homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.18.232
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 84 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 84 ( 1 2 [3]     
Cross linking without duplicate content
Anyone see a problem?
Nick_W




msg:171094
 1:50 pm on Jun 20, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hi everyone.

Heres the scenario:

2 sites with no duplicate content

Site A has a link to site B on every page as part of it's navigation (Site B is related)

Site B has a link to site A on every page (a 'this site is part of style thing)

Anyone see a problem with that?

Much obliged ;)

Nick

 

paynt




msg:171154
 8:39 pm on Jan 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Same goes for heavy reciprocal interlinking. Is it natural if 80% of my inbound external links are reciprocated? It could be, community wise, but it doesn't look strikingly authoritative, nor does it seem to offer original hub content.- vitaplease

That would certainly be true for me if I didnít put the time I do into the planning phase, developing a strategy. I have no problem creating hubs, with heavy reciprocal interlinking utilizing subdomains/canonicals for the most part as well as separate complimentary domains. Itís just a question of structure, which I base for the most part on themes backed up with what I consider audience.

What I donít see in this comment vitaplease is the connection youíve made here between reciprocal and authoritative inter and/or cross - linking and a hubís original content.

This is an excellent post vitaplease and I appreciate how well you've explained yourself.

I remember my Queen Spam cloaking days and those ugly long lists of keyword links to dummy sites set up to just mess around with linking. They worked then and I run into them still on one level or another so I know they are even still working today. Iím really glad when those drop in importance because those are the examples of what vitaplease is I think talking about hubs that donít offer original content.

What vitaplease goes on to describe, including ďHundreds of mini-domains, all heavily interlinked (often in hidden frames), hiding physical contact addresses, all using the same anchortext per linkage to domainĒ, while they may continue to work as I mentioned, on one level or another, what I want to know is why people continue to build them? For me itís not only risky if not implemented correctly but whatís the point? Is the conversion better? Are we only talking here then the drive to dominate, regardless of conversion? Thatís what drove me years ago, ranking and traffic. We were paid for that and it seemed to be what people thought they wanted or we convinced them they wanted.

Look at the question by needsomehelp.

What is the bottom line? IF I have three 5-7 page sites that are all unique and interlinked, is it bad or good?

I wish there were a simple answer to that. I stand by my belief that we have to take it back to what the plan is for the site, what the industry within your theme is doing and how your competitors are handling their architecture through promotion practices. Those and many other variables must be considered to not only dominate, but to convert. What is the bottom line? Well what numbers are you looking at for your bottom line? Are you looking at high traffic log numbers, high cash register numbers or a combination of both? Is success based on leads, sales, or are you just happy when someone fills out your poll?

Back in the planning phase Iíd start with what I do know. Unless I was working with someone I trusted to help me make decisions I think Iíd be careful with the risks I was taking. My plan then would include building on what I do know. In most cases that means starting simple. I would allow for my plan to grow with my knowledge and confidence level. Iíve created more than a few sites just to play with theories and ideas on, ones Iíve not tied my livelihood up with. I call these disposable domains. Heavy hitting affiliate marketers often push the envelope but knowing there are risks and if they are smart have a back up to their plan in place. It's more than common to think of those as disposable.

For the most part linking two or three sites doesnít cause problems, especially if your smart and youíve linked with a purpose. I still think it has a lot to do with common sense.

Glad I refreshed before posting because willtell makes an excellent pointÖ

The problem appears to me to be that the physical implementation and the logical implementation are not utilized properly.

Taking this a step further brings us right back to the plan. I don't ask myself after I've developed these separate sites if I should link them. My point is that I would have made that decision much earlier. I build my answers into the plan.

I do not link specifically for PageRank although I would be plain stupid not to consider it. For me the problem is not just in implementing the plan as willtell suggests but directly back to the planning itself.

It even gives me a headache reading this post, ugh. I'm sorry if I haven't simplified matters.

