crit my seo

"SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail (AT) seowebmarket (DOT) com> wrote

On Feb 1, 7:39 pm, "Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-
f... (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

saying home instead of
something better like "Art Store" homepage is bad SEO.

It only has ONE homepage. I'd use adjectives if there were more than
one.

Your advice to spam keywords is "bad SEO".

No, I am not telling you to spam keywords. Every SEO knows not to just say
home.

So those websites you list there that you stated you have optimized them
for
high rankings what are those rankings?

As if that were any of your business . . .

Should be anyone's business as that is what you do SEO right? You should
have it on your site.

http://www.google.com/search?q=international+art+store

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...l+art+store%22 LOL! Not
too many people using that phrase.

& FYI what you claim "I stated" is BS. Don't confuse your naive
assumptions with reality.

You claim let me see you said it here " optimized all of them for high
ranking listings in search engines."

I designed and built ALL of those websites from scratch

LOL! I know I can tell.

Also having your link on their website is a not good. Not unless you did
their site for free and got the link for it. A big banner is just to me
in
bad taste.

Your ad hominem attack is in "bad taste" and it's also very immature.
You're throwing rocks at a brick wall.

No it isn't. If you do SEO for someone don't take their relevanace away from
the page with a link and people away with your big banner.

What if I DID design and build that website for free? What if they
specifically told me to add links as a 'thank you'?

Add a small text link at the bottom.

Stacey
--
Jezsta Web Productions
SEO Tips - Website Design - Marketing
http://jezsta.com/

On Feb 2, 7:32*am, "Jezsta Web Productions" wrote:

what are those rankings?

As if that were any of your business . . .

Should be anyone's business as that is what you do SEO right? You should
have it on your site.

Only a fool would publish their keywords and ranks, especially to a
hostile troll like yourself. The site you're criticizing had had 436
hits from keywords in the past 30 days.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...s+in+quotes%22

You ASSUME quotes are needed to rank for YOUR keywords?

Your ad hominem attack is in "bad taste" and it's also very immature.
You're throwing rocks at a brick wall.

I understand your need to change the subject and attack the messenger
- but that still doesn't change the fact that you're giving worthless,
outdated advice because you haven't realized yet that your linking
schemes are black-hat and have been strictly penalized during the past
FOUR MONTHS on many websites.

I suppose you haven't heard the latest links that
are related count real nicely as weighted text on your pages.

For those of you who aren't paying attention (or don't comprehend the
English language - jezsta):

Google is PUNISHING link scams. Many directories have lost rank during
the past four months and a few don't even rank for their brand name.

EVERYONE with excessive links is adding the "nofollow" attribute to
their links. RELEVANCE is what Google wants - not a "cross-linked"
mess of crap pages.

Well I link my related sites back and forth, yep reciprocal cross linking

"For example, one common theory is that Google might be penalizing for
excessive cross-linking between sites"

http://searchengineland.com/071007-173841.php
http://searchengineland.com/071029-084449.php

"SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail (AT) seowebmarket (DOT) com> wrote

Your ad hominem attack is in "bad taste" and it's also very immature.
You're throwing rocks at a brick wall.

I understand your need to change the subject and attack the messenger
- but that still doesn't change the fact that you're giving worthless,

outdated advice because you haven't realized yet that your linking
schemes are black-hat and have been strictly penalized during the past

FOUR MONTHS on many websites.

LOL! the guy is writing a reply on his own quote .

You were rude the last time you came and nothing has changed. You obviously
do not know anything about linking at all. Especially linking out helps you.
People who nofollow too much are being watched. People who link out to
relevant pages are being rewarded. You really need to read up on linking out
to related sites on your pages. Now you need to understand that what I am
saying is not a link scheme!! LOL you need to get that out of your head and
understand that I said placing links helps your site for relevance, this is
to link out and not worry about PR or anything. Can you not understand the
simple thing about links to sites of authoritive nature?

http://www.webmasterworld.com/search...on/3237748.htm
http://www.highrankings.com/forum/in...howtopic=23648

There is good linking and there is bad you need to learn which is which!

Now I am done with you, as you really are starting to bore me.

