homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.75.155
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 245 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 245 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 > >     
The return of competitors hurting your backlink profile?
realmaverick




msg:4434183
 11:09 pm on Mar 27, 2012 (gmt 0)

Those who have been around over the past 5-10 years, will likely remember when it was possible for a competitor to harm your rankings, by bombing your website, with masses of links. Just as you could rank a website by stuffing it with keywords.

To counter this, Google employed a kind of "links can do no harm" philosophy. So questionable links were simply discounted.

Over the years, it's become accepted that competitors cannot harm your rankings with links. This had always been my experience too. For years my website has been victim of various malicious campaigns. Links to our website and several other competitors appeared on hacked Wordpress websites along with viagra/pharmaceutical type websites.

But despite the efforts, our rankings remained unaffected, which is the way it should be. A competitor should not be able to harm you. A competitor should not be able to undo your hard work.

Unfortunately, in recent months, post Panda, more and more webmasters have received messages from Google, alerting them of unnatural linking practices, followed by drops in SERPS and traffic.

Google have made a complete u-turn and now rather than discrediting links it deems unnatural, it instead penalises the websites receiving them.

Since Panda, all of the talk and focus has been on on-site factors, such as ad placement, thin content etc and most websites have failed to bounce back. I'm wondering whether that's because, it's got nothing to do with their website, but their link profile?

A couple of months ago, I did a test on a page, of a website I wasn't too concerned about. I chose a page, that had a first page rank for over a year, for it's target term.

I purchased 150 links, using 3 variations of anchor text, to see if it would harm the rankings. Within a week, the rankings were gone. They remained AWOL for 6 weeks. I eventually managed to get the links removed, and the rankings recently returned.

This was a little too easy, for my liking. Actually it's disturbing and a huge step backwards.

Google needs to seriously reconsider the choice to penalise websites, with questionable links pointing to them.

But I am not reading much discussion about the subject and hoping we can generate some interest and awareness of the problem here. Google needs to address this problem.

I believe my main website, has been victim, WebmasterWorld supporters can read more about it in the Google SEO forum. I haven't received a message to inform me of an unnatural link profile, but looking at my inbound links, there are some questionable links there. And after 6 years or so of success, on January 21st, my traffic has dropped significantly.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

rlange




msg:4441451
 1:22 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

fathom wrote:
Unproven theories are commonly called myths.

Just because 100s, 1000s or millions believe Elvis is alive... doesn't make it true.

Billions of observations are made every day and all have the same result, yet our understanding of gravitation is still a theory.

--
Ryan

fathom




msg:4441463
 1:43 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

Billions of observations are made every day and all have the same result, yet our understanding of gravitation is still a theory.

--
Ryan


Billions every day?

No wonder why your credibility is shot all to ****. Your estimates suck.

It is human nature when someone yells the sky is falling for some to look up, others to duck, and many more take up the yelling cause because of mob mentality.

Shaddows




msg:4441501
 2:45 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

I really think the quality of debate would be helped by reducing the personal attacks. "Millions" possibly "Billions" of observations require a fixed concept of gravity to give meaningful results. And if you include pendulum clocks, GPS applications (satalites use gravity), telecomunications etc, I suspect the number isn't even rhetorical. And even if it was, hyperbole isn't the greatest sin on this thread.

Anyway, does anyone have an answer to fathom's material points, which I understand to be (although will no doubt be corrected)

- fathom Link Spams from his domains to customer domains. This burns his domains, but helps his customers. Eventually the links lose power and are discounted, BUT THIS IS NOT A PENALTY.

- No one has first hand experience of a domain being taken down by Paid Links, whereby timelines synchronise.

- Everyone says they "know" someone who either did this, or had it done to them, but this sounds more like the standard Urban Legend formula.

