seo uk

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.
Hmmmm.

seo uk
seo uk
seo uk

We'll see what that does.
Either way, it's an odd way to provide relevance in search results.

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

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.
Hmmmm.

seo uk
seo uk
seo uk

We'll see what that does.
Either way, it's an odd way to provide relevance in search results.

Bill you are not at 26 per say the archive of this group is. Shows how easy
the SERP is though.

Stacey

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:25:16 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
newsu3en199crm2bijgq1hsh30sihl749gr3q (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
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.
Hmmmm.

seo uk
seo uk
seo uk

We'll see what that does.
Either way, it's an odd way to provide relevance in search results.

Bill you are not at 26 per say the archive of this group is.

Um... that was what I meant there, Stacey.

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 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:25:16 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> 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.
Hmmmm.

seo uk
seo uk
seo uk

We'll see what that does.
Either way, it's an odd way to provide relevance in search results.

Bill you are not at 26 per say the archive of this group is.

Um... that was what I meant there, Stacey.

BB

Then why say it is you. I know you said it was the group, but that isn't
saying it is you showing up. Your thread yes but it sound like your site.
Plus UK results are a lot different than the .com the thread is at 22.
Showing again that seo uk is an easy SERP.

Have you found out any reasons that can be lowering your site a penalty of
some sort maybe? Did you know you have a duplicate page? Don't be upset here
I am trying to offer some helpful advise.
http://www.kruse.co.uk/?EZGoal.com/webdesignlist is the same as
http://www.kruse.co.uk/ . If you have any more then it isn't good, as you
know it is against Google guidelines. Another little tip did you gain a lot
of links recently? My last tip how does your related sites look and are you
linking with more related sites than non, what is the percentage to the non
related.

Stacey

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:09:25 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpaen1t8ckc6ngr2p0og11on6a6ks49mck (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:25:16 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> 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.
Hmmmm.

seo uk
seo uk
seo uk

We'll see what that does.
Either way, it's an odd way to provide relevance in search results.

Bill you are not at 26 per say the archive of this group is.

Um... that was what I meant there, Stacey.

BB

Then why say it is you.

I meant mention of me, trace of me, whatever.

I know you said it was the group, but that isn't
saying it is you showing up. Your thread yes but it sound like your site.
Plus UK results are a lot different than the .com the thread is at 22.
Showing again that seo uk is an easy SERP.

Have you found out any reasons that can be lowering your site a penalty of
some sort maybe?

I have a theory or two but what's happening seems to be extreme. Plus
it's happening to others, not just me. How many times have I had to
tell people to wait it out? It's my turn now, I can't complain. I will
anyway, heh-heh, but I can't, if you see what I mean!

Did you know you have a duplicate page? Don't be upset here
I am trying to offer some helpful advise.

http://www.kruse.co.uk/?EZGoal.com/webdesignlist

We've discussed that here before (the group have), I forget the reason
for it. It's nothing to do with me, it's some directory or something
that duped me. I've not seen it for ages. I thought it had gone.

is the same as
http://www.kruse.co.uk/ . If you have any more then it isn't good, as you
know it is against Google guidelines.

There's a handful been floating around recently. I had copies of pages
showing up higher than the pages, copies with odd urls. I looked at a
couple of them and they'd been taken down already, accounts closed by
host kind of thing.

Here's one;

http://server.clickfas.com/suspended.page/

so I may well have been taken entirely out of contention so that I can
be inspected for good guy status.

Another little tip did you gain a lot
of links recently?

Who can tell? Really? It looks like I have more but Googs might just
be displaying more. Only around 30 more anyway.

My last tip how does your related sites look and are you
linking with more related sites than non, what is the percentage to the non
related.

I link to about a zillion other related sites on my resources pages
and tools pages. I link to a handful of unrelated pages only. None of
them are, like, killbabiesrightnow.com or similar bad hoods so doubt
there's a problem there.

Why did you think I'd been penalised? I don't do da bad stuff!

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 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:09:25 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:
snip

Then why say it is you.

I meant mention of me, trace of me, whatever.

Ok.

<snip>

Have you found out any reasons that can be lowering your site a penalty of
some sort maybe?

