nofollow

Re: rel="nofollow"

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:11:57 +0000 (UTC), "T.J."
wrote:
[color=green]
>> All this based purely on the transfer of PR? Couldn't anyone do this?
>> Build giant sites about nothing much really and transfer the PR?
>>
>> BB
>>
>
>I think he's starting to get it Dave ;o)[/color]

ROFLOL

Bill there's a little more to it than PR transfer since the sites make
enough money in their own right to make them worthwhile building (most
anyway). If PR was cancelled tomorrow I'd still build more.

You should know by now if you go after the type of SERPs you get from
the types of sites I've built you don't need that much PR. SERPs like
"coastal unilube", "rubbermaid rooftop carrier", "c-betr mirror
system" don't need a mass of links to get in the top 10.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: rel="nofollow"

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:14:03 GMT, Big Bill
wrote:
[color=green]
>>No it doesn't. The search engine algos aren't that smart (yet).
>>
>>How many recipe sites do I have? One, so if you were right it
>>shouldn't rank well at all because the links aren't related.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>BB
>>
>>David[/color]
>
>I wouldn't have bothered to do it. It's like building a pyramid
>that'll fall down any mnute. I remember doing the horses, there's so
>much study involved it'd be easier to get a job.
>[/color]

Why would it fall down any minute exactly?

Why would the search engines have a problem with that one site, it's
got content visitors want, has stores visitors buy from at quite a
high rate (last 7 days $3,709.35 worth of products sold). Google even
makes money from it through Adsense, so everyone wins.

David

Re: rel="nofollow"

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:48:13 +0000 (UTC), "T.J."
wrote:

>I agree it could end anytime, Dave could wake up any morning and be
>gone from Google completely, which is another good reason to do things
>as quick as possible, strike whilst the iron is hot.

Like any site where you rely on the search engines things can go from
great to terrible over night. I've learnt a lot from the past few
years. I'm not a veteran of web sites really, about 3 years ago I
built my first real web site, so it's been a very steep learning
curve. I think I've made enough big mistakes to not make many more big
ones like those 🙂 So that really only leaves algo changes that can
take a site out of action.

If the search engines decide my sites shouldn't be listed, that's
their prerogative (I can't insist on how they run their businesses), I
make money from them, so I have to give them what they think their
visitors want. If long term I've got it wrong, I've got it wrong and
will have to adapt.

That said I don't put all my irons in one fire, so to speak, which
means if everything went down today I'd still be doing well.

>I think both me and Dave agree with you.
>200 quality pages bringing in 1000 quality visitors can be equally as good
>as 100,000 pages bringing in 10,000 visitors it's just Dave appears to
>chose to do things the second way.

Absolutely.

BTW more visitors doesn't mean lower quality, my visitors are not from
pop up windows, exit consoles or even due to misleading content, they
are mostly from search engines looking for content/products listed on
my sites. I consider those quality visitors.

>Once he has all the pages set up and bringing in revenue, if he has any
>sense
>he will then bring in a design team to work on the most productive
>pages and have the best of both worlds.

That is the plan kind of, I plan to customize each site medium term.
If I can't do the design (look) aspect myself (which I admit I'm not
great at) I'll pay someone to do it.

David

Re: rel="nofollow"

On 5 Jun 2005 15:28:56 GMT, John Bokma wrote:

>T.J. wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I think both me and Dave agree with you.
>> 200 quality pages bringing in 1000 quality visitors can be equally as
>> good as 100,000 pages bringing in 10,000 visitors it's just Dave
>> appears to chose to do things the second way.
>
>I even get the impression that if someone doesn't do it his way, he/she
>does it wrong / has no clue about SEO. There are just two ways, one slow
>one, which might be more stable, and the grab what you can while it lasts.[/color]

Who was it again that brought up the question about comparing traffic
figures. Oh wait, it was you John. You are trying to suggest my way is
inferior to yours.

The person I admire most in this NG (for their sites, traffic and
general approach) has a site that receives over 10,000 visitors a day
due to years of hard work creating unique content. In comparison what
I do is easy.

>I have, ages ago, helped someone with the latter. It lasted a month... Ok,
>that month he made a lot of money, but the next and the next, almost
>nothing.

Don't compare something that's taken a year to build to 10,000
visitors a day (which I should add isn't a stable daily figure yet) to
a spammy site that got a quick boost for a month in the past. BTW that
type of thing doesn't work anymore (If it's the sort of site I'm
thinking of).

Why does this get to you so much John?

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: rel="nofollow"

SEO Dave wrote:

> On 5 Jun 2005 15:28:56 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>[color=green]
>>T.J. wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I think both me and Dave agree with you.
>>> 200 quality pages bringing in 1000 quality visitors can be equally
>>> as good as 100,000 pages bringing in 10,000 visitors it's just Dave
>>> appears to chose to do things the second way.
>>
>>I even get the impression that if someone doesn't do it his way,
>>he/she does it wrong / has no clue about SEO. There are just two ways,
>>one slow one, which might be more stable, and the grab what you can
>>while it lasts.[/color]
>
> Who was it again that brought up the question about comparing traffic
> figures. Oh wait, it was you John.[/color]

The conclusion was: you can't compare.