- Google can potentially tie manipultive behaviour to the site owner through myriad tracking techniques. IF penalisation happens, it is due to detection via tracking, not in response to existance of links per se

- Hypothetical (since I think a technical correction of the use of "theory" in science might be in order) competitor is all well and good, but remains hypothetical. Unless you can knock over a domain you DO NOT OWN and CANNOT BE TIED TO you have not demonstrated the principle.

For me, the key point is this:

Fundamentally, why is there not a vast army of disenfranchised site owners, posting everywhere, about how black-hat SEOs are literally blasting entire mid-range niches? If it is easy, one or both of these would be true
A) A real industry (not just a posited one) would be selling services. None can be found. Maybe they spend all their time taking each other out? Who knows.
B) MFA creators would be going to town. It's all very well chasing the returns on marginal queries. Its quite another to totally dominate a number of markets for a finite cost. The ROI potential is incredible. Literally.

Anyway, I am actually surprised that no one has tried to demonstrate this practically, preffering to argue in the abstract. Maybe one of the SEO News sites might run a competition...

rlange




msg:4441503
 2:54 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

fathom wrote:
Billions every day?

No wonder why your credibility is shot all to ****. Your estimates suck.

My estimates are fine; probably a bit low, actually. Every single person on this planet observes the effects of gravity. Every day. By jumping, walking down a flight of stairs, dropping something, and even by simply not flying off the surface of the planet.

Yet it's still a theory. We don't yet know how it works, which leaves open the possibility, however slim, that the next time you jump, you won't come back down.

All aspects of SEO are much the same, except with far fewer tests and far more frequent changes to its "universal laws". What you knew to be impossible yesterday may be possible today. That includes competitors harming you with backlinks.

--
Ryan

rlange




msg:4441515
 3:24 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

Shaddows wrote:
- fathom Link Spams from his domains to customer domains. This burns his domains, but helps his customers. Eventually the links lose power and are discounted, BUT THIS IS NOT A PENALTY.

Of course not. However, if you purchase links and the target page sees a negative affect soon afterwards, that should raise an eyebrow regardless of who's responsible for the purchase.

- No one has first hand experience of a domain being taken down by Paid Links, whereby timelines synchronise.

I admit to not having this experience.

- Everyone says they "know" someone who either did this, or had it done to them, but this sounds more like the standard Urban Legend formula.

I agree, but your next point falls into this category, too:

- Google can potentially tie manipultive behaviour to the site owner through myriad tracking techniques. IF penalisation happens, it is due to detection via tracking, not in response to existance of links per se

This is, at best, a theory. I'm not personally aware of any case in which Google has provided evidence linking the site owner to the questionable links for which the site is being penalized. I would hope that they have it, but if they don't divulge that information to anyone, the best we can do is speculate.

Anyway, I am actually surprised that no one has tried to demonstrate this practically, preffering to argue in the abstract.

There's literally no other option given the rules of this forum. When you can't be specific, it's extremely easy for people to accuse others of lies and incompetence. The discussion would have to be moved elsewhere if anyone expects evidence. The only "evidence" anyone has on WebmasterWorld is "me, too".

--
Ryan

enigma1




msg:4441523
 3:40 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

I am actually surprised that no one has tried to demonstrate this practically

Actually we kinda tried but was censored, it maybe the question is in the wrong forum.

Shaddows




msg:4441531
 3:54 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

- Google can potentially tie manipultive behaviour to the site owner through myriad tracking techniques. IF penalisation happens, it is due to detection via tracking, not in response to existance of links per se

This is, at best, a theory. I'm not personally aware of any case in which Google has provided evidence linking the site owner to the questionable links for which the site is being penalized. I would hope that they have it, but if they don't divulge that information to anyone, the best we can do is speculate.

Ok, in terms of the level of evidence being asked for in this thread, your point is fair.

In the real world, it is not. It is completely incontrovertible that Google collects data. Personal data. Lots of it. Any way they can. They even made you sign a new policy to explicitly allow them to share that information between business units.

Now, I'm not saying paid links get you penalised. Ever.

