 | |
Classic Literature Serp
Search Engine Optimization Discussion about SEO/Search Engine Optimization (alt.internet.search-engines)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Classic Literature Serp -
07-09-2004
, 09:25 AM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I now have a 2nd site at the classic literature serp only this one is on page one of Dave's hard and precious serp and it's at number 10 right under Dave's, for now that is. Here's that url: http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=literature It's also a new site with pr0 and hardly any backlinks. The first site that came in earlier: http://www.pcpages.com/shakespeare/ |
page. Wow. I understand though, you didn't have time, while writing up
all the text content for that page, to create your own image.
And you employed good ol' hidden text technique I see:
<h5 align=center>
classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic
literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature
</h5>
Maybe if you slipped in one more repetition of classic literature you
can take the #8 slot! Ya think? Or maybe you could repeat the two [yet
still visible in my browser] attempts at hiding links, both using
classic literature as anchor text and linking right back to the splash
page, around the first E N T E R also like you did on the second E N
T E R? If nothing else - would help balance things out appearance wise
even with the words "classic literature" as the text hidden.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...kespea re%2F+
"Errors: 45
[snip]
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"
Since you listed most of your other sites, at a w3c public mailing
list, to being WAI accessible ... let's see how that splash page fares
with the little content shared on it. Should be a breeze!
http://valet.webthing.com/view=Asis/...3&xslt=compact
Result: Fail
Whoops, didn't meet the WAI-AAA so let's take it down to just WAI-A
which is just the bare minimum:
http://valet.webthing.com/view=Asis/...1&xslt=compact
Result: Fail
[snip]
Quote:
|
just merely trying to proove a point as to who knows more about SEO and the answer is now becoming very obvious to everyone. |
as SEO on any of my sites or pages in them.
Carol
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:25:06 GMT, "SAM EE!" <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote: I now have a 2nd site at the classic literature serp only this one is on page one of Dave's hard and precious serp and it's at number 10 right under Dave's, for now that is. Here's that url: http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=literature It's also a new site with pr0 and hardly any backlinks. The first site that came in earlier: http://www.pcpages.com/shakespeare/ Impressive; you "borrowed" another site's graphic to create a splash page. Wow. I understand though, you didn't have time, while writing up all the text content for that page, to create your own image. And you employed good ol' hidden text technique I see: h5 align=center classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature /h5 Maybe if you slipped in one more repetition of classic literature you can take the #8 slot! Ya think? Or maybe you could repeat the two [yet still visible in my browser] attempts at hiding links, both using classic literature as anchor text and linking right back to the splash page, around the first E N T E R also like you did on the second E N T E R? If nothing else - would help balance things out appearance wise even with the words "classic literature" as the text hidden. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...kespea re%2F+ "Errors: 45 [snip] This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!" Since you listed most of your other sites, at a w3c public mailing list, to being WAI accessible ... let's see how that splash page fares with the little content shared on it. Should be a breeze! http://valet.webthing.com/view=Asis/...3&xslt=compact Result: Fail Whoops, didn't meet the WAI-AAA so let's take it down to just WAI-A which is just the bare minimum: http://valet.webthing.com/view=Asis/...1&xslt=compact Result: Fail [snip] just merely trying to proove a point as to who knows more about SEO and the answer is now becoming very obvious to everyone. Yep; and nothing on that above shared URL that I would attempt using as SEO on any of my sites or pages in them. Carol |
number 900 I guess then do anything you considered 'unethical'. Nothing
like an 'ethical seo' (aren't those two terms in contradiction or is it
just me?).
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
C.W. wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:25:06 GMT, "SAM EE!" <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote: I now have a 2nd site at the classic literature serp only this one is on page one of Dave's hard and precious serp and it's at number 10 right under Dave's, for now that is. Here's that url: http://bbs.ws/bbs.php?bbs=literature It's also a new site with pr0 and hardly any backlinks. The first site that came in earlier: http://www.pcpages.com/shakespeare/ Impressive; you "borrowed" another site's graphic to create a splash page. Wow. I understand though, you didn't have time, while writing up all the text content for that page, to create your own image. And you employed good ol' hidden text technique I see: h5 align=center classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature, classic literature /h5 Maybe if you slipped in one more repetition of classic literature you can take the #8 slot! Ya think? Or maybe you could repeat the two [yet still visible in my browser] attempts at hiding links, both using classic literature as anchor text and linking right back to the splash page, around the first E N T E R also like you did on the second E N T E R? If nothing else - would help balance things out appearance wise even with the words "classic literature" as the text hidden. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...kespea re%2F+ "Errors: 45 [snip] This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!" Since you listed most of your other sites, at a w3c public mailing list, to being WAI accessible ... let's see how that splash page fares with the little content shared on it. Should be a breeze! http://valet.webthing.com/view=Asis/...3&xslt=compact Result: Fail Whoops, didn't meet the WAI-AAA so let's take it down to just WAI-A which is just the bare minimum: http://valet.webthing.com/view=Asis/...1&xslt=compact Result: Fail [snip] just merely trying to proove a point as to who knows more about SEO and the answer is now becoming very obvious to everyone. Yep; and nothing on that above shared URL that I would attempt using as SEO on any of my sites or pages in them. Carol You'd rather work months and years on your sites and have them listed at number 900 I guess then do anything you considered 'unethical'. Nothing like an 'ethical seo' (aren't those two terms in contradiction or is it just me?). |
like you have done to get to the top. What you have done doesn't prove you
are a better SEO. What you have proven is that you are a better Spammer.
