seo uk

On 14 Nov 2005 03:07:42 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

"Stacey" <stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:


"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DCB30996C1castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

From a site going to Bill's page. To many I think BTW for Google to
like it isn't like it is his site going to another page on his site
but another site giving him to much at one time to artifical.

So basically I can harm your site with adding just 800 links to your
site from mine? Doubt it.

No you didn't read all of what I had said. Bill has to have a link to
them also.

Ah, ok. I still doubt it, though

I do think that aquiring to many links at one time is
artifcial gain and Google is cutting down on it....because of PR links
sale and such. Also doubting Thomas changed his mind.:-)

800+ links from the same site? I doubt that it has a serious impact one
way or the other. E.g. it will probably count as one minus a bit.

I don't believe site-wides count as a lot of links any more either.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

On 14 Nov 2005 02:00:11 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:25:36 +0100, Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl
wrote:

John Bokma wrote:

Ah, ok, so a site's navigation bar has links naar BB's site?

John, ze spreken hier nog niet zoveel Nederlands ;-)

Easy for you to say!

True. On the other hand, Else can say that in at least 2 more languages
:-D.

And, no doubt she will!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

I did email you Stacey but heard nothing back. You can just send
straight to me if you wish.

Did you remove the "Y"?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:42:32 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:hgfgn1lb8hhk1sjcpcbl13rpag51858hf0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

I did email you Stacey but heard nothing back. You can just send
straight to me if you wish.

Did you remove the "Y"?

I didn't really know where to remove the Y from. Big Y? Either of the
small y's? Or should I send to just plain
ol'anything (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com ? And your email form just returns
a server error.

I'm reading that the sites most hit seem to be those with overt
reciprocals. Most people don't have an opinion just yet though. It
would be interesting to hear from folk in this group who sell links to
unrelated sites how both they and their recipients are faring.
I have links from my site to unrelated sites but really only in an
effort to get them spidered. Probably wouldn't look like that to the
Googs though. Still, more to come this week, if I understand what I
read correctly, not major upheavals like we've had but a lot of overt
adjusting.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:42:32 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:hgfgn1lb8hhk1sjcpcbl13rpag51858hf0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

I did email you Stacey but heard nothing back. You can just send
straight to me if you wish.

Did you remove the "Y"?

I didn't really know where to remove the Y from. Big Y? Either of the
small y's? Or should I send to just plain
ol'anything (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com ? And your email form just returns
a server error.

Remove the "y" from my name stacey@ that is it. Look at the email I sent ya.
:-)

Stacey

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:20:01 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:bh9hn1p3mkmms2o0mg9ghdrrlvb91ak8ck (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:42:32 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:hgfgn1lb8hhk1sjcpcbl13rpag51858hf0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

I did email you Stacey but heard nothing back. You can just send
straight to me if you wish.

Did you remove the "Y"?

I didn't really know where to remove the Y from. Big Y? Either of the
small y's? Or should I send to just plain
ol'anything (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com ? And your email form just returns
a server error.

Remove the "y" from my name stacey@ that is it. Look at the email I sent ya.
:-)

Stacey

Well I know *now!!!* heh-heh!

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:29:12 GMT, "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"
<PeTe33 (AT) gymratz (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
seo uk - I'm now showing at 26 in some DCs for the term because I'm
mentioning it in here. It's coming up in a Google Groups thread.

Why bother with such an obscure phrase?

I got fed up trying to optimise for Cheap Chooks! Hi, Pet.

The only person(s) that would IMHO ever do a search on "SEO UK" would
not be joe public looking for somone to Search Engine Optimisation.

Yeah, I kind of fell over that phrase by accident and then it became a
matter of pride to sustain it. Sob.

How do you rate on more user freindly terms lik um......

"improve web site position"

?

I don't show up at all. Quite possibly I never did. Oddly though I'm
still top ten for

seo software reviews

and I have no real idea why I should have survived there.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:55:11 GMT, "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"
<PeTe33 (AT) gymratz (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:

I don't show up at all. Quite possibly I never did.

