Re: Now I cant see my cached page info on Google

J2Lingerie wrote:

My google submission was http://j2lingerie.j2web.co.uk/
Is this serious ? or just another Google flux-hiccup ?

Link submission, what's that? :-).

You probably lack any inbound-links to the URL:
http://j2lingerie.j2web.co.uk/.

What's the problem with: www.j2lingerie.co.uk ?


----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:54:57 +0000 (UTC), "J2Lingerie"
<info (AT) j2lingerie (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"davidof" <david.george (AT) g-dumpthisbit-mail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:425cd50d$0$15285$7a628cd7 (AT) news (DOT) club-internet.fr...
J2Lingerie wrote:
My google submission was http://j2lingerie.j2web.co.uk/
Is this serious ? or just another Google flux-hiccup ?

Link submission, what's that? :-).

I guess its something only fools and newbies use ! :-b

You probably lack any inbound-links to the URL:
http://j2lingerie.j2web.co.uk/.

I thought I had !!

What's the problem with: www.j2lingerie.co.uk ?

Its a framed redirect, so therefore the crawlers cannot see
the site content, I have tried switching it off, but all hell breaks
looks - Bloody UK2.net !!

MrMcN


----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/

How long, I mean how long has it been really now, that I've been
publicly telling you to get away from UK2net?

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

J2Lingerie wrote:

Its a framed redirect, so therefore the crawlers cannot see
the site content, I have tried switching it off, but all hell breaks
looks - Bloody UK2.net !!

Hi,

put a link in your noframes content to your real website

David

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:01:52 +0200, davidof
<david.george (AT) g-dumpthisbit-mail (DOT) com> wrote:

J2Lingerie wrote:

Its a framed redirect, so therefore the crawlers cannot see
the site content, I have tried switching it off, but all hell breaks
looks - Bloody UK2.net !!

Hi,

put a link in your noframes content to your real website

David

I don't believe he can do that. Trouble I had with UK2net was that I
had no access to the noframes content, it wasn't configurable. There
are reasons why cheap services are cheap.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

Big Bill wrote:

I don't believe he can do that. Trouble I had with UK2net was that I
had no access to the noframes content, it wasn't configurable. There
are reasons why cheap services are cheap.

Ok...hmmm, like you said above he probably wants to move to real web
hosting in that case.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:09:39 +0200, davidof
<david.george (AT) g-dumpthisbit-mail (DOT) com> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:

I don't believe he can do that. Trouble I had with UK2net was that I
had no access to the noframes content, it wasn't configurable. There
are reasons why cheap services are cheap.


Ok...hmmm, like you said above he probably wants to move to real web
hosting in that case.

and I told him this about a zillion years ago.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--