I still want to get back to ciml about

> Linking the spokes though to each other is where you need not a pattern but a strategy. - paynt

I am very intrigued by this, could you elaborate? -ciml


Mark Candiotti




msg:171155
 5:03 am on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

willtell

Thank you for your reply. Think of 50 states, for example. I have no trouble thinking of those, why they're related, or why the content is unique. Does any/everyone really think there's a problem in listing, for example (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) my "Illinois Bowling Alley's" page to the other 49 states' bowling alley pages? Forget for a moment that yes, I could build an external hub about bowling alleys or I could simply put them all in one large site. I don't want to make what I consider these artificial constructs. I want 50 sites, they are all equal, and I think it's better/faster for my users. Again, there is ZERO duplicate content, and they relate as when I travel around the states, I want to know where the different bowling alleys are. Is it STILL dangerous, given this information, for each of the 50 sites, to have a link to the other 49 on the index page? Thanks again, to willtell, or anyone.

MC

Marcia




msg:171156
 7:18 am on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm in agreement with ciml on this:

> Linking the spokes though to each other is where you need not a pattern but a strategy. - paynt

>I am very intrigued by this, could you elaborate? -ciml

What would be most helpful is some semantic clarification - a clear definition of the terminology being used - defining "pattern" as well as "strategy", with some elaboration on the differences between them. That would be important to do if there's to be any interaction on the topic, which we'd all enjoy.

As ciml said, it's quite intriguing. I'm sure members who are developing hub/spoke systems as well as those who are just developing a few sites would be most interested to hear how proceeding with a strategy would work and what steps they would need to take.

Pattern seems to indicate a noun, a condition. Strategy indicates a process, an action. Just so everyone has the same understanding and vantage point, definitions would be the starting point for understanding so that everyone can benefit from a discussion of strategy and be able to apply the steps to their own particular situation.

Summing up, how do we define pattern and strategy, and what are the steps in strategizing effectively? What are the steps that need to be taken to develop a strategy?

Along with ciml, I'd also appreciate elaboration; it's quite a fascinating concept, and I'm looking forward to hearing more about it.

Added:
This was the scenario in the original post, done months ago, which was quite a simple situation:

2 sites with no duplicate content

Site A has a link to site B on every page as part of it's navigation (Site B is related)

Site B has a link to site A on every page (a 'this site is part of style thing)

Anyone see a problem with that?

What if there are four sites?

Vitaplease:

3.Communities - are sites reciprocating links
4.Conglomorates - are sites with heavy cross-linking

Two sites, even four or six independent sites, don't constitute a hub / spokes/ authority situation, a conglomerate or community is what it seems would be developing.

The danger of heavy interlinking with separate domains, is that it can go beyond the natural into excess, purely for reasons of trying to rank better or occupying more than two places in the Google results.

That's exactly what we're looking at, with a limited number of domains, if we refer back to the original post; and the excess is exactly what people are trying to avoid. Thank you for the clear definitions and points, vitaplease.

So an elaboration of the process of developing a strategy, and the steps taken to remain within safe parameters, would certainly be helpful to those grappling with the situation.

[edited by: Marcia at 10:17 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2003]

Dante_Maure




msg:171157
 7:50 am on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is it STILL dangerous, given this information, for each of the 50 sites, to have a link to the other 49 on the index page?

It very well could be dangerous unless you have a significant amount of quality inbound links to each site from others outside the network.

If a user does a search for "Illinois Bowling Alleys" and lands on your Illinois site, they are not likely to have any interest whatsoever in your other 49 sites, and even if they do, they don't need 49 separate links to each individual state at the bottom of your page. This type of approach is not really for your user's benefit... it's for the search engines.

If your strategy was truly user-centric all that would be needed is a single link titled "Nationwide Bowling Alley Directory" which would lead to a hub page pointing to all 50 state specific sites.

If you want to be certain to avoid any penalties go with the above suggestion or drop the over-zealous linking for now, get a large number of quality inbound links to each of your state specific sites (50 at a bare minimum), and only then re-establish your heavy cross-linking.

paynt




msg:171158
 3:04 pm on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

I completely agree with your point Dante_Maure.