But, if I read him correctly through the polemic, fathom is saying penalties ONLY come through self-incriminating behaviour, and Google has quite a few tools to detect this. And an army of data analysts paid to detect it. And probably the most powerful distributed number-crunching infrastructure in the world to assist them. Oh, and the stated aim of taking out SEOs.

fathom




msg:4441539
 4:14 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

Since this is public and posted in SEO blogs as well...

Matt_Cutts wrote:
I just say thanks for this report. We got a lot of useful data from it--in addition to (just recently) taking action on things that violate our quality guidelines.

http://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/#!category-topic/webmasters/crawling-indexing--ranking/ijWv16kKCjY

The network was mine... lost it all. The customers didn't lose a thing (but the paid links) their ranks and traffic remained long enough for us to rebuild (over 2 months).

That isn't the interesting part... AndyCho was so upset that he setup his own network, got results and lost everything over the course of the 1 month thread.

I'll concede "I probably suck at Negative SEO" I'm just not very competent at it.


Mod's note: Fixed Google Groups url to display. WebmasterWorld redirect script breaks on hash character.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 6:03 pm (utc) on Apr 16, 2012]
[edit reason] fixed code [/edit]

rlange




msg:4441648
 8:55 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

Shaddows wrote:
But, if I read him correctly through the polemic, fathom is saying penalties ONLY come through self-incriminating behaviour [...]

This may not be true. J.C. Penney appears to have been penalized as a result of The New York Times' accusation. While I'd agree it would be a stretch to claim that a competitor ponied up the money it must have required to create such a spammy backlink profile, I haven't seen a story mention that Google confirmed with J.C. Penney, prior to the penalty, that J.C. Penney was in fact responsible.

I'm not sure of the exact sequence of events, so it may be possible that Google contacted J.C. Penney, J.C. Penney talked to their SEO company, their SEO company admitted to the activity, J.C. Penney passed that information back to Google, then Google penalized J.C. Penney, but the admittedly few articles I've read about the event don't give that impression.

I don't believe that "Google penalizes sites only as a result of self-incrimination" has been reasonably established. With Google's lack of transparency, I doubt it will ever be established with any certainty.

[...] and Google has quite a few tools to detect this. And an army of data analysts paid to detect it.

J.C. Penney's activity was rather large and went completely unnoticed by Google until The New York Times called their attention to it. fathom's own network appears to have been another case of Google failing to detect a large link network.

If these tools exist, they must suck. As far as I can tell, Google relies significantly on either others or themselves simply stumbling upon these activities.

fathom wrote:
The network was mine... lost it all. The customers didn't lose a thing (but the paid links) their ranks and traffic remained [...]

I don't doubt that this is true, but it does seem rather bizarre. They didn't even lose whatever benefit they gained from participating in your network? Sounds like Google dropped the ball on that.

--
Ryan

mrguy




msg:4441663
 9:38 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

I don't doubt that this is true, but it does seem rather bizarre. They didn't even lose whatever benefit they gained from participating in your network? Sounds like Google dropped the ball on that.


Yes, the way Google talks about how evil buying links is, they should of been nuked along with the network.

Without snitches, a well built link network will not get caught. Why do you think MC always trolls for input for their spam department.

fathom




msg:4441672
 9:45 pm on Apr 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

I don't doubt that this is true, but it does seem rather bizarre. They didn't even lose whatever benefit they gained from participating in your network? Sounds like Google dropped the ball on that.


OK I'll buy that... and that is what your competitor claims sound like... Google dropping the ball.

Makes more sense though than mystical evil competitors that never materialize.

AlyssaS




msg:4442737
 12:42 am on Apr 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

OK - we've now got our first confirmed case study on negative SEO - an attack on Dan Thies's site, which he has confirmed in Google webmaster forums.

Here's the case study (Moderators, I'm linking to another forum, which I know is against the rules, but can you please make an exception for the thread I'm linking 'cause it's kind of important):

[trafficplanet.com...]

