homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.108.167
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
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 85 message thread spans 3 pages: 85 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Life After Google
affiliation




msg:4360007
 3:31 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

I thought I would share this with everyone to show Google may be King but Bing is most definately the Queen. It would be interesting to hear of similiar stories.

It can seem like the end of the world getting a G penality. I have had my share of them, the most recent at the start of the year a -50. The site was a high earning site and I was ready to hang the boots up and move on.

After the initial shock and numb feeling that lasted around three days, I decided that it was time to look at what to do and where to go. Looking at my stats traffic was down from a high of 18,000 to numbers that I had seen years ago, 800+. Not a single Google referal a few Yahoo and the rest of them Bing.

I thought perhaps it is worse than I thought. At the time I employed 5 people, all working on the site. Unfortunately one of them had to go immediately, a hard decission. I spent a few weeks pondering what was wrong with the site, reluctant to change it as it ranked at the top of it's field for years, and Google had to know about it as it was in a fiercly competitive bunch of results, and I had seen manual checks over the years.

I decided not to change anything in general, I ran a copyscape search for duplicate content, and although I found some people had copied a few pages of my content it was not bad. I found a few people had added sitewide links to me, although in my opinion if someone thinks your site is so good that they want to add a sitewide link to your site and if Google does not like it, then penalise them. When I was satisfied that nothing had changed, I submitted a reinclusion request saying exactly what I had done, as described above. After some time I got the standard reply, "if your site meets webmaster guidelines .. BLAH... BLAH".

I noticed I was still getting sales, so I began to investigate this. Sales were converting well with Bing, at less than 10% of the traffic that I had I was still making 25% of my usual sales. Obviously this is not enough to operate at the level and expense I was, so over the next few months I paid off another 3 staff, leaving myself and one employee.

I have had to accept now in the short term that there is no Google for me. Bing has convrted exceptional and now they are displayed in Yahoo results the future looks fair. I have now began to make my site SEO with not Google in mind but Bing. Sales have grown and I must thank Bing for not abandoning me. In my opinion Google is not only punishing me but they are also punishing their users by not displaying a product their users want at the position it should be.

As I bagan, Google is great and can make people a good living. My personal thought on Google penalities is, In any law abiding country you are innocent until proven guilty. Google justice seems you are guilty until proven innocent. Google should tell you what is wrong with your site and give a period of time to repair. Do the peple that hand out these penalities know that they are putting people out of jobs? After all in my company they have made 4 people be without a job.

My thoughts on how Google should handle penalities is, to tell you that your site is breaking thier rules, and how. That in 24 hours your site will be penalised and if you want to appeal this that you can begin a process, which will keep you positioned during this appeal process. There could be a fee for this appeal. I can see that Google will have to do something similiar to this in the future, as there will be someone or some company that will mount a legal challenge to their policy.

My advice for anyone with a penality, forget trying to fix it and begin to work with Bing.

 

1script




msg:4360147
 7:13 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

As a recent Google traffic amputee myself (only I fell a bit harder than you - from more traffic per day than you posted to ZERO) I can relate to the feeling. And yes, you're correct - both Bing and Yahoo convert better, whatever your conversion metric is. I see it myself and saw reported great many times before.

I don't know exactly what it is about Google but they punish people for "low quality" sites yet themselves deal us traffic that's sub-par at best. "Fleeting" is how I would describe your typical Google visitor. Always rushed to move onto something else...

Anyhow, all that said, and bravado aside, there's no substitute for Google traffic and they know it. They will never care about individual webmasters, even those operating larger sites, until there's a viable competitor.

This very forum contains perhaps thousands of very wise pieces of advise that go something like this: "build your online business as if Google does not exist". I find it disingenuous even when it comes from people I otherwise hold in high regard. Normally you hear that said by people that have been in the biz for more than a decade, have built-up their presence, link networks (not of the nefarious kind of course), have gotten links from places that by now reject any request for links etc., etc. - perks that come only with age ;)

Normally people (or firms) like these have nothing to worry about their own Google traffic - it'll never go away due to what seems like Google's blind trust into sites that existed before it. So, if you trust that you will NEVER, under any circumstance, loose your Google traffic (and your speed-dial has a MattC record), you will be very inclined to dish out advise like this.