Ok, I'm working on the post Marcia and ciml. I think I'll start it new though so we don't get confused with all this. I can post a link from here to it for folks interested. Give me a bit to finish it. It takes me hours sometimes to put a post together.

vitaplease




msg:171159
 3:41 pm on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Same goes for heavy reciprocal interlinking. Is it natural if 80% of my inbound external links are reciprocated? It could be, community wise, but it doesn't look strikingly authoritative, nor does it seem to offer original hub content.
- vitaplease

>What I donít see in this comment vitaplease is the connection youíve made here between reciprocal and authoritative inter and/or cross - linking and a hubís original content

Paynt,

What I mean with that comment, is that there is a general tendancy to go for reciprocal link hunting, which goes beyond community building (certainly at that percentage).

You scratch my back, I scratch yours. (not the anatomy of the Web, the original backrub papers wanted linking to lead to ;))

What I mean with the connection with "authoritative" is the following:

If 80% of your inbound links are due to self-congratulatory back-and-forth linking, then near to nothing was linkage due to the website's original content. Near to nobody thinks your content is authoritative by its own.

The same goes with the connection towards "hub quality".

A natural hub links out to authoritative sites it has collected itself for their specific merits.
The hub quality of these reciprocal sites has all to do with "I only link out if you link back to me" - hardly an independent score of hub quality, IMO.

It is very natural to start a website and exchange links (reciprocal if you wish) with your community. However your site has added very little to the www community if after several months no independant links marked your site authoritative unconditionally and vice-versa.

Reciprocal linking seems to go unpunished in Google.
However if your reciprocal partners all reciproce to each other as well, you have a linkfarm. Now if everyone does this linking on more or less every page, you are asking for trouble IMO.

And as Dante says - this display, is not helping the visitor

I would not be suprised if Google treats long term reciprocal linkage excess as linkage within one site.

willtell




msg:171160
 3:54 pm on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Dead on post Dante_Maure!

Even if I went to the 'state' bowling page, I would be expecting a list of all the bowling alleys in the state. I don't have a clue how many that would be, but I would guess at least a thousand. Even taking this further, how do I find this information today without the Internet.

I believe that people do not change their habits by going online. They extend their current habits and any changes take a long time. So the question is, how do people find this information today and can I improve on that system? So using bowling alleys as an example, I would assume that enough people are looking for bowling alley information by state to make this worthwhile. A quick check with some software that is tracking user queries will tell me if we're heading in the right direction. If the answer is yes. then you've found a need and you can fill it. If the answer is no, then you would not be filling a need.

In my opinion, this is why many verticals such as doctors,lawyers,chiropractors and any others you can think of, do not get the use you would expect. If it is so convenient, why doesn't everyone just do it. The answer is 'it's not their habit'.

yetanotheruser




msg:171161
 7:05 pm on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey,

Very impressed with this thread, even if it has taken me an hour to read it! ;)

I still have so many questions going round in my head as to what is best-practice, and what might lead us to get thrown out of Google..

The situation is this (perhaps you guys could tell me what you think.)

We're a very new company (15months) developing sites for third parties. We are getting more and more 'whole site' contracts (rather than bits-n-bobs contract work) and have also recently launched a very large site off our own bat.(With maybe 2/3 more on their way over the course of 2003)

All our sites have a legend at the bottom of every page:

"Website designed by...."

Originally I linked our name in this legend to our own site on every page. Nowerdays though, realising it'll just take PR from our clients, I have turned them into text and now only link the one on the root page.

In our own company site we have a Case-Studies/Clients section where we describe the dozen or so latest projects, and when one of those projects is a site we host I link to it.

The problem is perhaps that we _very_ rarely (possibly never) have links going anywhere else...

The other thing we do is spider our own sites (for search functionality) and while we do it we estimate PR distribution.. From observations while doing this I recon it'll be obvious to google that we (ie, us and our client's sites) are a cul-de-sac in terms of PR distribution.

Now.. I am not adverse to linking to other sites at all.. it just doesn't happen to be something we've been asked to do yet by a client... And we don't get a huge amount of incoming links.. just DMOZ etc and then a couple of links from sites related to particular clients.

