Google is weird.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.

DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
attention or what?

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:42:36 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:


Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.


DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
attention or what?

BB

LOL, I wasn't really paying attention to the sites, just quick
validation check for the number that validated.

Why aren't you number one for this phrase then, you've got a validated
page that fits your theory-

"If a page is validated, an engine can perfectly well understand the
contents without needing to be convinced by the anchor text of
innumerable inbound links."

Sounds like validating is a big deal to better SERPs, you don't need
as many links apparently, what a load of tosh.

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

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:16:31 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!

ROFLOL, this from the "SEO expert" *cough, splutter* who can't even
work out how to do his sig separator correctly, thinks PageRank
involves apples,

You read that, huh? Obviously you missed the page on seo experts. Dave
makes it up AGAIN!

I only looked at a few of your pages as they have no value, the small
amount of fact is drowned out by so much garbage it's one of the worst
SEO advice sites I've seen yet.

Anyway, I apologize for suggesting you think of yourself as an expert.
I've edited my last post to this-

ROFLOL, this from the "SEO Guru/Authority/Specialist/Professional"
*cough, splutter* who can't even work out how to do his sig separator
correctly, thinks PageRank involves apples,

Is that more accurate? You refer to yourself as all the above on that
page you mentioned. Really though you should know they basically mean
expert or similar though-

Expert definition- http://www.answers.com/expert&r=67

A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, master, past master,
professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
Chiefly British dab2. See ability/inability.

Authority definition- http://www.answers.com/authority&r=67

A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
Chiefly British dab. See ability/inability.

Professional definition- http://www.answers.com/professional&r=67

A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack. Chiefly British
dab2. See ability/inability.

So do you think you are an SEO authority with "a high degree of
knowledge or skill in a particular field"?

LOL

Why is no-one surprised?

BB

<deletion of malformed sig again>

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

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:48:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

You should have said so then, I don't know what you are thinking when
you create a post!!

So to go back to your "hypothetical points", why would you "have
included validation as a factor" for the examples we've been
discussing?

Because a site that validates, when all other factors are equal, has a
better chance of ranking than one which doesn't because the engines
can understand the content better.

And your evidence for this is?

Dave, as you really should know by now, I don't run round geared up to
defend my every observation. I observe, deduce and move on, I don't
write down chapter and verse.

But on this page http://www.kruse.co.uk/validation.htm you say-

"There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that pages that
correctly validate will rank higher than similar pages that don't."

Where is this growing body of evidence?

This means that, where you have a top ten full of non-validating
sites, validatin can be one point ion your favour. Another weapon in
your arsenal.

BB

You know Bill if you say something long enough to enough people some
will believe it and consider it a fact, also you'll believe it's a
fact. Doesn't make it a fact though, you've plucked a theory out the
air, done no research, no tests and because it sounds right gone with
it.

Um, nearly right.

Care to expand?

That's not SEO, that's guessing.

Show me one SERP where validation clearly has an impact.

Use logic. Use intuition. It makes sense!

So you don't know of any SERP where validation is a factor. Do you
have anything to backup your theory?

Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.

I've not thought to look at that! I'll go see.

Do some research to either prove or discount your belief.

Although your validation theory does have more logic to it than your
PageRank theory :-)

I thought that was very well expressed, I'm pleased with that.

It makes no sense at all-

Here you go, maybe you'll learn something for once Bill-

From http://www.kruse.co.uk/page-rank.htm

If I have several apples, and I give you some, I have less apples than before.

If I have a Page Rank of several, and I give you some links, I may well still have the same Page Rank I had before.

Trying to make an analogy, but fail to explain what PageRank is and
why it's not like giving apples away!

Assuming, that is, that you are a good and worthy site, both appropriate and thematically related to mine, in the eyes of the great god Google.

Not true, the only proviso on PR is if one of the pages linked to/from
is penalized. So you don't need your site to be "good and worthy"
(whatever that means, sounds like fluff) nor "appropriate and
thematically related".

