AISE Stats: 17/01/2008-24/01/2008

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:48:35 +0100, Tonnie Lubbers
<t.prasing (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote:

LOL!! Sorry, Paul you are the only one that seems concerned about it. It
is really nothing. LOL!!

It might be nothing in your opinion. Every attention, how little it may
seem, these wankers get, is to much!!

Yep, and I was only HELPING Roy with his stats.
Gosh, I would hate to see what would happen if I was awkward.

--
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston...elry-june.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/earrings-202.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovs...hoker-202.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"The Gobbling Goblin" <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:03:18 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

There are times that when some of them (spammed crap) have been replied to
by people such as you or Paul replied giving them the attention that they
needed,

ROFLMAO

IIRC both your friend Jez and BB replied in a spammers thread and
*both* left the URL of the OP.

Sam is a regular here. What he was asking was related to search engines.
What people can not ask anything about why a site was making ranks?

New SEO Contest! I believe the thread was.

I didn't see you complain then.

That is because they were actually taking about search engines what this
group is all about correct?

Take a chill pill Stacey.

Something you really need to do.:-) I will say this again you are making a
mountain out of a mole hill.

"The Gobbling Goblin" <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote

<snip>

Christain beliefs have nothing to do with thinking someone is a nutter.
LOL!

They shall not Judge ?
hmmmmmmm

LOL! Dude that doesn't say that in the Bible. You are commonly getting
confused with a false commandment. You might be getting confused with "Judge
not, that ye be not judged", mentioned in Mathew. What it means if you read
the whole verse in Mathew 7:1-5 is that one shouldn't be a hypocrite and
not all judging is wrong just hypocritical judging. So don't try and even
try quoting Bible to me, as you can't.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:31:55 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

"The Gobbling Goblin" <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:r6h4q3t7n5rihqu708r7gpilnv0dlojjar (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
snip


Christain beliefs have nothing to do with thinking someone is a nutter.
LOL!

They shall not Judge ?
hmmmmmmm

LOL! Dude that doesn't say that in the Bible. You are commonly getting
confused with a false commandment.

Not commonly confused.
Just couldn't be bothered with the correct statement you are supposed
to follow.

You might be getting confused with "Judge not, that ye be not judged", mentioned in Mathew. What it means if you read
the whole verse in Mathew 7:1-5 is that one shouldn't be a hypocrite and not all judging is wrong just hypocritical judging. So don't try and even try quoting Bible to me, as you can't.

Thing is, you are a hypocrite.

Oh holy Stacey.

Go back to your religion that was created on fear, murder and
bullshit.


--
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston...elry-june.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/earrings-202.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovs...hoker-202.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:48:35 +0100, Tonnie Lubbers
<t.prasing (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote:

Jezsta Web Productions schreef:
"The Gobbling Goblin" <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:e9r3q3phbr56512ba0fmjkdvcbqptitob5 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:25:14 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

snip
cause the only person it matters to is you.:-)

Nope.
More like HELPING Roy keep tidy stats.


LOL!! Sorry, Paul you are the only one that seems concerned about it. It
is really nothing. LOL!!

It might be nothing in your opinion. Every attention, how little it may
seem, these wankers get, is to much!!

This week's stats are going to be full of people discussing the stats.
Whither Heisenberg?

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:20:00 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

"The Gobbling Goblin" <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:7th4q3dnnj2io802a4j9o76ak2a0sl0qhm (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:03:18 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

There are times that when some of them (spammed crap) have been replied to
by people such as you or Paul replied giving them the attention that they
needed,

ROFLMAO

IIRC both your friend Jez and BB replied in a spammers thread and
*both* left the URL of the OP.

Sam is a regular here. What he was asking was related to search engines.
What people can not ask anything about why a site was making ranks?

New SEO Contest! I believe the thread was.

I didn't see you complain then.

That is because they were actually taking about search engines what this
group is all about correct?

Take a chill pill Stacey.

Something you really need to do.:-) I will say this again you are making a
mountain out of a mole hill.

Something I ought to do ??? LMAO

I simply asked Roy a question.
YOU jumped on board and made it your business.
It is YOU that is making a mountain out of a molehill.

This didn't have to be a long thread at all. It is YOU that is making
it so.
For someone that doesn't care about the stats, you sure are making a
lot of pointless noise.

And if this group has being going downhill, then why post at all, esp
if there is nothing here to post about ?

You sure it is boredom as to why you are writing, and not due to a 28
day cycle ? <G>

For me, this thread is finished.
--
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston...elry-june.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/earrings-202.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovs...hoker-202.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"The Gobbling Goblin" <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:31:55 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

Thing is, you are a hypocrite.

By calling you a nutter? Don't think so. I called you a nutter for making a
mountain out of a molehill. This whole bit about the stats. It isn't being a
hypocrite. As I would tell that to anyone and I have to everyone the same
thing and think of them the same way.