Here are the results of the attack:

seofaststart.com
dan thies - number 1 (still number 1)
seo - not in top 1000 (down from number 11)
seo service - not in top 1000 (down from number 34)
seo book - number 34 (down from number 3)

Update: The guys from traffic planet targetted another site, negativeseo.me ('cause they thought it was funny to negative seo a negative seo).

Anyway, "negativeseo" has responded to a thread in the Warrior Forum - see [warriorforum.com...]

Anyway, the upshot is that he says he took out justgoodcars.com, for the keywords used cars, used cars for sale, value my car, car valuation, used Nissan, used Honda and he details the method in his post

[edited by: AlyssaS at 1:07 am (utc) on Apr 19, 2012]

garyr_h




msg:4442738
 12:54 am on Apr 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

@rlange that is ridiculous. There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between a "theory" and a *scientific theory*.

A scientific theory is when someone makes a hypothosis and then makes observations and experiments to test it. It is then tested, retested, retested, and retested again hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of times and they must get the *exact* same result every single billion time. THEN it is finally a theory.

Saying that you make an observation and it is true to you does not make it comparable to a scientific theory. It makes it anecdotal evidence. If it was comparable to a scientific theory, then every single person on this board would agree with you.

Just like every single person *knows* gravity is real. That is what makes it a "theory".

DO NOT get a scientific theory mixed up with a mojojumbo "theory" that people throw around. A scientific theory IS NOT just someone making a claim or one person making the claim.

fathom




msg:4442771
 2:30 am on Apr 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

While some of the ideas seem brilliantly malicious - it's quite debatable that the website was #11 for SEO before they started.

Being ranked #34 isn't a game changer to any domain IMHO and as for SEO Book well as it is a well established brand so it seems the value is moot (or lack thereof).

If these are the true values of negative SEO it isn't worth much.

I will agree that research is the key to success in any strategy and understanding a websites' vulnerabilities are essential but clearly having vulnerabilities and fixing them is where the money is... not exploiting them.

Spending alot of time brainstorming means at some point you need to get return. I'm puzzled now... a having a successful negative business for years and exposing yourself is a legal vulnerability.

Getting a subpoena to gather privilege information from the companies use to exploit vulnerabilities is cheaper than the cost to fuel these campaigns it seems.

I'll bet Negative SEO Countermeasure Companies would get better public support.

Oh what a web we weave!

rlange




msg:4442994
 2:12 pm on Apr 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

Google appears to be automating the unnatural link detection and penalization process.

The New Google Link Algorithm [branded3.com]

[...] we have analysed over 50 reputable websites who have received the message and/or a direct penalty causing a reduction in rankings.

Based on this experience we have observed the following:
  • If you get this message in your Webmaster Tools account then it is likely that the site will receive a penalty within weeks
  • We have seen several instances where the penalty was given exactly 21 days after the link notice
  • Strangely we have also had people contact us with a penalty and no link notice. Sometimes the link notice followed after the penalty
  • The penalty is usually phrase based – sites lose rankings for all keywords related to the ones used in the anchor text of the links Google has identified as being “unnatural”
  • The penalty is too sharp to be purely link devaluation – in most cases the landing pages being hit fall lower than they would rank with no links at all
  • For the worst offenders the penalty can be sitewide

This doesn't exactly match the experience realmaverick described in the opening post, though. First, realmaverick made no mention of a message. Of course, that could mean he was simply one of those people who never received a message. Second, the time-to-apparent-penalty was a lot quicker than what these folks have observed.

When contacting sites make sure that you ask who placed the link so that you can get in touch with the link-builder directly. We had a case 2 weeks ago where we were removing links placed by a UK agency and found that they had outsourced the work to a member of the Digital Point forums. He admitted to placing links across 600 domains and was happy to remove them for a fee – this dramatically sped up the link clean-up process.

