Re: No need for Google

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:44:42 +0100, carlrs
<carl (AT) americanaquariumproducts (DOT) com> wrote:

businesses, and business has improved. Instead of trying to please
Googgle and having a "content rich" (translation: full of spam) site I
have made a site that is easy to use, with great customer service (just
like our brick and motar store). Our customer fedback has told us that.

Content rich and full of spam are two completely different things. Spam is
spam, content is content.

But the direction of your action is correct. It will not surprise me if
your site will climb up in Google as well.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:38:58 +0100, carlrs
<carl (AT) americanaquariumproducts (DOT) com> wrote:

Please quote post you are answering to.

You are correct about spam, but to me placing unnecessary information
(content) just to please a search engine is silly, and bad for
cutomers.

Depends on the point of view. The question is - when Joe Average enters
his search phrase 'aquarium filter' - is he looking for a place to buy, or
for the information on the filters itself? SEs assume he is looking for
information, you want SE to assume Joe wants to buy.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info

carlrs wrote:

Not neccesarily, there are some good blogs and informational sites out
there, and I agree they should come up too. Type in aquarium uv
sterilization on MSN and our information page comes up as a well a a
blog on UV Sterilization. Not so on Google.
http://americanaquariumproducts.com/...ilization.html

Hey nice keyword combo in your posting along with your keyword.

Now i know for sure, google groups is going to be blocked.

--
Webontwerp: http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/
Korte handleiding zoekmachine optimalisatie / gevonden worden:
http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html
Lifestyle - wonen reizen en genieten : http://vision4living.com