Long term spamming sites won't hold up. You might be there now, but next
month you could be gone. There isn't any stability of what you are doing.
You say the pages have 0PR, but that is what people see. You have links to
it from sites with PR, so in a since it has PR. Just hasn't been updated as
of yet. Google knows it has PR. So, you didn't do what you said. You gave
that page PR.
Anyone, and I do mean anyone can spam. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
do it! If you want to be a good SEO and prove that you are then do it
without spamming!
Stacey
--
Stacey's Simple Stuff
Rag Rugs - Home Decor Accessories- Crocheted Crafts
http://www.staceyssimplestuff.com
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Impressive; you "borrowed" another site's graphic to create a splash page. Wow. I understand though, you didn't have time, while writing up all the text content for that page, to create your own image. Maybe if you slipped in one more repetition of classic literature you can take the #8 slot! |
neccesarily about graphics, text, flash, too much text or lack of
text, valid code, content, etc. It is about landing a great spot in
the results of a search engine or two.
That is exactly what Sam has done.
His site may lack many things, but it will not lack visitors.
Tim
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Impressive; you "borrowed" another site's graphic to create a splash page. Wow. I understand though, you didn't have time, while writing up all the text content for that page, to create your own image. Maybe if you slipped in one more repetition of classic literature you can take the #8 slot! Although I understand your point completely, this newsgroup isnt neccesarily about graphics, text, flash, too much text or lack of text, valid code, content, etc. It is about landing a great spot in the results of a search engine or two. |
spot on the results page. Whether the site is informational in theme
or commercial - both want the same thing: quality traffic that makes
the site and maintenance/work on it worth the time.
For the little bit of text Sam did provide - and little may be
stretching it a bit - he couldn't even try to use proper HTML [after
all, he was the one bragging that he didn't need to learn CSS as he
proficient in HTML already]. A number of those errors were NOT his
fault ... I suppose no one looked [remove the + in the URL, that was
added somehow by the online validators] at that most of the errors was
due to the program used to create the site with [probably an online
editor?] but with 6 to 10 lines he added, those are filled with errors
also. This group is NOT about HTML - I agree - but one tip often
shared is what? Using good HTML and tightening it up - so not limited
to just text presented [hidden or visible] as part of SEO.
The list can go on.
To my eyes Sam is not showing skills at SEO, and I am looking at the
last initial - not just the first two, and certainly _not_ in the
manner Sam is trying to claim "being a better SEO" than you, me,
James, the guy down the street, or Dave.
Would you recommend others in this group to use the techniques Sam has
shared on those sites? If not - then _that_ is my point. Sam is the
one going on and on about being a better SEO - and that this was
supposedly showing "everyone" that claim to being true.
Quote:
|
That is exactly what Sam has done. |
He is placing than his content deserves [for now]: yes
Is his site deserving of such placement: likely not many would feel it
is ... and if it was a commercial site that bumped your site off page
1 or out of #1 slot - would you feel it was just using of SEO? Or
would you or one of the other competitors for that SERP consider
reporting it in hopes Google would penalize it?
Quote:
|
His site may lack many things, but it will not lack visitors. |
them to 1] use the site, 2] recommend the site to others, 3] to even
consider returning again.
Can you honestly say that Sam's site is offering content to the
traffic, which you mentioned would result, that is better than Dave's
classical literature site? Which one, out of the two - erm, make that
three as Sam has two, would you feel deserved Page 1?
Sorry, but no matter what angle I look at it from, the traffic to
either one of Sam's sites will not be worth the energy spent even
typing out classic literature 6 times in a row. The only one that may
benefit from any traffic he does trick in will be the hosts of the
space he is using _if_ some of the people will click on the ads
shared.
Carol.