Here we have quite a distance between the links and the client (links -> some forum member -> some agency -> client). Google's algorithm is brilliant if it could unravel that, but I seriously doubt that's what happened.

--
Ryan

crobb305




msg:4443044
 3:56 pm on Apr 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

We have seen several instances where the penalty was given exactly 21 days after the link notice


This was my experience. Notice March 2, ranking drop 300 positions (for a specific key phrase) 21 days later.

Sometimes the link notice followed after the penalty

JohnMu said on the Google Groups forum a week or so ago: "While we have just recently started sending out these messages, they may apply to issues that were already known (and affecting your site's standing in our search results) for a while."

If the notice I received on March 2 has already led to a penalty on my site, it was highly key-word specific. Longtails remain intact.

So the penalty may be yet to come or may have already occurred. I suppose it's most likely to have already occurred for those who received the notice early on.

realmaverick




msg:4444077
 3:23 am on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

The domain I tested on, wasn't linked to analytics or GWT. So I am not sure whether it would have gotten a message or not.

It didn't hurt the entire website. It hurt the page that was aggressively built to and the keywords I used to link with.

Negative SEO is very much real.

Now, lets just wait for it to be abused the #*$! out of, then for Google to realise it was a bad move and remove the penalties.

Talk about history repeating itself. I'd like to think Google are smart enough to learn from lessons, but apparently not.

fathom




msg:4444087
 4:12 am on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

The domain I tested on, wasn't linked to analytics or GWT. So I am not sure whether it would have gotten a message or not.


If I eat a hamburger and fart... I could say that the hamburger cause me to fart... but implying that hamburger causes everyone to fart isn't necessarily true... it isn't logical to blame the hamburger unless you eliminate all other potential causes.

It didn't hurt the entire website. It hurt the page that was aggressively built to and the keywords I used to link with.


If a man believes "tomorrow I'm going to die," he will generally find a way to make it happen. In other words, if you have a problem already brewing in your domain adding something new isn't necessarily the cause. What you get is a false positive.

Negative SEO is very much real.


Screaming at the wind means you are screaming at the wind... tripping and falling doesn't mean the wind pushed you over.

rlange




msg:4444219
 1:03 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

fathom wrote:
If I eat a hamburger and fart... I could say that the hamburger cause me to fart... but implying that hamburger causes everyone to fart isn't necessarily true... it isn't logical to blame the hamburger unless you eliminate all other potential causes.

Is it illogical for pharmaceutical companies to include warnings about the side effects of their drugs even though they don't occur with every use of the drug?

Just because "negative SEO" doesn't work reliably in every situation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By that logic, regular SEO doesn't exist because it doesn't work reliably in every situation.

--
Ryan

fathom




msg:4444256
 2:07 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Ryan I won't bother to dispute the existence of people that will attempt black hat techniques on others in the hope to produce that which they experienced themselves by deploying black hat tactics and all the losses they have personally suffered from 100's of times over... but that doesn't mean this hasn't been the way of things since 1998 (for google anyway)

I dispute these:
    1. There is actually a potential for a niche market of even limited size
    2. Sustainability... not in service deliverables nor financial success in yourself or financial distress for others
    3. No risk of repercussions (loss of user accounts for service violations)
    4. You won't be sued for unfair business practices
    5. You won't be criminally charged under conspiracy laws


My overall point... you can buy a gun, you can owe a gun, you can license a gun, you can shoot a gun, and you can even kill small furry creatures with a gun and protect yourself with a gun.

What you cannot do is kill people "just because you can".

Moreover, most gun owners would never attempt this (but they could if they wanted to right?) which is the gist of this thread.

If you wanted to neg SEO someone you could try... I don't dispute you could. What I dispute Ryan... you wouldn't be very good at it... and because you lack the experience and by proxy would have hire a 3rd party to commit this and you wouldn't do that either... why?