I have a theory or two but what's happening seems to be extreme. Plus
it's happening to others, not just me. How many times have I had to
tell people to wait it out? It's my turn now, I can't complain. I will
anyway, heh-heh, but I can't, if you see what I mean!

Well, I really think this update has died down. I mean it has been going on
for a month now. So, I think you are now seeing results of everflux with the
DC's.

Did you know you have a duplicate page? Don't be upset here
I am trying to offer some helpful advise.

http://www.kruse.co.uk/?EZGoal.com/webdesignlist

We've discussed that here before (the group have), I forget the reason
for it. It's nothing to do with me, it's some directory or something
that duped me. I've not seen it for ages. I thought it had gone.

Nope it hasn't gone. If are listed with them and they are listing the links
wrong then I would get them to remove it. It looks like a dup page.
<snip>

There's a handful been floating around recently. I had copies of pages
showing up higher than the pages, copies with odd urls. I looked at a
couple of them and they'd been taken down already, accounts closed by
host kind of thing.

Ok, but sometimes when you don't keep on top it can over run.

so I may well have been taken entirely out of contention so that I can
be inspected for good guy status.

Never heard of that before. :-)

Another little tip did you gain a lot
of links recently?

Who can tell? Really? It looks like I have more but Googs might just
be displaying more. Only around 30 more anyway.

I am not going by what Google chooses to show. Google still looks at all of
them. I would carefully look around at who is linking to you and if they are
having problems and you might have acquired a lot of links from them at one
time..........to much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This is a hint
again.

My last tip how does your related sites look and are you
linking with more related sites than non, what is the percentage to the
non
related.

I link to about a zillion other related sites on my resources pages
and tools pages. I link to a handful of unrelated pages only. None of
them are, like, killbabiesrightnow.com or similar bad hoods so doubt
there's a problem there.

Have you checked who all the sites you link to don't link out to crap. This
is extremely important. Also, if you link to someone who is being penalized
you can also be put in the wash. This is all part of the related search
cycle. It is important to watch what the whole group of sites are doing.

Why did you think I'd been penalised? I don't do da bad stuff!

From what I said above.

Stacey

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:02:30 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

so I may well have been taken entirely out of contention so that I can
be inspected for good guy status.

Never heard of that before. :-)

Speaking loosely, as I sometimes do, they may be suspecting me of foul
play so I've been pulled in on suspicion. Once they've shone a few
lights on my face, got the lead pipes out and generally given me the
third degree, I should be thrown, blinking, back on the sidewalk.
That's one theory anyway. Poetic, ain't I?

Another little tip did you gain a lot
of links recently?

Who can tell? Really? It looks like I have more but Googs might just
be displaying more. Only around 30 more anyway.

I am not going by what Google chooses to show. Google still looks at all of
them. I would carefully look around at who is linking to you and if they are
having problems and you might have acquired a lot of links from them at one
time..........to much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This is a hint
again.

Lot of hints from you lately..any reason for this? I noticed you got
on my case well before I did about me going down in the rankings - you
know something I don't?

My last tip how does your related sites look and are you
linking with more related sites than non, what is the percentage to the
non
related.

I link to about a zillion other related sites on my resources pages
and tools pages. I link to a handful of unrelated pages only. None of
them are, like, killbabiesrightnow.com or similar bad hoods so doubt
there's a problem there.

Have you checked who all the sites you link to don't link out to crap. This
is extremely important. Also, if you link to someone who is being penalized
you can also be put in the wash. This is all part of the related search
cycle. It is important to watch what the whole group of sites are doing.

I really don't have all day and all night to check every OBL I have. I
doubt the odd one or two would be important in the context anyway. I
have a whole load of links to things that I judge to be helpful - ask
Mogga, her affiliate buddies really loved my links - so if one or two
of them have gone to the dark side, that's not my fault.

Why did you think I'd been penalised? I don't do da bad stuff!

Nothing springs to mind.

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 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:02:30 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:


so I may well have been taken entirely out of contention so that I can
be inspected for good guy status.

Never heard of that before. :-)

Speaking loosely, as I sometimes do, they may be suspecting me of foul
play so I've been pulled in on suspicion. Once they've shone a few
lights on my face, got the lead pipes out and generally given me the
third degree, I should be thrown, blinking, back on the sidewalk.
That's one theory anyway. Poetic, ain't I?