In fact, if Google thinks you're a better site on the subject than I am, then because I gave you some of my apples/PR, I may now myself have more than the several apples/PR that I had before.

So you think linking to external, but related sites increases PR. If
you believe that you are an idiot, the mathematics of PR should tell
you this.

But if Google thinks you're giving your apples/PR to a "bad neighbourhood" site (porn, etc) or a site entirely unrelated to yours (think "reciprocal linking schemes" here) then you may well end up with less apples/PR or even no apples/PR at all.

You start well, linking to a "bad neighbourhood" could cause problems,
but there are no penalties for linking to porn sites per se and
linking to unrelated sites will not result in a penalty. "reciprocal
linking schemes" are an iffy one, if you mean link farms, some can
cause problems, but general reciprocal linking isn't going to result
in a problem.

So you should maybe be a bit careful who you link to.

I don't think this is something you should stress about too much though.

If you mention in your Blog that you bumped into your buddy Vinnie on Tuesday and Vinnie's Bar & Grill does the best kebabs in town (and it does, this is no fooling), then there's absolutely no harm in putting up a link to Vinnie's Grill's web site. It's natural. Similarly, if you mention that you were talking to Big Frank about the Match when you were in his Shoe Repair Emporium on the Saturday, then again it's natural to link to the big man's site. Both Vinnie and Frank have a link back to your business site; after all, you're a regular customer and it's common courtesy to do this.

Although the above isn't wrong, it's not good SEO advice if your blog
is important in terms of the SERPs it gains.

This is absolutely not the same, though, as having row after row of links to sites that have absolutely no relation to you or your neighbourhood or anything whatsoever to do with you. That's absurd, and it's asking for trouble; if Google gets a whiff of a reciprocal link scheme implemented for its own sake, your Page Rank will leak like a rusty sieve and your rankings will plummet as a consequence.

Not true, I can't think of a single instance where a site has setup
what could be described as a directory of reciprocal links and been
penalized for it.

And you won't, as they say, like them apples.

So what little good information there is above, it's swamped with
tosh.

BTW PageRank does leak, it's a mathematical fact. If you don't
understand the maths behind PR don't make up a load of crap that makes
no sense at all.

Here's a good explanation with pictures
http://www.abcseo.com/seo-book/pagerank-leakage.htm

BB

<malformed sig deleted>

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

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:48:26 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:42:36 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:


Try the 'SEO Validation' SERP which should be dominated by pages that
validate. Hmm, out the top 10 numbers 5 and 10 validate, not exactly
clear evidence that validation per se helps with better rankings.


DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
attention or what?

BB

LOL, I wasn't really paying attention to the sites, just quick
validation check for the number that validated.

Why aren't you number one for this phrase then, you've got a validated
page that fits your theory-

Early days, I've never pushed it. I was suprised it was there,
frankly.

"If a page is validated, an engine can perfectly well understand the
contents without needing to be convinced by the anchor text of
innumerable inbound links."

Sounds like validating is a big deal to better SERPs, you don't need
as many links apparently, what a load of tosh.

And...you've checked all ten of the serps to determine how many ibls I
have compared to the others plus the page rank and the sources etc?
More to do, David, more to do!!

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:07:57 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:16:31 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!

ROFLOL, this from the "SEO expert" *cough, splutter* who can't even
work out how to do his sig separator correctly, thinks PageRank
involves apples,

You read that, huh? Obviously you missed the page on seo experts. Dave
makes it up AGAIN!

I only looked at a few of your pages as they have no value, the small
amount of fact is drowned out by so much garbage it's one of the worst
SEO advice sites I've seen yet.

Anyway, I apologize for suggesting you think of yourself as an expert.
I've edited my last post to this-

ROFLOL, this from the "SEO Guru/Authority/Specialist/Professional"
*cough, splutter* who can't even work out how to do his sig separator
correctly, thinks PageRank involves apples,

Is that more accurate? You refer to yourself as all the above on that
page you mentioned. Really though you should know they basically mean
expert or similar though-

Yeah, I goofed. I forgot pundit.