Stacey

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:14:18 -0800 (PST), "SEOwebMarket.com"
<webmail (AT) seowebmarket (DOT) com> wrote:

On Feb 2, 7:32*am, "Jezsta Web Productions" wrote:

what are those rankings?

As if that were any of your business . . .

Should be anyone's business as that is what you do SEO right? You should
have it on your site.

Only a fool would publish their keywords and ranks, especially to a
hostile troll like yourself.

Why not, what would be wrong with that?

The site you're criticizing had had 436
hits from keywords in the past 30 days.

Well... so what? That statement's meaningless unless you give us some
context. Were they hard keywords? Was it a one-page site or zillions
of pages?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...s+in+quotes%22

You ASSUME quotes are needed to rank for YOUR keywords?

Your ad hominem attack is in "bad taste" and it's also very immature.
You're throwing rocks at a brick wall.

I understand your need to change the subject and attack the messenger
- but that still doesn't change the fact that you're giving worthless,
outdated advice because you haven't realized yet that your linking
schemes are black-hat and have been strictly penalized during the past
FOUR MONTHS on many websites.

I suppose you haven't heard the latest links that
are related count real nicely as weighted text on your pages.

For those of you who aren't paying attention (or don't comprehend the
English language - jezsta):

Google is PUNISHING link scams.

No, it's removing the value from some paid links.

Many directories have lost rank during
the past four months and a few don't even rank for their brand name.

EVERYONE with excessive links is adding the "nofollow" attribute to
their links.

I don't believe that they are. I think you've got the wrong end of the
stick here.

BB
--

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

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:12:37 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

"SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail (AT) seowebmarket (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:fbe78baf-7121-4128-b8ac-e92bd89766b4 (AT) i29g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com...


Your ad hominem attack is in "bad taste" and it's also very immature.
You're throwing rocks at a brick wall.

I understand your need to change the subject and attack the messenger
- but that still doesn't change the fact that you're giving worthless,
outdated advice because you haven't realized yet that your linking
schemes are black-hat and have been strictly penalized during the past
FOUR MONTHS on many websites.

LOL! the guy is writing a reply on his own quote .

Yeah, I wondered about that, I was having trouble following.

You were rude the last time you came and nothing has changed. You obviously
do not know anything about linking at all. Especially linking out helps you.
People who nofollow too much are being watched. People who link out to
relevant pages are being rewarded. You really need to read up on linking out
to related sites on your pages. Now you need to understand that what I am
saying is not a link scheme!! LOL you need to get that out of your head and
understand that I said placing links helps your site for relevance, this is
to link out and not worry about PR or anything. Can you not understand the
simple thing about links to sites of authoritive nature?

Not just authoritive, informative and related whether regarded as
authoritiveor not.

http://www.webmasterworld.com/search...on/3237748.htm
http://www.highrankings.com/forum/in...howtopic=23648

There is good linking and there is bad you need to learn which is which!

Now I am done with you, as you really are starting to bore me.

Pah! She leaves her many lovers like that, I'll bet... :-)

BB
--

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

On Feb 2, 7:12*pm, "Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-
f... (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

"SEOwebMarket.com" <webm... (AT) seowebmarket (DOT) com> wrote in message

Your ad hominem attack is in "bad taste" and it's also very immature.

You were . . . you came . . . You obviously
helps you.

You really need to read
your pages. . . . you need to
you need to get that out of your head
your site

you need to learn

you really are

Didn't get the hint eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

This thread is about the OP,
NOFOLLOW and "Juice Flow".

not to be confused with what jezsta needs:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ct+right+juice

It's obvious to ME that the OP (whom this thread is actually ABOUT) is
referencing the recent algorithm changes that have been being
discussed over the past months regarding NOFOLLOW and "Juice Flow".

jezsta's initial question "Why would you do that?" makes it pretty
obvious that she doesn't know what she's talking about. It's also
obvious that she shouldn't be trusted because she's bragging about
"reciprocal cross linking" (in a thread about INTERNAL linking) at a
time when EXTERNAL linking is under great speculation as the cause of
many sites that have dropped out of the SERPs even for their brand
names. jezsta's advice for the OP to link out to increase ranks is
absurd and dumbfounding.