For the rest of us though, there's no chance in hell you can build a viable business if you do not account for the difference between 18,000 visitors a day and 800 (to take your example). How do you size your servers? What size inventory should you keep? I don't even want to go into more technical details like caching, db replication etc.

If Google truly didn't exist, its role would likely be spread among several smaller companies, each only responsible for a fraction of your business. Not only would that be safer for you as a business, but competition would keep the search engines on their toes and I don't think a heavy-handed approach like banning sites without as much as a warning message would be practiced.

I wonder if the Justice Department would give Google as long of a free run as it did to the Bell System as far as anti-trust law is concerned. I just find the parallel striking in that Google itself (at least its impressing internet connections) own it to the 1984 divestiture (involuntary company breakup for those not old enough) of AT&T and subsequent formation of an actual competitive telecommunication market. It took them more than 30 years to settle the first anti-trust suit and another 70 years (!) until the monopoly was shattered.

Anyways, sorry for the long rant, gotta go find a way to earn living, post-Google style!

conroy




msg:4360204
 8:53 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

I agree 100% with the idea that they should tell you what's wrong with the site.

They used to keep their mouths closed on why any site was penalized for fear of people learning the limits and getting around these penalties. With Google's new focus on "quality" this really shouldn't be necessary anymore. They can simply tell you the reason why. These -50 penalties are excessive and not right. They should not be able to just eliminate a functioning company that they have ranked for YEARS to now consider it worth 0 traffic. Drop down a few positions, sure, but not eliminate you like this, not without recourse or reason.

johnhh




msg:4360225
 9:16 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

We didn't even get that response to a re-inclusion request , rather a "no manual penalty" and
As our algorithms change and as the web (including your site) changes, some fluctuation in ranking can happen as we make updates to present the best results to our users.
Like you , we have laid off everyone, cancelled all the sub-contractors, and consolidated servers.

But you are right there is a life after Google, in fact I may be less rich, but I feel happier, and will probably re-design the main site as don't have to worry about making the payroll every month, less paperwork and more time to add extra features.

We are really high up on Bing and Yahoo searches, so I can wait, but no Mr Google , I'm not going to chase you any more.

I will just check for technical errors etc and thats about it.

If it all comes back again, that would be nice though :)

chrisv1963




msg:4360229
 9:38 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

And yes, you're correct - both Bing and Yahoo convert better, whatever your conversion metric is. I see it myself and saw reported great many times before.


I'm seeing exactly the same thing. Lower bounce rates and about 50% more page views and time on site for visitors sent to us by Bing and Yahoo.

Conclusion: Google is sending the wrong people to our website and is no longer the best search engine.

wheel




msg:4360235
 9:55 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

I agree 100% with the idea that they should tell you what's wrong with the site.

Absolutely disagree. Google should penalize websites permanently. Otherwise, it's not really a penalty. You ride over the edge with SEO, get penalized, and two months later you're unpenalized, where's the motivation for people that don't break Google's TOS?

Live by sword, etc.

johnhh




msg:4360236
 9:59 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

Bing and Yahoo converts much better for us as well. Indeed we are seeing Google referrals from pages 5-70 in the SERPS (!), according to our stats, indicating that people are not finding what they want, especially over the last 7 days. The same pages on the site are on page 1-2 of Bing and Yahoo.

1script




msg:4360243
 10:07 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

Live by sword, etc.
Oh, that's a good one, wheel! I would put it a bit differently though. To me it looks like:

Live by the letter opener, die by the sword.

Or, yet another iteration given that the rules of engagement (the TOS) are the vaguest set of rules regulating a multi-billion dollar industry you've ever seen:


Live by the cloak, die by the cloak. (-50 penalty version)

or

Live by the cloak, die by the dagger. (ban version)

robzilla




msg:4360259
 10:54 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

After all in my company they have made 4 people be without a job.

Ha! Nope, that's your fault, your responsibility, not Google's. It's easy, blaming someone else for your failures, but no proper strategy. And don't think Bing won't catch up on you. You should adapt now as you should have adapted when you got the first penalty. Refusing to change anything when even an algorithm can tell that your site can't live up to the quality standards is a sure sign that you won't ever be able to revive it.

This thread, like many others, is all about 'getting even' with Google. Pointless. You've got to roll with/learn from the punches!

johnhh




msg:4360263
 11:33 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

This thread, like many others, is all about 'getting even' with Google
odd - I thought it was about life after Google
justrobin




msg:4360272
 11:49 pm on Sep 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

I have been reading about G breakdown in this thread and sympathy among victims of G penalties. I think the changes brought by google is just fitting for online business. They may sound weird but I guess if we are able to adjust and adapt to these changes then we can say that it is normal. Bing, Yahoo and other search engine are also doing good but not as much as Google does.

What does OP means bout " Life after Google"?

walkman




msg:4360275
 12:15 am on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)


Ha! Nope, that's your fault, your responsibility, not Google's. It's easy, blaming someone else for your failures, but no proper strategy. And don't think Bing won't catch up on you. You should adapt now as you should have adapted when you got the first penalty. Refusing to change anything when even an algorithm can tell that your site can't live up to the quality standards is a sure sign that you won't ever be able to revive it.

This thread, like many others, is all about 'getting even' with Google. Pointless. You've got to roll with/learn from the punches!

Unless you've seen his site and his competitors I wouldn't be as trigger happy as you. We know how accurate the famous Google algos are, next week he may come back without changing a word and you'll look like a complete fool.

As for accepting that G has and will have 70+% so work without them, I disagree. The webmaster and tech people elevated them to that market share and if we feel that they are being irresponsible, greedy or manipulating the SERPs for greed we should express our opinions to as many people as possible. Google does not own the internet nor search, at this time they hold a certain market share and that will /should change.

Being penalized out of the blue will ruin everyone's day, no matter how big you are. With 50%-80% of people using search engines to find info, no site can afford to have that written off. We should hold Google's feet to the fire (to the extent they care for the non-NYT crowd) and promote alternative engines. What's good for Google is not necessarily good for the internet...and I'm being generous.

1one1




msg:4360383
 6:56 am on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

I too have felt the wrath of G, Florida update hit me hard, really hard, so I feel your pain.
I have since reevaluted and moved on, now pure squeaky clean white hat not making as much money as before but it seems to be a more stable income, it does annoy me though when I see black/dark grey hat sites ranking above me, I usually report them, I am hoping it is just a matter of time before they get penalised and I take their place but not holding my breath as its a long waiting game to play, so I am not seeing great rewads from obeying the TOS compared to disobeying them.

IMHO Since G became a public company their priorities have changed, used to be:
#1 Users
now it appears to be:
#1 Share Holders
#2 Users

But, wadayagunado?

affiliation




msg:4360407
 8:31 am on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Ha! Nope, that's your fault, your responsibility, not Google's. It's easy, blaming someone else for your failures, but no proper strategy. And don't think Bing won't catch up on you. You should adapt now as you should have adapted when you got the first penalty. Refusing to change anything when even an algorithm can tell that your site can't live up to the quality standards is a sure sign that you won't ever be able to revive it.

This thread, like many others, is all about 'getting even' with Google. Pointless. You've got to roll with/learn from the punches!


A little harsh, who creates the algorithm? Looking back to why I was 'punched' it could have been a prelude to the brand adaption that Google are running with now. Is it my fault that some brands are larger than mine? Is this worth a penality? This is not getting even with Google, it is to show there is a living to be made without Google. I have other sites I have created and want to be part of Google, but I now make sure part of my SEO is for Bing, and that does not mean that I am doing anything black or even grey.

