homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.91.250
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 208 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 208 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 > >     
Why Is Wikipedia On Top in Search Results?
So many searches now have Wikipedia at the Top.
JoeS




msg:3261920
 7:32 pm on Feb 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've noticed in many searches for business names or people over the past few months that Wikipedia is now the No. 1 or 2 result. Is Google promoting a non-profit site over others or just the huge traffic Wikipedia is getting?

 

MatthewHSE




msg:3264280
 4:04 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

One thing that's not clear to me is if Wikipedia has achieved this status as a natural result of Google's algorithm, or if Google has manually given them some kind of "bonus" in the SERPS. One thing is for sure - they've been showing up a LOT more often lately.

I don't find it that bad, really. For the searches I do, Wikipedia normally has spam-free and accurate information. I laughed at BaseVinyl's post, but I can honestly say that I *do* often search Wikipedia first, simply because (again, for my types of searches) it usually has what I want to find.

I got in on the Internet toward the end of the days of "use-this-engine-for-this-search-type." It appears that those days may be coming back in a slightly different way. I think users are going to gradually start searching certain sites (as opposed to using certain engines) when they're looking for particular types of information. Firefox and search add-ins (and search keywords) make this a lot easier.

pageoneresults




msg:3264293
 4:16 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

One thing is for sure - they've been showing up a LOT more often lately.

Ever since they implemented the <rel="nofollow"> back in 2007 January.

Something else I've not really seen discussed is the architecture of the Wiki. I'll have to admit, they do a fine job of categorizing everything. Their taxonomy is unmatched. Ever look at the underlying structure/outline of their pages? Clean...

And, for reference...

Wikipedia: General disclaimer
[en.wikipedia.org...]

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

Emphasis theirs.

hvacdirect




msg:3264364
 5:07 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Normally I just skip over the wiki results and go right to the first real result. My only fear is that other webmasters will see this as a sign that all you have to do is nofollow all your links and shoot to the top of Google. I doubt there is a correlation, but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theories before, and some will try anything for an edge.

jtara




msg:3264373
 5:20 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

"utorrent" will show Wiki number one, and the ACTUAL authors of the software BELOW it... LOL it's so stupid...

In this particular case, the author's site shows up on top, and Wikipedia at #5. But you said "not literally", so I guess you mean that there are OTHER unnamed software packages where Wiki appears ahead of the author's site.

While I think it may be most "correct" for Google to show the author's site as #1, I think that in many or most cases, Wikipedia may be more useful than the author's site at giving the sercher a good overview of the software package.

Personally, I ALWAYS use Wikipedia FIRST when looking into a software package (either open-source or commercial - but particularly useful for open-source). Open-source software authors and open-source software sites (like SourceForge) have a tendency to bury their documentation, and don't seem to think it useful to provide an overview on the first page.

The Wikipedia article will generally give me a NPOV, and links to and comparisons with similar packages, which I find more useful on initial investigation than the author's own site. It will often give me useful insite into who the user base is, how active the developer community is, etc. which can often be difficult to determine from the author's site.

trinorthlighting




msg:3264436
 5:58 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

The big reason why they have been showing up more lately is the recent downgrading of affiliate sites.

KenB




msg:3264499
 6:40 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

When *I* got to high school, I was not allowed to use them as a source. So why is Google using it? Perhaps because *most* only read at an 8th grade level? I know that my niece in a highly respected school has been told, just as with any encyclopedia, she *cannot* use Wikipedia as a *source* for her writing. Amen, I say.

Actually, no encyclopedia should be allowed to be used in high school or higher level reports and in many instances they are not allowed. The reason is that using an encyclopedia as a primary reference source when researching a paper is to fundamentally fail to understand what research is. In short using an encyclopedia for a school report is taking an easy way out and doesn't teach one how to really do research.

BUT, does that mean Google should not give it authority? Thus, back to, what it "authority?"

This is just a misuse or misunderstanding of what "authority" means. Google doesn't truly bestow authority status on any websites; it is just that sites with certain characteristics tend to get favored in Google's SERPs.

One thing that's not clear to me is if Wikipedia has achieved this status as a natural result of Google's algorithm, or if Google has manually given them some kind of "bonus" in the SERPS. One thing is for sure - they've been showing up a LOT more often lately.

I'm certain Wikipedia's positions are a natural result of Google's algorithm. Google is loathed to give any kind of manual bonus for any type of site. Giving Wikipedia a manual bonus would be legal suicide from the stand point of all the people sue Google because of their position in Google's SERPs.

trinorthlighting




msg:3264518
 6:46 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wiki is the best all in one resource for research on the web. If its outranking your site, join wiki and post some relevant content and use your site as a reference. I am more than sure wiki would love to have some more volunteers.