My point being, anyone (worth their salt) _should_ be able to get high
rankings on slightly more obscure phrases, but the big bucks lie in the
"over fished" waters.

Both actually are true, if you can get to the top for very tough
competition keywords then all well and good, however, many of the top
phrases have had people parked there since the days when it wasn't
hard to get them. Their prominence has made them visible, therefore
they get more links...which makes them more visible, so...a lot of
folk who are at the top of the mountain now may well not have made it
if the top of the mountain had been inhabited when they were trying.
It's a different ball game trying to get hard serps now than it was
when the holders of those serps originally got them.
Finding serps that are still attainable that bring traffic in is
another skill in itself. Both approaches are perfectly valid.

I thought the idea of Search engines was to kick out excessive use of
words. (not claiming to be an expert in any way) but.... on every page
of your site I just see blatant over use of the term "SEO"
top, bottom, middle, non visable etc etc,

You're suggesting it's over-optimised for the term. You maybe right.
Mind you, it is kind of what the site is about! I spread it through
internal links, external links, header tags etc together with normal
text so I may not be over-egging the pudding like I might seem to be.

ALso, why ever haven't you transfered your site to a key-word related
site like......... increasesearchengineposition.co.uk (yes, still
available)

It actually isn't a related keyword. I know to humans it looks that
way but to an engine it's just one long word that it doesn't relate to
anything. Also they don't actually count for much and I wasn't keen
because when they started appearing it was all these bandwagon jumpers
doing it, I was around for a long time before that. I considered
alpha-seo.com and big-dog-seo.com and the usual variants but I
thought, these people are trying to join who I am, not the other way
around.

And....... from attempting to navigate your site (meant critically not
disrespectfully) I didn't have a clue where the home page was once I
left, after a couple of attempted navigations to find something
relevant, I personally would have clicked one of the Google PPC ad's.

Every page looked the same to me.

Point taken. It's the top left link, most home links are.

I know you didn't ask me for a critique(sp) but, speaking as a
potentialy potential customer, (NO the rest of the group, I am doing
fine WITHOUT your unsolicited emails !!!)

Heh-heh.

spamming up a site to
(attempt)to get traffic is completley pointless

It isn't spammed! It's just growed! It's been there for some time now,
you know!

if you then drive
customers to a competitors through advertising their services on PPC
from every page.

Some folk can get high ranking sites, others have to advertise on
them. If people want to check out the competition they will anyway so
why not?

....... unless of course, the revenue from Google is far greater than
you could get from SEOing.

:¬)

You can now tell me to Fck orf and mind my own business.
:¬))

Hmmmm. See you on URB...(rolls up sleeves)...

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On 14 Nov 2005 01:58:30 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

From a site going to Bill's page. To many I think BTW for Google to
like it isn't like it is his site going to another page on his site
but another site giving him to much at one time to artifical.

So basically I can harm your site with adding just 800 links to your
site from mine? Doubt it.

The key difference between that and what Stacey suggests may be
happening is the obl from me to them, whoever they may be, which
implies tacit approval on my part making me a bad guy too.

But that would mean that every site someone links to can organize an
attack... I doubt it.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote

Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On 14 Nov 2005 01:58:30 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

From a site going to Bill's page. To many I think BTW for Google to
like it isn't like it is his site going to another page on his site
but another site giving him to much at one time to artifical.

So basically I can harm your site with adding just 800 links to your
site from mine? Doubt it.

The key difference between that and what Stacey suggests may be
happening is the obl from me to them, whoever they may be, which
implies tacit approval on my part making me a bad guy too.

But that would mean that every site someone links to can organize an
attack... I doubt it.

You are just to trusting.:-) Remember Google says "there is *almost* nothing
a competitor can do". It doesn't say nothing at all. The way all those links
can cause problems is that it gives to much unrelated links going to the
site making it less relavant. When a site link back it becomes related to
the other site and all the links that other site links out to. Bascally one
needs to keep watch with thyeir links and such.

Stacey

Stacey