![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
| |||
| |||
|
|
Paul wrote: I don't need it. I get enough traffic, my pages are spiderable, I am high enough in the SERPS, gimmicks like having yet *another* sitemap is not for me. I wasn't after "another" site-map so I thought one self generating one that is also google-friendly would kill 2 stones with 2 bird. |

#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Big Bill wrote: You get to see what clickthroughs for what search terms you get in Google. You get to see what search terms you come up in the serps for. Clicks are only shown if you are also using Google Analytics. Otherwise you only see terms you come up for. |
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Paul wrote: Sorry. Never used one Never had the need for one Never will have one. Too bad for you. You could have saved a little time and bandwidth on an additional visit from googlebot when it comes to collect links from your pages. It's an additional (free) tool. Why not use it? Also, Google-formatted XML site maps and Google Sitemaps account are two different things. You can have Sitemap account and have no XML site map on your site. Google is trying to get webmasters use their Sitemaps and add nice features to it all the time. They also refer to it as webmaster console hinting at its importance for a webmaster in interfacing with Google. The (in?)famous re-inclusion request is only available thru Sitemaps AFAIK. |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:43:44 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: I get stats already. You get to see what clickthroughs for what search terms you get in Google. You get to see what search terms you come up in the serps for. I get more than that BB Anyway, I rarely check them anyway. I don't fret over such things. What will be will be. |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:46:12 -0500, Paul lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:43:44 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: I get stats already. You get to see what clickthroughs for what search terms you get in Google. You get to see what search terms you come up in the serps for. I get more than that BB Anyway, I rarely check them anyway. I don't fret over such things. What will be will be. Why have any at all, then? |
|
BB |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:00:25 GMT, info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com (www.1-script.com) wrote: Big Bill wrote: You get to see what clickthroughs for what search terms you get in Google. You get to see what search terms you come up in the serps for. Clicks are only shown if you are also using Google Analytics. Otherwise you only see terms you come up for. I never knew that. |
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:38:58 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:46:12 -0500, Paul lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:43:44 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: I get stats already. You get to see what clickthroughs for what search terms you get in Google. You get to see what search terms you come up in the serps for. I get more than that BB Anyway, I rarely check them anyway. I don't fret over such things. What will be will be. Why have any at all, then? Because they are there if I need them. Why have a car that does 100mph when the speed limit is 70 ? Why is it that most people who use MS Word, use less than 10% of it's functions ? |
|
Why don't deaf people cut off their ears ? Do I need to go on to feed your sig ? |
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:38:58 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:00:25 GMT, info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com (www.1-script.com) wrote: Big Bill wrote: You get to see what clickthroughs for what search terms you get in Google. You get to see what search terms you come up in the serps for. Clicks are only shown if you are also using Google Analytics. Otherwise you only see terms you come up for. I never knew that. I am shown clicks for a site where I only use sitemap. |
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:58:20 -0500, Paul lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:38:58 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:46:12 -0500, Paul lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:43:44 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: |
|
I get more than that BB Anyway, I rarely check them anyway. I don't fret over such things. What will be will be. Why have any at all, then? |
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:21:08 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:58:20 -0500, Paul lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:38:58 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:46:12 -0500, Paul lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:43:44 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk wrote: [...] I get more than that BB Anyway, I rarely check them anyway. I don't fret over such things. What will be will be. Why have any at all, then? [...] Bill, what is your problem ? Do you know the frigging difference between RARELY and NEVER. IF SO, you wouldn't come out with such daft and stupid replies. Please replty, so we can have yet another stupid reply from you, and you can have another message with your sites on it. I know you need the IBLs. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |