offering a daily photo good for pagerank?

On 17 Jan 2006 14:39:10 -0800, "Fritz M" <nospam (AT) masoner (DOT) net> wrote:

tor wrote:

I am a photographer and seek to build a highly SEO'ed website and want
to do it with content.

I've found that uploading photos to Flickr is worth a tremendous amount
as far as driving traffic is concerned. Tag your photos so people can
find them, and put a link to your website in the photo description.
Several of my RSS feeds are just photo feeds from Flickr and I'm not
the only person who does this.

If your photos are good and your website content is compelling, people
will then link to you. That is good for SEO :-)

RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/

I want to get a few pix up, just in case the animatronic version
breaks down and they need a new Java the Hut for the next Star Wars
movie. 'Course, I'd have to slim down a little for the role, but I
could suffer for my art...

BB
--
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/thoma...art/index.html kruse (AT) crystal-liaison (DOT) com
Gifty! Shiny! Arty! BB!

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:51:23 -0600, Paul B <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us>
wrote:

On 17 Jan 2006 15:34:14 -0800, "tor" <galleywench (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote:

I'll check flicker out. Thanks! I think I'm painting a picture for my
game plan. I'm going to bail of the desktop pictures for now. But the
old pictures look good.

Tor, if you are replying to someone, it is a good idea to leave in the
other persons text, so everyone knows to whom and what you are
replying to

In the past I have set up my project too fast and regretted how tedious
changes were to make. I hope to get dreamweaver 2004 down enough to
build it with good, changable templates.

I prefer DW4 than the newer version. I couldn't get on with it.

The MX's? Too corporate. No good for the sole trader.

BB
--
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/thoma...art/index.html kruse (AT) crystal-liaison (DOT) com
Gifty! Shiny! Arty! BB!

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:37:47 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:51:23 -0600, Paul B <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us
wrote:

On 17 Jan 2006 15:34:14 -0800, "tor" <galleywench (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote:

<snip>

I prefer DW4 than the newer version. I couldn't get on with it.

The MX's? Too corporate. No good for the sole trader.

BB

Yes, the MX.
I don't like the layout of it. I prefer floating windows where I can
move them around etc. Also, not pleased with the idea that you have to
save the file before testing it. (Unless I am missing something) but
with DW4, you could make a change to a page, test it in a browser, and
if you didn't like it, fine. But having to save it first so you can
view it seems stupid. - May be there is an option I missed where you
can turn off that function, but I didn't find it.

Back to DW4

I am not a sole trader ........ more an asshole trader
plh
Paul


----== 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 =----