Trust me you are being very comical also, you have truly shown how childish
you can get by putting down people for their beliefs. You couldn't come up
with anything else so you pop that in? Probably because I said I wouldn't
give that one site a link because it was a pagan site, and I am sorry but
that is how it is I won't link to something I don't believe in and won't not
even if it had a high PR. You know I truly feel sorry for you Paul if you
have to result to such things.

Again, I feel the stats should remain how it is. I feel that showing all the
crap of linkswanted or anyone else being a top poster shows how this group
really is. To remove it would be lying really. I am amazed that you can not
see why it is important to actually keep it. It can show that more needs to
be done to start actually having good discussions.

Toplist of original content per message (of people who have written at least
three messages)

Place Name Orig. / Msgs = PrMsg
Quoted
1. linkswanted <moving (AT) mover4u (DOT) com> 9679 / 3 = 3226

There you go, this is what this group is coming to. He only posted 3
messages and it is original content. This shows that something really needs
to change! Am I the only person that can see this? If I am than this group
is sadder than I thought. This group like I said is going downhill and it is
real sad. There is nothing here that anyone can learn from, except one thing
a lot of hatred and trumped up feelings.

Stacey

"The Gobbling Goblin" <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote

<snip>

You sure it is boredom as to why you are writing, and not due to a 28
day cycle ? <G

LOL! Why is it when men can't think of anything else or need to use a put
down they have to mention a woman's menstrual cycle?

No Paul not a 28 cycle, I never had a 28 cycle it was more like 32. Now it
isn't due to a 32 day cycle either, as I haven't had a period (slang for
menstruation) in 2 years. LOL! So nope that isn't it. Hubby is home also, so
nope it isn't being without something either.

Nope there isn't anything else in this group to even discuss or worth it.

Like I said, the stats are just fine the way they are. It lets me know, even
though I can look and see nothing else is posted anyway, how crummy this
group has become. You know it can easily be changed all someone has to do is
start a decent thread, but they don't. We are all guilty of this.

I don't come here too often cause it is total crap. But every now and then I
will post when I am taking a break from a forum I am one of the experts in.
I like it better there as there are people who need help and are truly
grateful in receiving the advise.

You know I knew you would get into a sparring match Paul, cause that is how
you are. You didn't need to put Jez or Bill into it either. You forgot a
couple of names also that wrote something in that thread, your pal Tonnie
was there also and a few others. But I didn't think of that thread as being
spam. Why is it that everything is spam unless it is from a regular, that is
how if seems now days.

You know it isn't the first time you had asked Roy you asked him last month
also. All I said was that you seem to be the only one as you were the only
person last month also to mention it. It must be your time of the month as
you were bothered by it last month and this month! LOL!

Stacey

"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A369D35A6F31castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

LOL! And if you think that listing them in some stupid stats

For one, Roy doesn't consider them stupid. Nor do I. I agree with
others that either the stats should include every spammer, and become
(IMO) pointless. Or they should not include known spammers.

Well no there not really stupid, but stats are stats and should
include everything really,

Depends. If the stats only show non-spammers, there is no reason to
include spammers. Most webstats drop hits coming from the same IP
address within a given time frame in their visitor counts. As long as
it's clear what we're looking at, it's fine.

and people need to just ignore the
spammers. The stats are stats and will be pointless is all information
is not listed IMO. This thing about not listing them is being a
childish thing

If no people are interested in the filtered stats, how many are
interested in the stats which have spammers? I mean, if in doubt, let's
vote on this.

and for me like this group has become.

You're part of this group, I mean, you can ignore such requests. It's up
to Roy (IMO) to decide what to do with it. Since Roy seems to agree with
removing spammers from the stats, I see no problem with it. Maybe it
should have been done via email, but nowadays with all the spam
filtering and other shit in place, that might be too much trouble.

This group is by far been going down hill and still is, good grief if
it wasn't for the spammers there would be nothing posted almost.

You're old enough to know that quality and quantity are different
things. This group doesn't die if nobody posts anything for a year here
except spam. Moreover, I've the feeling that the bickering between
regulars scares more people away than spam (which one can filter mostly
out). That, and sometimes how regulars treat newbies.

And
further more when has the last decent discussion about search engine
strategies been posted anyway?

I recently posted on my very positive experience with Yahoo. To many
(including me) it was already known that description has some effect.
But I had never expected to move from #13 to #7 in a few weeks. I am
doing now a broader experiment, and will report back on that as soon as
I have noticed a serious effect. Or if not, expect it around my birthday
(15th of February).

Boy if there were stats for that. LOL!

You could keep them ;-)

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

The Gobbling Goblin <customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote:

On 31 Jan 2008 21:27:15 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

LOL! And if you think that listing them in some stupid stats

For one, Roy doesn't consider them stupid. Nor do I. I agree with others
that either the stats should include every spammer, and become (IMO)
pointless. Or they should not include known spammers.


Thank you John, at least someone here with sense agrees with me.

No problem Paul. To me the stats are a bit like a movie ticket, which I
often keep, especially if the movie was good. Or: I read them, and think
back about how it was. Also, it's a good reminder (to me) of posting too
much.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/