If I commit a crime and caught for it, I am first charged and eventually brought to court. Some guilty people manage to get off with the charge but most are convicted. Every now and then you hear of a miscarriage of justice, that innocent people have been found guilty, but the good thing about justice is that you are able to put your defence to a court and the jury decide if you are guilty or not. At the moment these penalities are another form of internment, imprisonment without trial.

SEOPTI




msg:4360408
 8:32 am on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Yeah, Google does not care, they will kick your ass whenever and whereever they want, go for Bing and Yahoo. Bing has no paranoia. Goog is build on paranoia spam filters which suck all the time, they are losers.

Look at their -50 manual reviews and -950 re-rakning paranoia #*$!, they protect their search engine all the time and do tons of collateral damage, but they do not care, it is like Chicago with Al Capone, they can do whatever they want and kick your ass anytime. In my eyes they are simply high tech gangsters looking for a new world order... in real life they would probably shoot people to make more and more $$$$$$$$. A new world order with Goog President is their only goal. I believe in U.S. this is called parasites.

Stop the parasites, you should realize goog is a virus:

User-Agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /

HuskyPup




msg:4360428
 9:48 am on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

but I now make sure part of my SEO is for Bing


How do you do that? I construct my pages the same and have equally top results.

The only complaint I have about Bing at the moment is that it seems to be very S L O W at picking up on my new pages and sites otherwise it's a good resource along with DuckDuckGo and Grobe.it seems pretty good at times, Yandex seems to be very hit and miss, my pages are either hero or zero however I have the confidence they will get there! Baidu...well, I just have no idea what they are doing!

It's not just a G v B/Y world and it's up to all of us to educate the masses, just like we promoted G, and spread the search love around more responsibly.

All new computer installations I do have Bing as their search default now and as other people have noted the average user experiences no discernible difference.

wheel




msg:4360461
 11:27 am on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Or, yet another iteration given that the rules of engagement (the TOS) are the vaguest set of rules regulating a multi-billion dollar industry you've ever seen:

Rules? What rules. Google doesn't have to give you rules, tell you how to rank or what gets penalized.

And few if any get penalized by bending the 'rules' of Google's guidelines one time. Normally it's the result of stepping way over the known guidelines, repeatedly and sustained. It should hardly be a shock.

And sometimes, you'll get demoted just because they did an algo shift and you don't fit the new calculations. No rules, and they don't have to tell you this.

As noted, the point here - and it's a good one, is that Bing can produce some level of conversions. I don't touch bing myself but I know in my industry it produces some of the best sales there is.

mhansen




msg:4360514
 2:03 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

All new computer installations I do have Bing as their search default now and as other people have noted the average user experiences no discernible difference.


Similar here. We have access to sizable crowd of listeners, and encourage website visitors, clients, and friends to give Bing a try if they are not happy with Google.

"Unhappy with Search Results? Give Bing a Try"

We find Bing traffic much more rewarding as well. From Google we get a lot of tire-kickers and some buyers. From Bing we get a lot of Buyers and some tire-kickers. Bing just delivers a higher quality visitor for us.

Off topic - kinda...

Google really does have a LOT of great tools, they're just getting kinda creepy with all the influence they have over the online economy, which trickles directly to the local economy. They remind me of a power-hungry Gov't... and until "we the people" can vote in another keeper of the web, they will use their power to do as they wish.

affiliation




msg:4360516
 2:05 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

How do you do that? I construct my pages the same and have equally top results.


I agree it can take a while to get new sites to get indexed, but I have found Bing webmaster tools a help and as GWT is part of your SEO when in Google, I now make sure BWT is part of my SEO for Bing.

conroy




msg:4360526
 2:19 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Absolutely disagree. Google should penalize websites permanently. Otherwise, it's not really a penalty. You ride over the edge with SEO, get penalized, and two months later you're unpenalized, where's the motivation for people that don't break Google's TOS?