I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about his OWN "seo" when HE titled
this thread. jezsta should go buy herself some dolls to take her
aggressions out on if she doesn't have anything productive to do with
her time (other than wasting ours). I know I have lots of work to do.

-------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia is an "authority site" + quality INTERNAL links + quality
INCOMING links (especially from the .edu domains) to a variety of
pages gives them awesome ranks. Wikipedia does NOT, however, link
"out" - and EVEN if they did, it would have been switched to NOFOLLOW
last month.

The way I see it: if you feel you need to "nofollow" internal links =
you probably shouldn't display those links in the first place -
because they'll distract your customers from what is important.

The fact that you are actually monitoring and controlling "link juice"
shows that you're already leaps beyond most webmasters; try looking at
it from a marketing point of view rather than SEO.

On Feb 2, 10:39*pm, Big Bill <b... (AT) kruse (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:12:37 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"

Now I am done with you, as you really are starting to bore me.

Pah! She leaves her many lovers like that, I'll bet... :-)

With an attitude like that, she probably doesn't have any.

Maybe that's why she's so repugnant in the first place.

"Big Bill" <bill (AT) kruse (DOT) co.uk> wrote

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:12:37 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:


LOL! the guy is writing a reply on his own quote .

Yeah, I wondered about that, I was having trouble following.

Bill let me get you memory to kick in about this guy, Remember you got bad
emails(and everyone else) flowing in and he used almost every name in the
book. He is a troll almost! Look over at these to refresh your memory.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.i...dbda9ee1806292
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.i...b358c6682bcd85


Mark already has his thought on nofollow and juice flow so don't know why he
is asking here. http://www.markrushworth.com/templat...ink.asp?id=205

Now I do know about link flow and why people are using the nofollow, thing
is a person can already structure their navigation to control the "juice"
per say and still link "out" to other related and such articles. This is
just where the nofollow is being abused as we had said it would be when it
came out. Now wouldn't controlling the flow of links to make a page more
relevant be considered a link scheme? I didn't agree the first time I saw
it.

When I can get a page to #1 within less than a year's time:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...essories&meta=
on a considered difficult SERP
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...ories%22&meta= 6,340,000
ACTUAL pages using that phrase. With a CMS driven site that can not be
totally optimized well with coding, and had to use related links only and
content text. Then that should prove one thing! The only links nofollowed
are the Affiliate and advertised sites.

Sure looks better than International Art Store huh?:-)

Anchor text is still weighed highly on pages as with all my sites, there are
many links that have been changed as far as gaining any credit from. I have
already mentioned that here. Too many directories, blogs, Squidoos, and
such. Links from actual sites still are the best, and a site still needs
links and should still link out to related sites.

Let's think about it, what would happen if no one linked out? Hmm, and all
they did was nofollow? The web needs links to get around. If you think that
a page is worth going to then a person should link to it with no worries.
This whole scare about linking out to sites and trying to stop flow
internally with nofollow is going in the wrong direction. I haven't seen any
proof of the nofollowing links to make pages better, only talk. An SEO needs
to use proven ways to make it, they can test other sites with things, but to
say something is what needs to be done without proof or warrant then it is
not a technique one should be telling someone to use!

Stacey

--
Jezsta Web Productions
SEO Tips - Website Design - Marketing
http://jezsta.com/

Mark already has his thought on nofollow and juice flow so don't know why
he is asking here.
http://www.markrushworth.com/templat...ink.asp?id=205

Now I do know about link flow and why people are using the nofollow

Actually, the SEOMoz guys talk about no-follow internal links as well:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/sculpting...etty-darn-well


best regards
Thomas Schulz

"dk_sz" <dk_sz (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Mark already has his thought on nofollow and juice flow so don't know why
he is asking here.
http://www.markrushworth.com/templat...ink.asp?id=205

Now I do know about link flow and why people are using the nofollow

Actually, the SEOMoz guys talk about no-follow internal links as well:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/sculpting...etty-darn-well

Yep, I know I had seen that. They still haven't shown proof that sculpting
with nofollow works as well as setting up a good navigational system with
related links out in ranking. As far as visits that could have occurred
naturally without. One needs to track evidence of SERP changes.

Stacey
--
Jezsta Web Productions
SEO Tips - Website Design - Marketing
http://jezsta.com/