The above list and the one quoted most often... "I'm not unethical"

But that doesn't mean you couldn't try this on your unethical self... because "that's different".

mslina2002




msg:4444324
 4:49 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

OK - we've now got our first confirmed case study on negative SEO - an attack on Dan Thies's site, which he has confirmed in Google webmaster forums.

Here's the case study (Moderators, I'm linking to another forum, which I know is against the rules, but can you please make an exception for the thread I'm linking 'cause it's kind of important):


Thanks Alyssa for the update. That is some case study. Don't know how real but certainly an interesting read and something to be aware of.

realmaverick




msg:4444375
 7:01 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Fathom, I think it's about time you did a couple of your own tests. Rather than calling BS on everybody else's that backs up the theory.

Robert Charlton




msg:4444395
 7:47 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Mod's note: My thanks to Alyssa too. We've allowed Alyssa's link and several others because of the special nature of this situation.

In general, please note that we will not allow outside forum or blog links.

realmaverick




msg:4444396
 7:50 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Thanks Robert, yes, it definitely aids the discussion.

kidder




msg:4444423
 10:37 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I've now seen two sites hit with hefty drops after the dreaded WMT notice. Run a search on negative SEO and you will find these services popping up all over. Google has traded one mess for another.

seoskunk




msg:4444428
 10:47 pm on Apr 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Its a sad fact negative seo does exist and they can really damage a site. I remember talking to a guy from McCafree who was telling me how a competitor paid a 15 year old kid to do negative seo and he managed to close the company.

Its a industry not a myth. One google allows to exist as it can be easily ended with a tool to reject links in WMT.

fathom




msg:4444527
 6:08 am on Apr 24, 2012 (gmt 0)


Fathom, I think it's about time you did a couple of your own tests. Rather than calling BS on everybody else's that backs up the theory.


If you get tunnel vision you don't see the whole picture.

Dan Thies has substantial increased SEO traffic to his domain since this started... thanks to Negative SEO. So I stand corrected it really does work for something. Unintentional side effects are a real *****!

If you research the car domain you will find the owner has been having Neg SEO problems for 2 years... (sort of) surely when your internal developments for years are as a mirror image to the neg claim and both need to be public you cannot hide.

So YES black hat still works... but it isn't sustainable nor predictable.

Also an objective look at neg SEO results suggests alot of talk but very few domains offering services and out of those confirmed independent neg SEO companies with a proven track record, customer reviews, oh and don't forget to ask for references.

fathom




msg:4444548
 7:04 am on Apr 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Its a sad fact negative seo does exist and they can really damage a site. I remember talking to a guy from McCafree who was telling me how a competitor paid a 15 year old kid to do negative seo and he managed to close the company.


LOL... isn't that the same guy that sold his great grandmother into forced prostitution? I heard about that!

Since the company is defunct it isn't against TOS here to name the defunct company (like say worldcom... or maybe it was lehman brothers).

As unsubstantiated claims bolster nothing but ones gullibility.

Case in point... how would the kid know (or this guy) appreciate why the company closed... he was their bookkeeper, accountant, CEO?

How many competitors do you have where you have any understanding of their financial disposition?

glowery




msg:4445013
 5:52 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

If they discounted links from blog comments, forum profiles and bookmarking sites, might take care of a lot of the problem.

Robert Charlton




msg:4445021
 6:17 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

links from blog comments, forum profiles and bookmarking sites

I'm assuming that since these links can't help you very much, it's unlikely that they'll hurt you very much.

mrguy




msg:4445026
 6:27 am on Apr 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

Don't understand why some people just don't believe this can happen.

One run of xrumer can do a lot of damage to a weaker profile site no matter who is running it. (owner or whoever)

If Google would just discout the links instead of penalizing the site and asking site owners to remove links they have no control over in some cases, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

I know for a fact that it happens. I've seen it with my own eyes and this all the convincing I need to believe it.

I've only seen it once, but that is enough proof for me. If it happens once, it can happen again.

This 245 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 245 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 > >
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