> You are trying to suggest my way is inferior to yours.

If I say that I have the impression that you try to make yours look
superior, does that mean that I want to suggest it's inferior?

> The person I admire most in this NG (for their sites, traffic and
> general approach) has a site that receives over 10,000 visitors a day
> due to years of hard work creating unique content. In comparison what
> I do is easy.

Yup, again: I got the *impression*, time after time, that you consider
your way the best.
[color=green]
>>I have, ages ago, helped someone with the latter. It lasted a month...
>>Ok, that month he made a lot of money, but the next and the next,
>>almost nothing.
>
> Don't compare something that's taken a year to build to 10,000
> visitors a day (which I should add isn't a stable daily figure yet) to
> a spammy site that got a quick boost for a month in the past. BTW that
> type of thing doesn't work anymore (If it's the sort of site I'm
> thinking of).
>
> Why does this get to you so much John?[/color]

We both agree that what you do is easy, that I can do it to, and maybe
with less effort. So how can it get to me Dave?

You suggested several times that I am "wasting" (can't remember the
exact words) the PR7 of my site. You also stated many times that I only
got that PR7 thanks to a GNU link. If its true, you know what the big
thing is Dave? I can move that link around to whichever site I want (it
pointed in the past to Castle Amber). So I have a portable link that can
turn a site into PR7, if your idea is correct 😉

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: rel="nofollow"

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:47:57 GMT, SEO Dave
wrote:

>On 5 Jun 2005 15:28:56 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>[color=green]
>>T.J. wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I think both me and Dave agree with you.
>>> 200 quality pages bringing in 1000 quality visitors can be equally as
>>> good as 100,000 pages bringing in 10,000 visitors it's just Dave
>>> appears to chose to do things the second way.
>>
>>I even get the impression that if someone doesn't do it his way, he/she
>>does it wrong / has no clue about SEO. There are just two ways, one slow
>>one, which might be more stable, and the grab what you can while it lasts.[/color]
>
>Who was it again that brought up the question about comparing traffic
>figures. Oh wait, it was you John. You are trying to suggest my way is
>inferior to yours.
>
>The person I admire most in this NG (for their sites, traffic and
>general approach) has a site that receives over 10,000 visitors a day
>due to years of hard work creating unique content. In comparison what
>I do is easy.[/color]

Kat.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: rel="nofollow"

"John Bokma" wrote in message
news:Xns966A85B351B0Ccastleamber@130.133.1.4...

Phew, not to get this going again....I just need to answer some things. I
have been away to MA seeing my son Graduate!

One, I think people taking and mirroring NG's is unethical. I never said it
wasn't. Two, ads I speak of is from Google etc. This isn't selling PR.
Three, I have said enough with sigs. I never stated they were unethical. Any
way, enough with it!

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

Stacey wrote:

> "John Bokma" wrote in message
> news:Xns966A85B351B0Ccastleamber@130.133.1.4...
>
>
>
> Phew, not to get this going again....I just need to answer some
> things. I have been away to MA seeing my son Graduate!
>
> One, I think people taking and mirroring NG's is unethical. I never
> said it wasn't.

How can they earn (as in: deserve) the PR then and me not?

> Two, ads I speak of is from Google etc.

Since you cut a lot, I have no clue what you mean, it has been some
time.

> This isn't selling PR.

Ah, I remember, Google no, but "etc"?

> Three, I have said enough with sigs. I never stated they
> were unethical.

According to you, and your research, mine had too many URLs, you called
it unprofessional:

unethical: not conforming to approved standards of social or
professional behavior

So yeah, you called mine unethical 😀

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: rel="nofollow"

"John Bokma" wrote in message
news:Xns966E6EC07E1B9castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> Stacey wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "John Bokma" wrote in message
>> news:Xns966A85B351B0Ccastleamber@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>
>>
>> Phew, not to get this going again....I just need to answer some
>> things. I have been away to MA seeing my son Graduate!
>>
>> One, I think people taking and mirroring NG's is unethical. I never
>> said it wasn't.
>
> How can they earn (as in: deserve) the PR then and me not?[/color]

You deserve some PR if they have it, just not earn it. Plus, you didn't
write all the content yourself since you want to look at it that way. Bill,
Dave, etc, etc, etc, and I wrote some. So even with your theory you still
didn't earn it(work for it)
[color=green]
>> Two, ads I speak of is from Google etc.
>
> Since you cut a lot, I have no clue what you mean, it has been some
> time.
>
>> This isn't selling PR.
>
> Ah, I remember, Google no, but "etc"?[/color]

Yeah, I cut because I am trying to be quick. over 247 messages unread! I am
down to 189!
>[color=green]
>> Three, I have said enough with sigs. I never stated they
>> were unethical.
>
> According to you, and your research, mine had too many URLs, you called
> it unprofessional:[/color]