The last thing I ever want to do is build a company and portfolio of sites that don't adhere to best-practice... All our site/link struture, designs, SEO etc. are meant to make life better for the users and our sites easier to find (against _relevant_ searches)

Ok.. phew .. here are the actual questions!

A) Do you guys think that this sort of interlinking from root pages -> corporate site and from news/clients section of corporate site -> client's site's root pages is going to be seen as naughty by google?

B) Is the fact that we are a distribution cul-de-sac more dangerous?

C) Do you think that we should link out to sites just to avoid being told off?

D) Does the PR of the pages containing outgoing (completely external (IP/Owner/Whois etc..)) links matter.. (ie. do we think that google takes the PR of outgoing links into consideration when deciding whether to penalise?)

E) Am I just confused!?

Hope this makes sense!

ATB,

vitaplease




msg:171162
 7:26 pm on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

So an elaboration of the process of developing a strategy, and the steps taken to remain within safe parameters, would certainly be helpful to those grappling with the situation.

Marcia,

I think Google is still struggling with how to detect what is natural in interlinking of a couple of domains and what is excess.

I would say, if you really need seperate domains for your business strategy, go for subdomains. That is the one set-up Google has commented on as being safe for interlinking.

The other would be, being very clear with using the same domain name and using different county extensions(tld's).

There are few business set-ups which cannot fall in the above two.


Brad




msg:171163
 9:22 pm on Jan 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

<aside>

Are there any other search engines that penalize for cross linking? If so, which ones please?

</aside>

paynt




msg:171164
 1:11 am on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's absolutly going to take me all night to work through my responses for this discussion. Allow me to start with...

Mark_Candiotti, Iím not picking on your idea. It does seem to make a lot sense. I think it becomes a question of too much of a good thing. I have to ask myself when does a good thing turn bad? One way I look at it is to consider this page may be my only opportunity to reach this person, who obviously has some interest in what Iím offering. Now, am I going to make any money at all, please the visitor, perhaps get them to bookmark for a return visit if I offer them 50 links to a page just like this one with another state name?

I think it would make more sense to offer them links to great content within the peripheral context of what drew them here in the first place. Besides how many links does that make on the page, including navigation?

I think all housekeeping links should be removed to one link going to the housekeeping section. Take all those contact links, about links, privacy and copyright, even shopping carts and call it housekeeping; tuck them away in their own directory. I would diffuse it even more and make the housekeeping link from an image. I even think blocking spiders completely is a good idea to that section. Clean up a site and clean up the SERPís by removing them. Just think of the wasted PR, plus when people come in on them they more often enough leave before clicking to the homepage because these pages are not usually designed to draw a visitor home. Why are we wasting quality links to them and from every page? That has never made any sense to me.

Now, some folks are going to say, ďÖbut thatís 4/5ths of my siteÖĒ and I would come back with something along the lines of competing with the big guys.

I also think itís a great deal more powerful to not offer all your links right from the home page nor from every page of the site. I see more positive results from breaking those links up into sections, which relate to the themes. So you may have a link to your news section from the home page, and probably every page in the navigation if thatís part of your strategy. Then on the news page you will link to, in the case of a small site all the article pages or for a larger site the main sub-theme pages, which then link to all that sections article pages. I mean thatís one way to do it, there are many others.

When you play poker do you just turn over your hand so everyone can see what youíre up to or do you hold your hand close to your chest and watch the eyes and actions of the other players? Not that I gamble, ha but Iíve watched enough movies to compare this to linking, at least in relation to laying out all your links.

There is so much more here to talk about, I just didnít want you to think I was picking on your strategy Mark_Candiotti because it does make sense, your suggestion based on themes. But, where your idea might open you up to possible risk, the one I describe is unlikely to create any static or draw any negative attention.

Mark Candiotti




msg:171165
 1:48 am on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Paynt, thank you for the great comments. Your approach is sound and well-considered and I will work to incorporate it into my strategy.

