|
|
Posted by dave hillstrom on 11/08/31 11:24
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:36:06 -0400, smallfoot <tippy@toe.left> wrote:
>In article <de2u4a$kcq$11@oliveloaf.databasix.com>, DaVe@MeOw.OrG
>says...
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:15:16 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
>>
>> >Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:24 +0100, Mimic <dev@null> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>>Like you need a survey to figure that out... ;)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>Not when he's pulling figures out of his ass anyway. *sigh* I wish
>> >>>>the lurkers supported ME in email, I REALLY do...*snicker*...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>*Hatter hums to himself*
>> >>>>http://www.backwaterxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>>
>> >>>>^_^
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Looking better, you know what would make that look nice.. extend the
>> >>>width to 100%, so you get a "widescreen" effect.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> An interesting idea, I'll test it out, see if I like it. Did you try
>> >> moving your mouse on the frog?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Didnt the first time, but thats really cool :D
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Searching for Hatter and blog puts mine right up at number one and ALL
>> >> the content is graphic. This is because search engines don't
>> >> generally care about the actual content on your site so much as how
>> >> many people are linking to you. If you click on the "cached" option
>> >> in Google you can see this:
>> >> "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: hatter blog"
>> >>
>> >> So really, if your sites are bad ass enough, you don't need to do
>> >> anything to get them "search engine optimized" or what the fuck ever
>> >> scams faux web designers (like a lot of the ones around here) fall
>> >> into.
>> >>
>> >> I figure, if no one in these froups can formulate a halfway coherent
>> >> reason that I can't counter for not using Flash...I'm just gonna go
>> >> ahead and do the whole thing like that.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Onideus Mad Hatter
>> >
>> >
>> >Theres alot to SEO, and it is worth getting into. Generally its
>> >considered bad SEO to do everything, particularly key aspects, in flash
>> >only, same goes for images. But, google for one, have been experimenting
>> >and progressing, with the indexing the textual parts of flash and images.
>> >
>> >The reason your site comes top would be much more to do with usenet
>> >posts being cross fed into web boards, which then get google crawled. I
>> >did an experiment once, something todo with doom3 [i forget]. I knew
>> >there would be alot of traffic and discussion on boards for it as it was
>> >just released, so I made a number of posts on the top usenet doom3
>> >froups with my link in, and sure enough, these fed the webboards, which
>> >now had higher traffic and higher result positions, which then increased
>> >the PR of my site and lifted that up. Increased my traffic by about 400% :D
>> >
>> >The main SEO point where people fall down, is the whole keywords. If you
>> >over pack the meta keywords or just stack keywords into the whitespace
>> >of your sites [- google is big on content relevance, and thus keywords
>> >in content], you can actually get banned from engines. - Again I
>> >experimented with this, got off google in like 2 days :P The best thing
>> >to do is use semantically correlated keywords - words that mean the same
>> >thing, so you dont repeat, and used appropriately of course.
>> >
>> >What you could do, with the whole widescreen idea, is horizontally
>> >repeat the background at 100% width, then center your content and layer
>> >it over the top :)
>> >
>> >These may also be of use if youre going for the whole flash thing:
>> >http://tinyurl.com/7pmmu
>>
>> mimic, werent you being mean and nasty just a day or two ago?
>
>Why are you slurping the Diaper Boy's ass? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure
>he appreciates the attention as well as the nice clean tushy; it's just
>that it's rare to come across anyone who actually chooses lick the
>diaper residue off his big ol' butt.
its amazing how people make incorrect assumptions, just willy-nilly
like. and in your case, making those assumptions in a way that just
whets my appetite, what with all the sex talk. have i ever claimed to
be on ~anyones~ side, dearest smallfoot? go on, lie and say i have. you
know you want to. why not a post edit for shits and grins.
the truth is i read the articles in my homegroup, and decide to respond
to them based on whether theres an obvious opening or not. if you say
something stupid, ill poke at you. for my own entertainment. do you
understand? or do you need me to use smaller words? hmmm? you post
dumb, i poke. is that better? mheh
--
dave hillstrom
this space under construction. donations accepted.
the belgians are thieves.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|