To me it looks unprofessional(meaning it does look like you own a business).
To you, you might not like rag rugs, that doesn't mean all people will think
the same. 🙂

> unethical: not conforming to approved standards of social or
> professional behavior
>
> So yeah, you called mine unethical 😀

What are approved standards of social or professional behavior? Do you know?
🙂

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

Stacey wrote:

> "John Bokma" wrote in message

> You deserve some PR if they have it, just not earn it. Plus, you
> didn't write all the content yourself

In some cases I do, of course. And in many cases I write a lot of it 😀

> since you want to look at it
> that way. Bill, Dave, etc, etc, etc, and I wrote some. So even with
> your theory you still didn't earn it(work for it)

Sure, in cases I start the thread I do. And I do now and then. Moreover,
if someone asks a question, and I write a reply I did the real work.
[color=green]
>> Ah, I remember, Google no, but "etc"?
>
> Yeah, I cut because[/color]

Removing everything is not nice.

> I am trying to be quick. over 247 messages unread!
> I am down to 189!

Just mark all as read :-D.
[color=green]
>> So yeah, you called mine unethical 😀
>
> What are approved standards of social or professional behavior? Do you
> know?[/color]

You considered mine not professional, hence unethical 😉

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Re: rel="nofollow"

On 7 Jun 2005 15:54:10 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
[color=green]
>> Three, I have said enough with sigs. I never stated they
>> were unethical.
>
>According to you, and your research, mine had too many URLs, you called
>it unprofessional:
>
>unethical: not conforming to approved standards of social or
>professional behavior
>
>So yeah, you called mine unethical :-D[/color]

Nice twisting the meaning of the above.

You should write a book-

"How to Twist the Meaning of Anything and Everything in 101 Easy
Lessons"

LOL

Or you should go into politics, I hear Damien's looking for a running
mate next time 🙂

David

Re: rel="nofollow"

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:36:54 -0400, "Stacey"
wrote:

>Phew, not to get this going again....I just need to answer some things. I
>have been away to MA seeing my son Graduate!

Welcome back Stacey and congratulations on your son graduating.

I think John's missed you, he's not had anyone's posts to stalk 🙂

David

Re: rel="nofollow"

"John Bokma" wrote in message
news:Xns966E75DF9D258castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> Stacey wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "John Bokma" wrote in message
>
>> You deserve some PR if they have it, just not earn it. Plus, you
>> didn't write all the content yourself
>
> In some cases I do, of course. And in many cases I write a lot of it :-D[/color]

I have not seen a message here that you have written it all yourself.
[color=green]
>> since you want to look at it
>> that way. Bill, Dave, etc, etc, etc, and I wrote some. So even with
>> your theory you still didn't earn it(work for it)
>
> Sure, in cases I start the thread I do. And I do now and then. Moreover,
> if someone asks a question, and I write a reply I did the real work.[/color]

Really, so does everone else who answers the question.
[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Ah, I remember, Google no, but "etc"?
>>
>> Yeah, I cut because[/color]
>
> Removing everything is not nice.[/color]

It is nicer than going through the whole c**p again!:-)

>[color=green]
>> I am trying to be quick. over 247 messages unread!
>> I am down to 189!
>
> Just mark all as read :-D.[/color]

For most of them yeah, but not all of them.
[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> So yeah, you called mine unethical 😀
>>
>> What are approved standards of social or professional behavior? Do you
>> know?[/color]
>
> You considered mine not professional, hence unethical ;-)[/color]

Does that answer my question of what are the approved standards?:-)

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

"SEO Dave" wrote in
message news:gpkba1po2gabfelatjnqlbgdkkd00opkr0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:36:54 -0400, "Stacey"
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Phew, not to get this going again....I just need to answer some things. I
>>have been away to MA seeing my son Graduate!
>
> Welcome back Stacey and congratulations on your son graduating.[/color]

Thanks!

> I think John's missed you, he's not had anyone's posts to stalk 🙂

Well, I am going to be really busy on getting the house ready to sell and my
move! Which is next month (the move not the house selling)BTW! YEEKKK!

Stacey

Re: rel="nofollow"

SEO Dave wrote:

> On 7 Jun 2005 15:54:10 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
[color=green]
>>unethical: not conforming to approved standards of social or
>>professional behavior
>>
>>So yeah, you called mine unethical 😀
>
> Nice twisting the meaning of the above.[/color]

Stacey said about my sig that [a] it was not according to the netiquette
because it had too many URLs (she looked up a web page that said so) [1]
and [b] she said my sig was unprofessional because of this.

http://www.answers.com/unethical
"not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior"

Since netiquette is not really a standard, I skip [a]. For [b]

http://www.answers.com/unprofessional
"Not conforming to the standards of a profession: unprofessional behavior."

So, uhm, unprofessional = not conforming = unethical.

Oh, and I have no problem if you call my sig unethical, I am not calling it
ethical in any way :-D.

[1] she mistakenly took a webpage for *the* netiquette

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html