"I think Google is still struggling with how to detect what is natural in interlinking of a couple of domains and what is excess." - vitaplease

This makes sense, especially in regards to Google's vagueness/silence on the subject. GoogleGuy, you are conspicuous by your absence. :)

MC

chiyo




msg:171166
 2:10 am on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Nope. In fact if GG did comment on this s/he would be conspicuous by his/her/the Almighty's presence.

He/she wont comment on anything that will assist people in "working out" the way google ranks and penalises pages, apart from providing extremely broad hints and stern admonishments!

Im probably tempting fate but I dont think GG will touch this thread with a 10 foot green bar..

... even though he does have the longest one of all of us..

paynt




msg:171167
 2:57 am on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

MC Ė Thanks for accepting my suggestions in the spirit I intended. I wish you the greatest good luck. Donít tease googleguy into posting though; I like to think itís just the few of us talking strategy with an anonymous audience of possibly thousands, ha where our friend gg is just one of many.

Vitaplease Ė I wasnít questioning your theory, which I agree is quite sound. I was just questioning the term ďnor does it seem to offer original hub content.Ē only because of how you related that to linking. I consider content as a separate issue to linking yet your statement seemed to say a certain practice of linking led to less original content and I just got stuck in the logic, sorry. Although Vitaplease, thanks for the additional post as it adds a great deal to the discussion and to my understanding of your original post.

I totally agree with you that reciprocal linking is not a complete strategy but better used as a campaign to jumpstart a site and then as a periodic maintenance project to infuse new blood. For some sites reciprocal linking wonít work at all or they havenít thought of a clever alternative to distance them from their reciprocal linking so they avoid the practice entirely.

What annoys me because I am picky is all the time and energy people put into their linking and then complain they are a) not getting anywhere with it; b) they donít have time to maintain it; c) theyíve jumped into it without thinking all the practicalities through; d) their linking partners are putting them at risk or cheating them; e) and so the list goes on. What that tells me is they should not be practicing any form of linking because they donít have a plan. All these issues should be thought out before you jump into something that can be both incredibly beneficial and hugely risky.

The other thing that annoys me is the wasted opportunities. When people stop limiting linking to simply reciprocal and when they start looking at their links each as an opportunity then the whole nature of importance they place in it will change. Thatís when it moves from a chore to a tool and you can begin to get excited about it.

Iím still working on yours Marcia. Iím glad the bowl game is on and everyone here is distracted, ha.

paynt




msg:171168
 5:13 am on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

I didn't want you to feel left out Yetanotheruser and Welcome to Webmasterworld, thanks for such a great first post.

Weíve talked a few times about the issue of "Website designed by....", with designers particularly and the general consensus is it is an ok practice. I see the same true for hosting companies, marketing firms, SEO. Why? Maybe because there is a standard of practice that happens or maybe itís just that practice is common enough not to set off alarms. Does it help? Itís hard to determine the effect if it is a general practice of the industry.

I have turned them into text and now only link the one on the root page - Yetanotheruser

Nice. What could be even better for them but not necessarily for you, is if you put that information along with the copyright etc that each page carries into a clear image that looks just like text. This will help to reduce bleed out of their content with those repetitive and wasted words. I think it would ultimately help the search results as well.

are a cul-de-sac in terms of PR distribution- Yetanotheruser

Whose award for the line of the week does that bump?

A)Ė no I do not think you have a problem
B)Ė yes, I believe you are putting yourself in unnecessary risk.
C) - no, I would only recommend linking out once thatís determined as part of a greater strategy and plan.
D) - Iím still trying to get my head around this one.
E)Ė I hope itís getting clearer for you. For me itís the questions sometimes that confuse me not so much the practices.

