|
|
Posted by Vampi Fangs on 12/22/25 11:24
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:33:35 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
<usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:43:37 +1000, Vampi Fangs <vampi@nwglfo.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>...not really. Why would I want to limit myself to Walla Walla? I
>>>can get web design jobs in Walla Walla via much easier means than
>>>trying to rely on Google.
>
>>i'm sure you can
>>
>>the point is that your business is not findable through search engines
>>
>>not a very good advertisement for your 'skills'
>
>Running around in circles I see. As long as I avoid clients who are
>morons like you Vamps I don't think I should have any difficulties.
>Thus far no client of mine has given a rats ass about search engines,
>nor should they.
odd clients you have who don't want to be found by search engines
i think you are lying
>>>And really, the bottom line is that Google just isn't a viable tool to
>>>try and use for advertising in the first place. Anyone whose pushing
>>>such an endeavor obviously doesn't know the first thing about running
>>>a business.
>
>>another wonderful illustration of how much you know and care about
>>promoting your own and your clients' businesses
>
>What's the matter, Google Bitch, can't formulate a counter argument?
>Here's a random thought, why don't you try and post a link to
>something that shows "advertising" through Google is "effective"...and
>I don't mean just some blow hard like you spouting off a bunch of
>shit, I mean REAL statistics that prove through web logs that search
>engines matter. I'd be willing to bet that I can generate more
>traffic for a site through just ONE Usenet post than a top ranked
>Google site can over the course of a day.
google was attractive enough that it could float itself ... and the
share price is doing rather well ... a fair indication that
advertising in google *does* matter ... at least for those who have a
few brass razoos to rub together
>>>>you might like to read google's tips for web masters
>>>>
>>>>http://www.google.com.au/webmasters/guidelines.html
>
>>>...nothing on there worth mentioning. What particular part of that
>>>link did you think was relevant and why?
>
>>read the sections relating to content, which you claim don't matter
>
>Isn't it great how Vampi Cramps just like...posts some random link to
>something and then goes around pretending that it has some hidden
>meaning.
>
>Let's just go ahead and end your stupidity on this link right off the
>bat:
>
>:Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should
>:be reachable from at least one static text link.
>
>Okay, not doing that.
>
>:Offer a site map to your users with links that point to the important
>:parts of your site. If the site map is larger than 100 or so links,
>:you may want to break the site map into separate pages.
>
>Okay, not doing that.
>
>:Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly
>:and accurately describe your content.
>
>Okay, not describing my content.
>
>:Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make
>:sure that your site actually includes those words within it.
>
>Only in the page title.
>
>:Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content,
>:or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognize text contained in
>:images.
>
>No, not doing that either.
>
>:Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate.
>
>I have no alt tags.
>
>:Check for broken links and correct HTML.
>
>It is fully NOT W3C compliant.
>
>:If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?"
>:character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls
>:dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters
>:short and the number of them few.
>
>It's using dynamic pages controlled via Javascript so not even search
>engine spiders can crawl them.
>
>:Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100).
>
>I've got about a dozen.
nice to see you have taken google's recommendations seriously enough
to dissect them above
>Okay Vampicramps, taking ALL that into account...how does your DUMBASS
>account for this:
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Hatter+blog
you're the only site titled hatter blog on the net ... why not try
retitling your 'web design' site as Walla Walla Web Design and see if
you come up number one?
>Ranked number 1, Bitch. What the fuck are you trippin on? Yeesh, yer
>so fuckin stupid that if Google had a page telling you to go and shove
>a weed whacker up yer dried up old cunt and give it a whirl you'd
>actually be dumb enough to go ahead and do it.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>>>It's too bad you couldn't formulate a counter argument against the use
>>>of Flash...oh well, it's not like you're a web designer Vamps.
>
>>why would i want to discourage you from pursuing that which will make
>>your aims much easier for you achieve and your sites less clunky, that
>>which you have resisted so vehemently in the past?
>>
>>such a short memory you have
>
>I'm not as linear as you, Stupid. Speaking of short memories, it's a
>lil odd for you to be saying you support the use of Flash but then you
>turn right around and start bitching about search engine
>"optimization". Like I asked you before, what the fuck are you on?
of course, if you did a client site wholly in flash, you should
provide an alternate html version
--
V--V
"If we don't stop the Reds in South Vietnam, tomorrow they will be in
Hawaii, and next week they will be in San Francisco."
President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966
"Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other
places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New
York or St. Louis or Los Angeles."
President George W. Bush, 8/26/2003
http://www.issues2000.org/askme/LBJ_GWB.htm
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|