Why is it on top? Because its popular and people like it. People wo go there think its a cool site. Its a fad, the in thing. Also many people go there to read because its a friendly site with no advertisements on there and people generally trust the information on there. If they want to read further into a subject, wiki has reference links.

Sites that are "informational" and plastered with adsense ads, people do not trust as much because of all the adsense spam sites that are out there. People know that a site plastered with ads has one purpose, to make money.

I am more than sure google knows this, that is why they are showing on the top. Wiki is popular.

jomaxx




msg:3264556
 7:04 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

BTW, Wikipedia has standards for properly citing sources, and more and more articles are being written in this format. I agree a student shouldn't be citing Wikipedia directly, but the links to the original sources can be invaluable.

netmeg




msg:3264574
 7:18 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

If you want to outrank wiki, make sure you have more content than they do.

This has thus far worked for me in every instance where I had a site that was outranked by Wikipedia. I would maybe phrase it "more and more extensive/thorough content" - but the gist is the same.

I myself use it a lot, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest to find it at or near the top of the serps - I wouldn't consider it a source, but more an aggregate of sources. If I want to get a quick overview, I go to wikipedia. If I want go deeper (and I'm a major league history dweeb) then I go to the cites - via wikipedia. Most of WP pages I land on are positively overflowing with cites. I love that - to me it's the equivalent of going into a book store and walking out with almost more books than I can carry. Why wouldn't Google (who aims to be the biggest aggregator of all) love that too?

[edited by: netmeg at 7:22 pm (utc) on Feb. 26, 2007]

KenB




msg:3264580
 7:20 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wiki is the best all in one resource for research on the web. If its outranking your site, join wiki and post some relevant content and use your site as a reference. I am more than sure wiki would love to have some more volunteers.

1) why would anyone want to spend their time producing content for their arch competitor?

2) I may not like Wikipedia but I also don't promote the idea with spamming it with links to one's own sites. Besides with the use of rel=nofollow by Wikipedia this eliminates any SEO advantage of the links.

Why is it on top? Because its popular and people like it. People wo go there think its a cool site. Its a fad, the in thing.

A fad just like MySpace, et al.

Sites that are "informational" and plastered with adsense ads, people do not trust as much because of all the adsense spam sites that are out there. People know that a site plastered with ads has one purpose, to make money.

Provide some evidence to support your claims. I'm afraid that this is a claim that has been made time and time again over the years but has no foundation in actual fact or real academic studies.

Yes I'm sure there are a small percentage of people who look down at sites with ads, but there is no evidence that this is a pervasive opinion. Ads are a fact of life and the average person understands this. At least when a site is displaying ads, I know what their source of revenue is. Knowing the revenue source (e.g. following the money) can help provide a clue about what motivates a site.

I am more than sure google knows this, that is why they are showing on the top. Wiki is popular.

You are assuming Google uses some manual method to promote Wikipedia. There is no evidence to support this belief.

trinorthlighting




msg:3264591
 7:30 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

A true an unbiased informational site would not care that much about SEO and care about spreading the wealth of infomation in anyway possible. Only people who want to make money from the internet care about SEO.

Want proof, look at what happened to about.com when they started plastering their site with ads. Their popularity plummeted and you hardly see them in the top ten anymore.

trinorthlighting




msg:3264607
 7:41 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

There is a manual promotion to the top of the serps, they are called "quality raters" and they are out there.

europeforvisitors




msg:3264616
 7:51 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

There is a manual promotion to the top of the serps, they are called "quality raters" and they are out there.

As I understand it (and as I believe GoogleGuy once more or less confirmed), the role of "quality raters" has been to supply data for benchmarking or profiling purposes, not to replace automated processes.

Maybe this would be a good time for Ronburk to step in with another explanation of data mining and "black boxes." :-)

KenB




msg:3264736
 9:41 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

A true an unbiased informational site would not care that much about SEO and care about spreading the wealth of infomation in anyway possible. Only people who want to make money from the internet care about SEO.

Where do you come off with such a outrageous claim? If one cares about sharing their information in any way possible they will also care about SEO and none of this has anything what so ever to do with whether the information is "unbiased" or not.

Furthermore, what is wrong with wanting to make money from the Internet? Making a living off of sharing one's knowledge and efforts has been practiced for millennia. Teachers are paid to teach and writers are paid to write. We don't question a teacher's motives for being expected to receive compensation for teaching and we don't question a reporter's motives because they expect to be compensated for writing newspaper articles. Why should we question a web publisher's motives simply because they put ads on a web site? Furthermore why should we trust someone's motives any more simply because they doing something for free? This is foolish.