Ok, but why would they do that. I mean if you are totally good why would
they do that without some kind of reason. It doesn't make sense.

Another little tip did you gain a lot
of links recently?

Who can tell? Really? It looks like I have more but Googs might just
be displaying more. Only around 30 more anyway.

I am not going by what Google chooses to show. Google still looks at all
of
them. I would carefully look around at who is linking to you and if they
are
having problems and you might have acquired a lot of links from them at
one
time..........to much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This is a hint
again.

Lot of hints from you lately..any reason for this? I noticed you got
on my case well before I did about me going down in the rankings - you
know something I don't?

Wasn't getting on your case...just trying to let you know so you might
correct it before it was to late. Hints, because from what I see you should
also see. Over 900 links from a one site to fast is not good. Especially if
ya got a link going to that site as well. If that site with the 900 links to
yours is going down in the dumps your site shows relation to so it will go
down into the dumps. And if some sites that you have linked out to are bad
and so on well...it just isn't good.

<snip>

Have you checked who all the sites you link to don't link out to crap.
This
is extremely important. Also, if you link to someone who is being
penalized
you can also be put in the wash. This is all part of the related search
cycle. It is important to watch what the whole group of sites are doing.

I really don't have all day and all night to check every OBL I have. I
doubt the odd one or two would be important in the context anyway. I
have a whole load of links to things that I judge to be helpful - ask
Mogga, her affiliate buddies really loved my links - so if one or two
of them have gone to the dark side, that's not my fault.

<snip>

If you link out to a site that does bad yes it is your fault to be to that
bad neighborhood. You control your linking standards. You have to make time
to check these things. If you do not have time maybe hire some help. I am
just giving you some friendly advice from what I have found. Plus, if you
don't change some of the linking habits then your site might get totally
washed out. Anyway, I don't have the time to look at all of your site, plus
I am not getting paid for the SEO.:-)

Stacey

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:26:18 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahren1l6hsut8p20je61r2teh2occl536k (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:02:30 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:


so I may well have been taken entirely out of contention so that I can
be inspected for good guy status.

Never heard of that before. :-)

Speaking loosely, as I sometimes do, they may be suspecting me of foul
play so I've been pulled in on suspicion. Once they've shone a few
lights on my face, got the lead pipes out and generally given me the
third degree, I should be thrown, blinking, back on the sidewalk.
That's one theory anyway. Poetic, ain't I?


Ok, but why would they do that. I mean if you are totally good why would
they do that without some kind of reason. It doesn't make sense.

We don't know that it's going to be permanent yet.

Another little tip did you gain a lot
of links recently?

Who can tell? Really? It looks like I have more but Googs might just
be displaying more. Only around 30 more anyway.

I am not going by what Google chooses to show. Google still looks at all
of
them. I would carefully look around at who is linking to you and if they
are
having problems and you might have acquired a lot of links from them at
one
time..........to much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This is a hint
again.

Lot of hints from you lately..any reason for this? I noticed you got
on my case well before I did about me going down in the rankings - you
know something I don't?

Wasn't getting on your case...just trying to let you know so you might
correct it before it was to late. Hints, because from what I see you should
also see.

Over 900 links from a one site to fast is not good.

Hallo? When did I get them? The only increase Googs and my normal
backlink software is showing is a handful and because some directories
have admitted me that's what I'd expect. I have over a thousand in a
couple of engines but they're hardly new. What are you using to see
all this with please?

Especially if
ya got a link going to that site as well. If that site with the 900 links to
yours is going down in the dumps your site shows relation to so it will go
down into the dumps. And if some sites that you have linked out to are bad
and so on well...it just isn't good.

In principle of course I agree. I'm just not seeing anything other
than what I expected. Apart from plunging serps, of course!

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 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:26:18 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:
snip

In principle of course I agree. I'm just not seeing anything other
than what I expected. Apart from plunging serps, of course!

Ok, if you can't find it pop me an email and I will tell you how I found
what I found with over 900 links. The software or anything probably won't
show it all as it is from one site that I kind of sure you might link back
link back to. At any rate gaining that many links all at once or to quickly
can cause harm. Also your related search doesn't really look to good.

Stacey