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
C.W. wrote: On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:25:06 GMT, "SAM EE!" <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote: You'd rather work months and years on your sites and have them listed at number 900 I guess then do anything you considered 'unethical'. Nothing like an 'ethical seo' (aren't those two terms in contradiction or is it just me?). |
methods just to "place high": nope, sorry - never was and likely never
will be regardless of the excuse shared by the person behind the site.
Especially since there are so many ways around NOT doing that and
still get results.
What good does it do to be listed on Page 1 or even #1 if your site
sucks and people leave it within seconds of arriving? None - not even
SEO wise as primary reason to do SEO in the first place is to help
bring in MORE traffic, and ones seeking what you claim to be offering,
and have that traffic become interested in your site.
Isn't the traffic - and having that traffic use the services offered
on your sites - why you work on keeping your sex sites on Page 1 of
their supposed SERPs? Or is it, like with this classic literature duo
tag team sites of yours, just about saying "I am #x[x]!"
You can decide for yourself if the methods, used on those sites, as
being "ethical" or "unethical". I just said they were techniques I
wouldn't use [and wouldn't recommend to others] - but I am looking at
my sites with a long term goal versus "oh hell, if it gets penalized -
no biggie!" or needing to rely on more work than necessary [as you
mentioned, more than once, that the blog/guestbook/memberlist spamming
was becoming more work on your side] to "stay in decent placement" on
the SERPs.
Sorry, Sam, but I don't view the URLs you offered as a "demonstrations
of skills" supportive of your claims of being a "better SEO" than
another person in this NG. How is showing people here that you will
use hidden text/links as your primary SEO onpage techniques showing
anyone you are better than Dave at SE Optimization?
Whether you delete the sites or not - they are worthless to anyone
seeking a site about classic literature or Shakespeare except for one
person: yourself. I doubt either one of those two sites will be
deleted - but somehow used to link back to your other sites - but
that's just my personal "prediction".
But then again you were/are really only competing with yourself as
Dave has said more than once that he didn't care if you placed on Page
1 or not for the classic literature SERP - then you quit the
"competition" only to remain competing with yourself ...now with two
of your own but slapped together sites that doesn't show any thought
[in the layout, contents, or optimization] being applied. *shrug*
Carol
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:04:59 GMT, Sam <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote: C.W. wrote: |
Quote:
|
Whether you delete the sites or not - they are worthless to anyone seeking a site about classic literature or Shakespeare except for one person: yourself. I doubt either one of those two sites will be deleted - but somehow used to link back to your other sites - but that's just my personal "prediction". snip |
Carol,
I agree with your prediction. Let's look back in a few months and see how
good our psychic abilities are again! :-)
Stacey
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
"C.W." <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:ehgte0557senlkluuu1be0rbrlblrvisfe (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:04:59 GMT, Sam <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote: C.W. wrote: snip Whether you delete the sites or not - they are worthless to anyone seeking a site about classic literature or Shakespeare except for one person: yourself. I doubt either one of those two sites will be deleted - but somehow used to link back to your other sites - but that's just my personal "prediction". snip Carol, I agree with your prediction. Let's look back in a few months and see how good our psychic abilities are again! :-) Stacey |
won't, it's ok. Short-term-success is what counts, because you can, once you
dropped out, just go at it the same way again, changing it so that it works
again and you have another short-term-success. Keeping that up, you will, in
average, do better with alot of good short-term-rankings than with a
intermediate long-term-position.
#10
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
I agree with Carol. You don't have to use hidden text, or repetitious words like you have done to get to the top. What you have done doesn't prove you are a better SEO. What you have proven is that you are a better Spammer. Long term spamming sites won't hold up. You might be there now, but next month you could be gone. There isn't any stability of what you are doing. Really then how do you explain the fact that my normal sites have been |
short term what is long term to you? Also using Dave's logic since I'm
doing it at my own site then anything goes whether it's adding lots of
hidden keywords or it's adding lots of internal pages with keyword
anchor text as Dave does. HA! Got you there you blind Dave fan at your
own game!
Quote:
|
You say the pages have 0PR, but that is what people see. You have links to it from sites with PR, so in a since it has PR. Just hasn't been updated as of yet. Google knows it has PR. So, you didn't do what you said. You gave that page PR. No site has any PR even if you've done posting for futrure backlinks |
takes 1-3 months a site has 0PR.
Quote:
|
Anyone, and I do mean anyone can spam. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do it! If you want to be a good SEO and prove that you are then do it without spamming! SEO stand for spam. If you want to be 'ethical' then don't call yourself |
because they're sites will be in oblivion all the time but you can tell
them "Hey but I'm ethical!" and when they tell you to go 'f' yourself
you can do a Steve Martin and say..."WELL EXCUSSEEEE MEEEEEE!!!!!"
Quote:
|
Stacey Listen babe I could get your site to number one on page one. Email |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.