As I understand it (and as I believe GoogleGuy once more or less confirmed), the role of "quality raters" has been to supply data for benchmarking or profiling purposes, not to replace automated processes.

This is the most plausible reason as to why "quality raters" exist. Anything else would open Google up to all kinds of lawsuits and lets face facts, lawyers like suing big companies with deep pockets.

I "love" how quick some people are to try and find evidence that their whoas are caused by Google using some manual means to screw with SERPs in favor of one site or against another site.

trinorthlighting




msg:3264748
 9:59 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Ken,

Its because there are way too many "informational" adsense sites out there that are absolute crap. I am not saying yours is crap by no means, but look at all the MFA's out there that scrape content or just are putting out bad information just to make some adsense bucks. There are a ton of them. What really kills me is that google allows bot created site to display adsense on them and they do nothing about it.

People are getting real turned off to adsense "informational" sites because of the information on it is not always correct. In ways, google is shooting itself in the foot by letting the MFA's that scrape content or are robot built to be allowed. Think of the potential advertising dollars google loses out on by placing wiki towards the top.

KenB




msg:3264776
 10:28 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Its because there are way too many "informational" adsense sites out there that are absolute crap. I am not saying yours is crap by no means, but look at all the MFA's out there that scrape content or just are putting out bad information just to make some adsense bucks. There are a ton of them.

People are getting real turned off to adsense "informational" sites because of the information on it is not always correct. In ways, google is shooting itself in the foot by letting the MFA's that scrape content or are robot built to be allowed. Think of the potential advertising dollars google loses out on by placing wiki towards the top.


This entire post is supposition and personal opinion devoid of any evidence to support said claims.

Yes MFA's and the scraper sites are annoying but no evidence has been presented to support any belief that these sites are having any impact on the way people view legitimate commercial informational websites.

In my own case, my traffic continues to climb, people link to my site as often as ever and the CTR/eCPM of my ads is at all time highs. In short I'm seeing no evidence that people are burning out on ads or are associating ads with a lack of quality.

I've been in this business for almost a dozen years. Year in and year out people come along and claim that users don't trust sites with ads and claim that users are growing very wary of commercial websites. More than anything this is wishful thinking because none of the evidence supports this.

As long as one is careful as to the types of ads and quantity of ads one allows on their site there will be no issues with people looking poorly upon the site because of the ads.

[edited by: KenB at 10:29 pm (utc) on Feb. 26, 2007]

trinorthlighting




msg:3264863
 12:28 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Ken,

Your one of the exceptions in a very small niche. Most topics wiki covers does not have exceptions though.

You should add to wiki and present links to your site as reference. It may have no SEO advantage except traffic! People do click those links and follow them.

pageoneresults




msg:3264869
 12:48 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why Is Wikipedia On Top in Search Results?

They validate! That's why. All this time I've been scratching my head wondering why and it was so obvious. ;)

trinorthlighting




msg:3264876
 1:00 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

They do validate, very clean html

NotTheMSM




msg:3264889
 1:15 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

DumpedbyG, refering to my complaint about political bias, says: "Anybody can edit WP, why do you not just go and fix the political bias?"

I've fixed several instances of said bias over the past few years, and it invariably results in a big fight. Sometimes after a few times putting it back it sticks, other times I give up. Now, I admit that some of the links I've put in WP have been both on-topic and self-promotional, but leaving those aside there are other things I've put in that are links to unaffiliated sites. I actually have a better track record with the self-promotional links than the unaffiliated links. And, in two specific instances, these attempts by "interested parties" to purge the record may have had some minor impact on elections.

DumpedbyG also says: "If the tens of thousands of people want to read the biased articles let them."

Obviously, this isn't the place to explain why propaganda is a bad thing and why, for instance, many bloggers spend a lot of time pointing out lies and misleading statements in MSM reports about political and news matters. But, many people do feel quite strongly about such issues.

hutcheson




msg:3264893
 1:23 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

>One thing that's not clear to me is if Wikipedia has achieved this status as a natural result of Google's algorithm, or if Google has manually given them some kind of "bonus" in the SERPS. One thing is for sure - they've been showing up a LOT more often lately.

I suspect it's natural. As others have pointed out, it's the very model of a naturally-high-ranked site: number of pages and number of internal links and number of external links all huge and showing natural growth patterns and natural interrelationships; truly natural word frequencies -- any automatic test you can imagine that Google might use to spot unnatural behavior, Wiki will pass easily.