Expert definition- http://www.answers.com/expert&r=67

A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, master, past master,
professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
Chiefly British dab2. See ability/inability.

Authority definition- http://www.answers.com/authority&r=67

A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
professional, proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack.
Chiefly British dab. See ability/inability.

Professional definition- http://www.answers.com/professional&r=67

A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
field: ace, adept, authority, dab hand, expert, master, past master,
proficient, wizard. Informal whiz. Slang crackerjack. Chiefly British
dab2. See ability/inability.

Shit. I forgot most of those, too.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:48:26 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:42:36 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:
DAVID! You forgot to mensh that number 10 is mine! Not paying
attention or what?

BB

LOL, I wasn't really paying attention to the sites, just quick
validation check for the number that validated.

Why aren't you number one for this phrase then, you've got a validated
page that fits your theory-

Sounds like validating is a big deal to better SERPs, you don't need
as many links apparently, what a load of tosh.

You've been through all the IBL's for all ten then, collated all the
data, checked the sources, page rank, thematic-relations and so forth?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:07:57 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:16:31 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

Not when you're Dave, apparently. It can seem a mystery at first but
it's easy to do once you get into it. This looks ike another case of
Dave totally getting the wrong end of the stick and using it to try to
beat up everyione else with. But he Won't Listen!

ROFLOL, this from the "SEO expert" *cough, splutter* who can't even
work out how to do his sig separator correctly, thinks PageRank
involves apples,

You read that, huh? Obviously you missed the page on seo experts. Dave
makes it up AGAIN!

I only looked at a few of your pages as they have no value,

Says who?

the small
amount of fact is drowned out by so much garbage it's one of the worst
SEO advice sites I've seen yet.

Say's who?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:34:22 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:25:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:46:59 GMT, SEO Dave
seodave (AT) search-engine-optimizat...es (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:48:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

You should have said so then, I don't know what you are thinking when
you create a post!!

So to go back to your "hypothetical points", why would you "have
included validation as a factor" for the examples we've been
discussing?

Because a site that validates, when all other factors are equal, has a
better chance of ranking than one which doesn't because the engines
can understand the content better.

And your evidence for this is?

Dave, as you really should know by now, I don't run round geared up to
defend my every observation. I observe, deduce and move on, I don't
write down chapter and verse.

But on this page http://www.kruse.co.uk/validation.htm you say-

"There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that pages that
correctly validate will rank higher than similar pages that don't."

Where is this growing body of evidence?

Anecdotal.

It makes no sense at all-

Sigh, no David, just because you don't see sense doesn't mean it sin't
there, you don't have the monopoly on what is or isn't sense.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:41:14 +0100, Davemon <nospam (AT) nowhere (DOT) no> wrote:


Big Bill wrote:

You missed my point. I won't use their 'Unhappy with results' because
there is no benefit to me or the wider internet community, only benefits
Google.


But they are the ones who use use Google.

If the wider internet community find what they're looking for easier
from Google as a result of your complaint then isn't that a good thing
by your definition?



Oh dear.
Google is a business:

Google supplies product (users) to its customers (advertisers) by
attracting users with 'useful search results'.

Those search results *must* strike a balance between:

1)the illusion of "relevance" (create products)
2)getting advertisers to pay to be listed (sell product)

As a business, it's only responsibility is to make a profit for it's
share-holders. If it can achieve that by producing crap search results,
or cutting costs by getting unpaid volunteers to validate its results
for it, it will, so why on earth should I, and everyone else on the
internet trust Google?


If I do something that only benefits Google, they, in return should do
something that benefits only me (ie. give me money or free ad listings
or whatever).


They do, they make your site more visible or they make it easier for
you to find the info you're looking for.


Which helps Google generate product, which they then sell to
advertisers, which earns them profit, directly.


Nothing wrong with profit. I like it!

duh!

Davemon
-------