Live by sword, etc.


Really? Google apparently believes this, except of course for big sites - like JCPenny - who did things 10x overboard what any of these -50 sites have done. Yet what did Google say? A penalty more than 2 months would be excessively harsh? You're crazy. The motivation to not break the TOS is to not get penalized at all.

This really isn't that difficult.

Problem areas:

1. On page SEO -> Manual penalty hits for overdoing it. You should be able to fix and get back in reliably. Is excessive on page seo really gaining anyone anything? They should be able to tell you what's wrong if this is an issue.

2. Off page SEO manipulation -> Manual penalty for a period of time. Site is allowed back in after a period of time and the links are devalued. Site has now wasted many months of effort and money on these tactics. Again, Google themselves when speaking in public is forced to say that any longer than a few month penalty is excessively harsh.

This is all assuming the site is quality. If the site isn't quality then Google's algorithm should pick it up and deal with it. Quality should not be judged by manual penalties.


Fact is, when Google had to speak publicly about a penalty, they acted rightly. The penalty sticks for a period of time and then it is over. If it's due to linking most/all of your links are devalued so you have to start again. It's harsh enough.

wheel




msg:4360529
 2:27 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Yeah I'm crazy. You think Google cares about your penalty? You're delusional if you think that. The fact is, if you ride the edge, you should be prepared to get penalized permanently - because Google has absolutely no motivation to let you back into the serps after you've proven that you're screwing with them. It's not about what's right about your site, it's about whether google could care at all if your site is even in the serps - their's a million other sites waiting to take your place that haven't been shown that they disregard Google's guidelines.

And there are sites that have effectively been permanently penalized. I've spoken to people who had their sites disappear and their businesses collapse without any hope of returning. It happens, and it's only right.

tedster




msg:4360543
 3:02 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

About the conversion level for Google Search traffic compared to Bing/Yahoo, I've long wondered what the difference is caused by. It's not only intentional tinkering with traffic quality on Google's side, or their creation of their own properties in the SERPs. The conversion level difference was always there, even back in the MSN Search days.

For some reason Microsoft's search demographic has always converted better for me, and Google has always seemed to be more about research and window shopping.

walkman




msg:4360568
 3:29 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

For some reason Microsoft's search demographic has always converted better for me, and Google has always seemed to be more about research and window shopping.

Google somehow keeps more buyers for themselves / 'makes' them click on ads? Bing is losing money (part catch-up infrastructure probably but still) and Google announces record earnings each time even as they lose market share.

eHow had /has a business model: read a bit of so-so content and get the real answer by clicking on ads. Would most people visiting G know or care that they were ads? In many monitors the ad/content bg colors are identical and 'ads' is written in tiny letters, way to the right and in almost hidden text color. Google even brags about their data mining capability so who knows what the LSI and personalization are truly about? Now they eve change your title, description and meaning of the page (and ironically might even penalize your entire site if visitors from G are not 'engaged')'

If it walks like a duck...we need to see if it may really be a duck. Not sure how an average user will react if 'jeans' brings, say, Nordstrom, Macys...Gap in top. Or the major insurance cos for 'insurance.' Maybe they'll click on an ad for a less expensive store or a insurance comparison site? All these can be tracked, quantified and of course adjusted to your history, income, region, site visit history etc etc.... So, for example, if I'm rich and G knows it, and Target shows #1 for 'jeans', I might click on a Nordstrom ad.

Just wondering out loud.

netmeg




msg:4360576
 3:44 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

For some reason Microsoft's search demographic has always converted better for me, and Google has always seemed to be more about research and window shopping.


I don't see this in organic so much, but very markedly in PPC. Too bad the volume isn't there yet.

tangor




msg:4360586
 3:56 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

One of the oddies, I guess. Never coded/wooed G, thus B Y and (remember A?) worked fine. Still do. Offering a service (on some sites, some are hobby, etc.) and not chasing the elusive golden goose (there isn't one). By the same token, I offer no impediments for the above named list. I just do biz...