They have been showing up a lot lately. I think Google let the spam detectors loose. And here's my guess why.

In certain categories (travel!) the search results are 99.99% (or more) spam. Now, suppose Google got rid of 99% of the spam (an extremely aggressive goal)? The results would STILL be 99% spam -- in other words, ALL BUT ONE of the good sites would be buried out of the top 100 results.

That's horrible, from the point of view of someone who isn't interested in promoting one particular site, but just wants to find SOME good site.

Now, suppose Google can kill 99.9% of the spam, but at the same time kills 50% of the good sites? Is this an improvement?

Yes, it absolutely is. Now maybe 1 search result per page is some use, and that's a phenomenal improvement.

Now, you may say some good site that used to be #150 now is nowhere -- but for most searchers and all practical purposes position #150 is close enough to nowhere to no never mind. The point is (on these numbers) ten potentially good sites died to make nine OTHER good sites appear in the top 100. Which is good for everyone on earth except webmasters, and even good for 45% of owners of good websites.)

The actual mileage may differ. But the point is, when it gets deep enough, it stops mattering how many good sites you kill in order to clean up the spam. Because if you don't kill the spam, ALL the good sites are dead.

KenB




msg:3264894
 1:26 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Your one of the exceptions in a very small niche. Most topics wiki covers does not have exceptions though.

Don't be so patronizing. I seriously doubt my site is some exception to the rule, especially since I know other web publishers who are experiencing similar things that I am.

You should add to wiki and present links to your site as reference. It may have no SEO advantage except traffic! People do click those links and follow them.

No way, no how. I pay highly qualified people very well to write content for my site. I'm not going to cut my own throat by feeding my competitor. Besides, my site is one of a half-dozen "authority" sites for a specific topic that has resulted in nearly every language of Wikipedia linking to dozens of pages on my site. None of the links to my site from Wikipedia were solicited by me and I have never even made a post to Wikipedia.

I see no reason or benefit in my participating in Wikipedia or providing content to it, when I would realize a bigger benefit from putting the same content on my own site.

To all those Wikipedia fan boys, wake up. Truly qualified people are busy and the only way to really get them to share their knowledge is to give them something tangible in return beyond a warm fuzzy. Sometimes that something is simply professional publicity (e.g. the byline in an article for a respected trade journal), but often times that something is paying them and paying them well. Highly qualified people should not be expected to donate their expertise to a website just to suit your "we're doing it for free so we are superior" elitism. Especially when said site helps promote mediocre by allowing anonymity which allows people to escape responsibility for what they post.

--Edit--
I don't claim to be a highly qualified individual, rather I recruit highly qualified people to write articles for my site and I pay them very competitive rates.

[edited by: KenB at 1:32 am (utc) on Feb. 27, 2007]

hutcheson




msg:3264914
 1:53 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

>This entire post is supposition and personal opinion devoid of any evidence to support said claims.

>Yes MFA's and the scraper sites are annoying but no evidence has been presented to support any belief that these sites are having any impact on the way people view legitimate commercial informational websites.

And precisely the same thing can (and should) be said about Wiki pages.

Pot, meet Kettle.

abbeyvet




msg:3264923
 2:01 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Truly qualified people are busy and the only way to really get them to share their knowledge is to give them something tangible in return beyond a warm fuzzy.

I am truly qualified, with years of practical experience in a subject area on which I have often been invited to speak to colleagues and students. Without meaning to appear immodest I am quite well known and believe that I am well respected in that particular field.

I am busy.

I regularly contribute to wikipedia in this subject area, and others when I feel I know enough for it to be of value. Not usually by creating whole articles, but adding to them, providing citations, editing a little and general tidying up for accuracy. I know several colleagues who do the same. I seriously doubt we are somehow unique. There is no way of knowing who wiki editors are, but it would be a mistake to assume that the well qualified and busy are not among them.

KenB




msg:3265016
 5:15 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

>This entire post is supposition and personal opinion devoid of any evidence to support said claims.
>Yes MFA's and the scraper sites are annoying but no evidence has been presented to support any belief that these sites are having any impact on the way people view legitimate commercial informational websites.
And precisely the same thing can (and should) be said about Wiki pages.
Pot, meet Kettle.

Sorry I don't follow the point you are trying to make. Please expound upon what you are saying.

I regularly contribute to wikipedia in this subject area, and others when I feel I know enough for it to be of value. Not usually by creating whole articles, but adding to them, providing citations, editing a little and general tidying up for accuracy. I know several colleagues who do the same. I seriously doubt we are somehow unique. There is no way of knowing who wiki editors are, but it would be a mistake to assume that the well qualified and busy are not among them.

