Article: Stop Whining About Google

Hello,
Take a look at this approach:
http://www.softwaremarketingresource.com/article23.html
JJ

"JJ" <JJ_member (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> wrote

Hello,
Take a look at this approach:
http://www.softwaremarketingresource.com/article23.html
JJ

This was the best part of the article, I thought:

"Businesses that rely on Google's free listings as their sole source of web
traffic lack good sense. Google, being an independent company, reserves the
right to run their business as their management sees fit."

JJ wrote:

Hello,
Take a look at this approach:
http://www.softwaremarketingresource.com/article23.html
JJ


Just a rehash of what a lot of other people have said. I fact almost an

exact copy of what someone said in alt.www.webmaster if I remember
correctly. It may have been Mr Tasso.

I wish I cared enough to look up the source.

Jez.
--
Rustic Stone House Signs
www.rusticstone.net

Extract the "URINE" to e-mail :-)

Hello,
Take a look at this approach:
http://www.softwaremarketingresource.com/article23.html

is the article saying that businesses should actively seek good positions on
other search engines? this is all good and well, but spamming other search
engines is infinately easier that with google, and is the current best
practice for getting good positions - yet doing this negates you getting a
good position on Google as it (used to) filter out spammy content...

in my experience, its an either/or situation and with google delivering 80%+
of business traffic i understand how businesses come to reply on their
listing...

i am the first person to freak out when a business comes to rely on their
search engine position - it puts a lot of pressure on me and is cripling to
businesses that are caught up in googles hijinx(never thought id use that
word.. ever!)

mark

A few observations:-


1> If Google only listed sites that paid for Adwords or paid for
listings, would they be where they are today? or where would they be
in the future?
2> Has Google not become the first choice or Search Engine for so many
because of the amount of content it has?
3> That content has been provided Free of charge

The majority of people who 'moan' or 'complain' about positions are
almost always asking the question of 'why' many of the sites that have
higher positions only have those positions because they have joined
some link-swop that generates 7,500 - 22,500 inbound links. We all
know what those links are, they are not very often anything but a link
in order to increase ranking.

The majority of people are just asking for fairness and a level field
for everyone.

Online Businesses exist, it is a fact, the whole basis of having an
online business is that people can find your site. Search Engines of
Today are the Printed Business Pages / Directories of the past. In a
printed Directory you can pay for a whole page Ad, you can pay for a
large Ad or a block listing, fine. But would a Printed Directory
accept that instead on 1 entry ( or several if applicable ) allow you
to put perhaps 5,000 entries that totally flooded the pages with
irrelevant information? No, they wouldn't.

All people want is fairness.

(Sorry if my English is not too clear)

Dan wrote:

A few observations:-

1> If Google only listed sites that paid for Adwords or paid for
listings, would they be where they are today? or where would they be
in the future?
2> Has Google not become the first choice or Search Engine for so many
because of the amount of content it has?
3> That content has been provided Free of charge

The majority of people who 'moan' or 'complain' about positions are
almost always asking the question of 'why' many of the sites that have
higher positions only have those positions because they have joined
some link-swop that generates 7,500 - 22,500 inbound links. We all
know what those links are, they are not very often anything but a link
in order to increase ranking.

A link page that had 7,500-22,000 links on it would be completely

useless unless it was pr10 and maybe a pr9 as all those links would
divide up the pr to nothingness.

The majority of people are just asking for fairness and a level field
for everyone.

Online Businesses exist, it is a fact, the whole basis of having an
online business is that people can find your site. Search Engines of
Today are the Printed Business Pages / Directories of the past. In a
printed Directory you can pay for a whole page Ad, you can pay for a
large Ad or a block listing, fine. But would a Printed Directory
accept that instead on 1 entry ( or several if applicable ) allow you
to put perhaps 5,000 entries that totally flooded the pages with
irrelevant information? No, they wouldn't.

All people want is fairness.

(Sorry if my English is not too clear)

It is fair in that anybody can do it once they learn how to. However if
I owned a search engine my altruistic idea would be to list sites
alphabetically (like dmoz does) but rotate them on a 24 hour basis so
every site had it's chance on page one through the very last page.
However this is from an seo and webmasters point of view and as a viewer
it might not be so good when you want to find a certain site again.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:25:54 +0000, Sam wrote:

However if
I owned a search engine my altruistic idea would be to list sites
alphabetically (like dmoz does) but rotate them on a 24 hour basis so
every site had it's chance on page one through the very last page.
However this is from an seo and webmasters point of view and as a viewer
it might not be so good when you want to find a certain site again.

It wouldn't be too good for a searcher looking for relevant sites either!

Isn't there already a "Find a random site on the Internet" button
somewhere on the web?

Voyager
Webmaster: http://www.hackfaq.org