I don't believe there's a magic bullet, but like all here, I keep looking! :)

1script




msg:4360591
 4:00 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

I've spoken to people who had their sites disappear and their businesses collapse without any hope of returning. It happens, and it's only right.
Let's talk when your sites disappears permanently, shall we? What you say may all ring true in theory and in an ideal world. In practice though, nothing is ideal. The algo is written by people. People make mistakes. The ban is handed out by people. People make mistakes. A reviewer might have a bad day or clicked a wrong button. I'm not saying that's what's happened, I'm saying it's entirely possible.

Also, all that talk about walking the edge: where does that come from? You sound like someone who knows exactly where the edge is. Me, personally: I'm not so sure. In all these years my "SEO efforts" meager as they were, were all targeted at avoiding making a big mistake. Canonical issues - check! Crawlability-check! etc. I thought that was safe - much safer than to push the boundaries, which is what you describe. I never wanted to find the edge - it found me on its own accord.

Anyhow, getting back to the topic of this conversation: a silver lining in getting banned from Google must be in that now, with Googlebot gone, I have TONS more bandwidth and CPU for the actual users. The sites are flying - a delight to browse them, I have not seen them work this well in years.
The ratio of bandwidth consumed by Gbot to the traffic received from Google is not looking very favorably for Google. It's about 1/5th of the ratio for Bing for the one site I checked. I'm going to do more research on that - maybe there are some interesting conclusions to be made here. Like throttling down Gbot access on other, not yet banned, sites.

Cheers!

walkman




msg:4360592
 4:02 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Netmeg, how are Bing prices compared to Google usually? I can't buy the "mydomain name" keyword on Google and make money, just too much competition from cash rich start-ups and old timers. Maybe I should take time to set up a Bing acct and give it a shot.

wheel




msg:4360605
 4:33 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Let's talk when your sites disappears permanently, shall we?

My sites don't disappear, never mind permanently. Never. Not in almost 10 years - not since I started. They don't even get algo bans.

But apparently the people that frequent this forum seem to think that makes someone inept. Personally I think if you're looking to succeed, then asking the local failure isn't quite the way to go. Right up there with asking the local homeless guy for money making ideas. Well, he's failed so he must know what he's talking about. Personally the person I look to for a business mentor is on his way to becoming a billionaire, and he never fails.

Just because you didn't plan or account for this doesn't mean I don't know how to build my business so that it's proof against this stuff. My rankings prove otherwise.

AlyssaS




msg:4360617
 5:10 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

About the conversion level for Google Search traffic compared to Bing/Yahoo, I've long wondered what the difference is caused by. It's not only intentional tinkering with traffic quality on Google's side, or their creation of their own properties in the SERPs. The conversion level difference was always there, even back in the MSN Search days.

For some reason Microsoft's search demographic has always converted better for me, and Google has always seemed to be more about research and window shopping.


I think it's two things

1. Bing/MSN users are older (and thus probably wealthier) - they got their hotmail account way back when and still use it and even search from within it. Or they search using defaults in I.E. What's more they trust the #1 listing, if it's No. 1 it must be good and they feel comfortable buying. G users are younger and less trusting.

2. There is no Instant on Bing - which means they serve the result only after the searcher has finished telling it exactly what they want - so the match is likely to be closer to what the searcher wants than G's guess based on a couple of letters. G's algo might be fine for the correct phrase, but G interrupts the customer from typing it in. Garbage search query in, garbage result out.

wheel




msg:4360618
 5:11 pm on Sep 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

1. Bing/MSN users are older (and thus probably wealthier)

This is what I've seen in the past. Bing users older,wealthier, looking to buy. Grampa uses Bing. Google, younger and more tech crowd doing research. My kids use Google.

This 85 message thread spans 3 pages: 85 ( [1] 2 3 > >
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