Sure there will always be exceptions to any rule, but it is probably a safe bet that the well qualified are out numbered by those who just think they are well qualified, and since everything is anonymous we have no way of knowing what was written/vetted by a qualified person and what was edited by the self-important. In my niche Wikipedia is pretty much scoffed at as junk because of the lack of accountability created by anonymity.

futureX




msg:3265172
 10:37 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

No wiki does NOT have by design "good content" wiki has NO content, it is user driven. There is no way to verify that the information on any given wiki page is even *true* or not. If nobody edits an article, it can be total fairy-tale fiction and still get passed off as "fact"...

This is why I don't like wiki, the "content" is VERY unreliable.

Bit of a late reply, but what I mean by good content is keyword heavy, related content and its backlinks are very well targetted.

I do believe though that google has given them a boost, I have only really noticed WIKI coming up a lot for non-niche keywords in the past few months.

loner




msg:3265279
 12:56 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

wikipedia is top because of design. I've been doing the same thing since '96 (without the links in) but linking related words from one page to another. I'm not top on for each and every keyword for my geographic area, but I'm in more results consistantly- "clogging" the SE's. Cracks me up that everyone seemes to believe that if I weren't here they would be on top. Users can follow internal links for hours just following related words without ever going into a structured menu. Google's not giving them 'points.'

mattg3




msg:3265435
 3:12 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

noticed WIKI coming

A wiki is a type of software. Wikipedia is a webserver that uses this kind of software.

KenB




msg:3265465
 3:25 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Bit of a late reply, but what I mean by good content is keyword heavy, related content and its backlinks are very well targetted.

Thanks for the clarification and yes I agree this is a good explanation.
I do believe though that google has given them a boost, I have only really noticed WIKI coming up a lot for non-niche keywords in the past few months.

But I doubt it is a manual boost being targeted explicitly at Wikipedia. A more likely scenario is that the boost is simply a result in a change in algorithms that just happen to give boosts to any site with certain characteristics, which Wikipedia just happens to have.

wikipedia is top because of design. I've been doing the same thing since '96 (without the links in) but linking related words from one page to another. I'm not top on for each and every keyword for my geographic area, but I'm in more results consistantly- "clogging" the SE's.

Very good observations. I too have heavily cross linked pages since around the same time frame. I discovered early on that my page view to visit ration would seriously increase by simply providing more opportunities for people to find something else on my site that they are interested in.

I now use two menuing systems. The primary menu is a long drawn out vertical menu running down the side of the page (static links). The other is a hierarchical JavaScript based drop down menu and "tabs" across the top of each page (it is JavaScript based so that it doesn't have to get reloaded from page to page). The first menu is for bots and casual user surfing. The second menu is for mission oriented people. These two menus also ensure that there is a comprehensive menu on every page in the two spots people are most accustom to seeing menus. I also try to cross link articles and resources via a relegated articles/resources section at the bottom of some pages. This allows people to continue reading my other articles on the topic they are apparently interested in. I do some cross linking of articles and resources (ala Wikipedia) from keywords within articles, but this is pretty time consuming so it is limited.

Cracks me up that everyone seemes to believe that if I weren't here they would be on top. Users can follow internal links for hours just following related words without ever going into a structured menu. Google's not giving them 'points.'

I don't know if many follow internal links for hours, but internal links do really help extend the visits of users and improve visitor loyalty. Making stuff on one's site easy to find is really part of Website development 101.

pageoneresults




msg:3265488
 3:44 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

The Wiki is the World's Library.

Let's put aside all the external factors that have caused the Wiki to become the Authoritative Information Guerrilla.

Have you taken a close look at how the Wiki is structured? That site is the benchmark for what all of us should be striving towards.

They have very little code bloat. They've provided a clean indexing path for the bots. And, the HTML/XHTML validates. The interlinking structure is a piece of art. They still have some things to correct before being perfect but they are as close as it gets for a site of that size.

Wiki, you fail WAI Level A Conformance. Your CSS also has errors. Clean up those two issues and I'll be happy to cheer for you. But, leave my positions alone! ;)

hutcheson




msg:3265495
 3:51 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

>the well qualified are out numbered by those who just think they are well qualified, and since everything is anonymous we have no way of knowing what was written/vetted by a qualified person and what was edited by the self-important.

Ah, that clarifies everything. And self-important people, in your universe, don't create their own websites where they can promote themselves, but instead hide their importance by providing anonymous information where they can't promote themselves.

Here on planet earth it's mostly the other way around.

This 208 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 208 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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