Peace ~

Mark Candiotti




msg:171169
 6:06 am on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Uh-ohhhh, starting to get REALLY worried here. Two days ago I innocently published 17 independent www.(us-state)-widget.com sites with links to the other sixteen on the bottom of each home page. After doing a little (belated, obviously) research here I removed all links from all pages a few moments ago, and will start back (hopefully) wiser now. The problem is that Googlebot has swept in and indexed the sites in the interim(!) and after only two days, I am showing 16 backlinks to each of my sites checking via the Toolbar. Am I screwed? Have I messed up all the URL's already? Is there ANY time component involved, such as that one must be an IDIOT for at least two weeks to get penalized? :) Any good news, anyone?

MC

BigDave




msg:171170
 6:42 am on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

For some sites reciprocal linking wonít work at all or they havenít thought of a clever alternative to distance them from their reciprocal linking so they avoid the practice entirely.

There is another reason not to participate in reciprocal linking campaigns. Reputation.

My sites reputation with readers, site members, and companies in the industry we serve is far more important than getting a few extra links a month.

If we were to participate in reciprocal linking, it would change the value of our links. Our links are traded for participation. If someone could get a link from us just for linking to us, then it devalues the links (not in a PR sense) that are given to those who participate.

Now having this good reputation has gotten us at least 5 links a month from PR5 pages. These aren't on some link page, but usually on an important page on the companies site, or in several cases, a page set up to specifically point to us.

Now almost all of these links are reciprocal in the strictest sense of the word. We also have links to their site. But We never play the "I'll link to you if you link to me" game.

So, now that I've said all that, I do not think that it would work well for most smaller commercial sites. But I was just putting it up as an additional example of a reason why someone would decide not to get involved in reciprocal link campaigns.

vitaplease




msg:171171
 2:59 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Another thing on cross-linking within seperate domains.

If you get paranoid, just link a couple of pages between domains with normal links, for the rest of the excess, use javascript links. Google does not follow them.

martinibuster




msg:171172
 3:00 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

I find it is a little challenging for the average web designer to find incoming links. I have seen web sites with the following notice: WE DO NOT ACCEPT LINKS FROM WEB DESIGN COMPANIES. PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT.

I like to visit web designer web sites to see what they're doing, and I have to say that I've never seen one penalized for having the arrangement described above by yetanotheruser. It's common for web designers to depend on client sites for their inbounds.

One thing ambitious web designers may do is break up their services into niche design areas, and solicit links from the various niche directories. (Widget web design - widget directories).

:) Y

vitaplease




msg:171173
 3:11 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

..and I have to say that I've never seen one penalized for having the arrangement described above by yetanotheruser..

Have to agree martinibuster, I think that client page signing is something that has been taken care of from the very beginning.

I also think it would be an easy thing for Google to spot and neutralise for over effect.

nutsandbolts




msg:171174
 3:15 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Two days ago I innocently published 17 independent www.(us-state)-widget.com sites with links to the other sixteen on the bottom of each home page.

Too risky! Glad you changed your mind about it ;)

I cross-linked and paid the price - and I am still paying over a year later (no change on profile site this month). I walk on egg shells now when it comes to linking sites together and as a rule of thumb I would never link to more than 2 sites on the front page. I would especially avoid linking if the domains have duplicate content too.

jose




msg:171175
 3:18 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

What about if you have diferent IP's addresses for each domain?

Thanks

gopi




msg:171176
 3:35 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

jose , Separate ip addreses dont matter in cross linking penality...

My personal belief is its ok to crosslink between 2 or atmost 3 sites..more than that you are playing with fire :)

robertito62




msg:171177
 4:41 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Paynt,

your message #61:

"...Is the conversion better?.."

We've found rotation and velocity of rotation to filter traffic greatly >>> better conversions.

Heavy interlinking may be a factor in getting a penalty but in many cases is a great way of letting people exactly match their interests.

On selling pages it can divert attention though, making a closing more difficult.

Heavy interlinking seems also to produce the 'walgreens syndrome' where by changing merchandise on the floor they make customers stay longer to find them...thus, potentially allowing for the purhase of other things they would have not thought of (I had to change the aisles in one store every week according to a new plano, sometimes to 'confuse' shoppers).

The more a visitor stays on your site, the greater the chances he/she will find what they are looking for...and buy.-

This 84 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 84 ( 1 2 [3]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved