homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.215.146
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 63 message thread spans 3 pages: 63 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Can you survive Google's shrinking serps?
goodroi




msg:4610066
 1:30 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

Google keeps changing its serps. Google has more adwords advertisers today than it did 15 years ago so there are more ads taking up space. Google has also added local listings, images, videos, news headlines, shopping and other results to their search results. Many of these changes have resulted in less traffic flowing to the organic web results. Before you could rank #3 or #4 and still appear above the page fold. Now the #3 or #4 position can fall below the page fold.

As a Google stockholder I know first-hand that Google is a for-profit business. It would be silly if a for-profit company turned off advertising because webmasters wanted more unpaid traffic. It is not just a common sense money grab that shrinks the serps. If I was Google and noticed the user is searching a local address, I would show local listings above non-geographic web results. So for multiple reasons I don't see why Google will reverse this trend just because us webmasters want unpaid web traffic from Google.

Do you think webmasters can survive Google's shrinking serps? Make sure to explain yourself.


Mods Note: Many people feel that Google sucks, is a monopoly, kills businesses, has a bad algo, always lie, and are just mean & bad people. I think that covers the more popular Google complaints so now we can keep this thread on-topic with productive posts and don't be surprised when us moderators delete the generic complaining & non-productive noise.

 

EditorialGuy




msg:4610083
 2:20 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

Google has more adwords advertisers today than it did 15 years ago so there are more ads taking up space.


Google also has more searchers than it did 15 years ago, so maybe it's a wash.

Google has also added local listings, images, videos, news headlines, shopping and other results to their search results. Many of these changes have resulted in less traffic flowing to the organic web results. Before you could rank #3 or #4 and still appear above the page fold. Now the #3 or #4 position can fall below the page fold.


I think that's the bigger problem. I'm not a big fan of "Universal Search" myself, but Google probably knows better than I do whether users like it. Google appears to be doing pretty well these days, so maybe the dog's-dinner layout appeals to searchers. Still, it would be interesting to see the results of eye-tracking and usage studies: How many searchers scan everything, and how many just ignore the "Universal Search" bells and whistles and focus on the traditional organic results?

Also, how much is personalization affecting impressions for a given site and a given search string? It seems logical to assume that, as Google gradually improves its personalization of organic search results, those results will become more and more targeted, and the proper response to "I rank #3 for 'red widgets'" will be "Yes, if you're talking about search results delivered from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. to middle-aged women in Keokuk, Iowa who prefer long text with photos of cats."

[edited by: EditorialGuy at 2:27 pm (utc) on Sep 16, 2013]

brotherhood of LAN




msg:4610084
 2:21 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

The clickthroughs to organic SERPs may be lower, but still worthwhile to compete for and invest time in. Any manipulation of ranks (i.e. an SEO strategy spending cash to acquire rankings) will have to have a ROI to work, so the playing field is set.

There still has to be natural SERPs for Google to remain where it is. I totally understand RE: Google being a business, but as far as I can see they will still have to 'stick to their roots' to some extent, when it comes to web search.

As a visitor I frequent maybe a dozen websites and can find most of what I need within those sites. But..., I found them via a search engine to begin with, I still need a search engine providing natural results.

The fight, it'd seem, is competing against larger brands and Google's greater algorithmic reliance on what it considers brand signals. Perhaps webmasters just have to spend more time and cash and think longer term to acquire any foothold in a valuable SERP. They have to be realistic about their expectations and consider the relevance of their own business in the wider world and not expect to rank top for X when X is a very competitive term.

The advice I've been reading over the past year or two suggests you should focus more on bounce rates, your UI, and generally focusing on providing the best service for the customer/viewer, and there's a correlation between that and your future rankings. It seems we're being told that SEO isn't required any more and any attempts to do so can result in a smack on the hand and a 'penalty'. It'd hard to gauge how widespread this is because you don't hear of people complaining when they're winning.

There are still SEOs who can rank for whatever they like (Matt Cutts UK payday loan recent example), but they have the financial clout and systems in place to do that, and the keywords with the ROI to target.

tldr; Google still needs natural SERPs and people still click on them. As long as there's an incentive to rank and a return on investment, and a means to manipulate rankings... the game is on :o)

martinibuster




msg:4610093
 3:00 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

I have been altering my conception of what a website is by trying to think in terms of how a site can become a tool for people to use for accomplishing their goals, rather than a dead-end destination for visitors to do a limited set of activities. Should a site be limited in scope to what the publisher believes people want to do?

Two years ago a Googler accidentally published a private memo criticizing Google social media product in which he pointed out that was what wrong with Google + was that it was a product and not a platform. Here's a quote: [wired.com]

Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product.

But that’s not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there’s something there for everyone. said about Google Circles, that the management doesn't realize is that they should be creating a platform.


The people who created twitter didn't plan the myriad ways twitter is used. They created the tool, the platform, and people figured out useful ways to use it. Instead of a top-down approach, this is more of a horizontal left to right approach that I am investigating.

netmeg




msg:4610102
 3:32 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

I have been altering my conception of what a website is by trying to think in terms of how a site can become a tool for people to use for accomplishing their goals, rather than a dead-end destination for visitors to do a limited set of activities.


Me too. Exactly.

nomis5




msg:4610109
 3:50 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

I have been altering my conception of what a website is by trying to think in terms of how a site can become a tool for people to use for accomplishing their goals, rather than a dead-end destination for visitors to do a limited set of activities.


In my two areas of interest there are plenty of others doing that and they have vast amounts of money to spend on achieving that goal, and to be truthful some of them do a good job at it. I simply can't compete in that arena though, I have neither the money nor the technical knowledge.

Providing specialist knowledge in a readable fashion backed up by pictures and articles that prove beyond a doubt I have recently just done what my viewer wants to accomplish - that's my way forward. Luckily enough the areas I specialise in quite often get repeat viewers, something which articles similar to "freeing a rusted bolt" don't tend to get.

Often about.com, wikipedia etc appear above me but I do believe the tide has turned for my subject matter (and others) and readers know the authors of most of those articles are just badly and often erroneously regurgitating other peoples work. So if I appear in position 4 on page 2 it's not the end of the world.

The problem is that if the subject you are dealing with can be written about by a large number of people then that's exactly what will happen. What people find difficult to write about and illustrate is a subject which requires long term knowledge - it's too work intensive so they just move onto something else. And if they do write about it the readers spot the fraud.

CaptainSalad2




msg:4610110
 3:54 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

goodroi, as a shareholder do ever see Google moving to an all add/properties page one?

Also as a shareholder do you worry that the need to increase revenue each quarter could one day cause Google to implode as it moves increasingly away from its roots and could cause the public to "fall out of love with Google"?!

As a shareholder and a webmaster you probably have worries at both ends?

I think relying on Google organic traffic at this point is like playing with matches, I see google organic as a supplement to the traffic I want for my personal project, not the be all end all, seen to many people lose everything, and I mean everything, both online and personally!

Martin Ice Web




msg:4610113
 4:39 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

No, keep it realistic. In two years there will be no natural serps. First page over the fold now is paid ads and it will be more. Every panda kills more from the left natural serps by forcing brands and put multiple pages from brands on first page.
To compete with big withelisted brands that are able to spend lots of money into tracking, adwords, social network....
Google is on a dangerous way. They neglect the natural serps while they are seeing the make (more) Money without any effort to show good results. Very dangerous.
Have a look at microsoft. They completely oversleeped mobile phone/table pcs. And they went from a Operation System software leading company to a "normal" company. Because they were surfing on a WIN7 wave.
Google is now surfing on a ads wave. As soon as they canīt satisfy stock analysts, their stock will go down.

As much time we have as webmasters, it is now the time to jump on a new/other train then google. Anyway who cares? We all know that there is no return from panda hell. Donīt care about Google anymore. Take free traffic as an extra. Get back to the roots of the internet and make our Website popular by many links from other websites!





engine




msg:4610118
 4:54 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

Long ago I gave up aiming for first position of the SERPs.

Instead, I aim for traffic acquisition, and conversion, and the only care I have is from where it came so I can do more of it. If it ends up on page one, great. Long tail is still performing reasonably well, although even that is looking worse with the crowded page.

It's also true that even with a top ranking in the SERPs the traffic levels have tailed off. Most likely because of the busy-looking SERPs page.

It does very much depend upon the market sectors, and traffic comes from many different places (social, video, images, etc.), and it's no longer all from Google.

Webmasters have to be more agile and consider that it's not all about the traditional web site. Think mobile, think local, and yes, think of traditional methods to acquire traffic.

I don't blame Google, or its tactics, to combat spam, and i'm certain the busy SERPs is all a natural progression as their business model matures.

I'll embrace the new opportunities and not worry if the page isn't position 1 in Google's SERPs.

mcskoufis




msg:4610119
 4:55 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

Google is still a very good traffic source that drives targeted traffic. Even though some very popular terms yield loads of Universal clutter, there are many long-tails which don't provide so much clutter, yield fantastic results and drive traffic.

I think our profession has evolved with the technological advances at Google. Getting placement in Universal results along with the organic ones brings in good converting traffic and drives awareness. Is just not just the website anymore, its a whole new social world out there and I do understand the need for such results apart from the financial goals they have.

Google is placing its other products as well there, which are important to its business and needs to make them popular. I bet even Facebook gets at least 10-15% organic traffic from pages (and posts) featured in the SERPs and that a big share of YouTube traffic comes from organic searches. Twitter as well.

One of the key slides I have in my SEO presentations is that Google can drive organic traffic to your social channels via its Universal and organic results. So having an optimised presence on all those is a must. You're missing out a lot if you don't. It's a win-win situation.

So answering Goodroi's original question:

Do you think webmasters can survive Google's shrinking serps?


Yes they can, with more effort (content) than was previously required. But if you don't adapt to the developments you are doomed to fail or at least take a hit on your earnings.

[edited by: mcskoufis at 4:57 pm (utc) on Sep 16, 2013]

Zivush




msg:4610120
 4:56 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

Google knows exactly what they are doing, making the world safe for Adwords. You only have to look at their annual reports to see that.
They cannot make changes that hurt advertising, they can only make changes that help. By promoting the biggest "information" sites (which aside from Wikipedia are 100% ad dependent), they get the results they want without having to look if they are running Adsense. It's automatic.
Small sites can exist for many reason, many small sites are a person or business that is promoting itself, no ads. They want ads, that's the whole story.

mrengine




msg:4610126
 5:10 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

I think Google already killed organic search. It's better to focus efforts on a social presence with a viewing audience that judges not on who pays the most to be listed, but who has the best information, thoughts and products that are worth sharing. No, I am not talking about investing money, time and effort into G+. I see how Google treated us in search, and I won't let that happen again with G+.

Google's over-commercialization of search, and the extreme preference they give to their own properties and close allies, should be an opportunity in the making for new entrants. Although Google would try to stop any competition in search, it is so desperately needed. If a new company comes along and follows the path Google was once on, the free flow of information may be able to continue in an innovative search product that is not so extraordinarily financially biased.

vitorius




msg:4610128
 5:15 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

#mrengine

I agree with you very much...its just like you said.

Looks to me that other search engines are waiting for their own time to come in and its just a matter of time. For few years or more.

EditorialGuy




msg:4610130
 5:44 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

do ever see Google moving to an all add/properties page one?


Ain't gonna happen. Why? Because advertising works best (and attracts the highest rates) when it runs alongside content--whether that's on a Web site, in a newspaper or magazine, on radio, or on TV. Organic search is what attracts users to Google's SERPs, and Google isn't about to toss out the sugar that makes the medicine go down.

Besides, not all searches are "transactional" searches. In fact, most probably aren't, and most SERPs don't have so many ads above the fold that the organic results are pushed into deep-scroll territory.

Here's what I think could happen without threatening the integrity of Google's search results or driving away users:

1) Google could add display ads to its SERPs. This would work especially well on informational pages, where searchers may not have an immediate purchase intent but are open to relevant messages.

2) For searches that could be either "transactional" or "informational" (say, "widgets" as opposed "where to buy widgets" or "widget reviews"), Google could give more weight to to informational results, which would encourage sellers to buy ads while reducing the ROI for commercial spam.

mrengine




msg:4610132
 5:57 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

do ever see Google moving to an all add/properties page one?

Ain't gonna happen.

For anything of any commercial value, Google is already halfway there once you toss out the ads and real estate given to other Google owned websites. After Google has the commercial serps saturated with ads, don't worry because they will come after those information queries next in an effort to sustain their growth. And there will be advertisers that pay for information queries because they will be priced out of the already crazy high CPC rates in Adwords. And would Google have the audacity to charge users a fee to access their "knowledge" engine? I would not put anything past them at this point!

Dymero




msg:4610139
 6:39 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

You can survive, but it does take a couple things:

  • Willingness to adapt to a new SEO strategy that relies more on user satisfaction than technical SEO. Provide a good product or service.
  • Adoption of new marketing channels as an important focus.

    The first should have been done even when we were still in the wild west days of the 2000s. It's simple customer service: provide a valuable product or service, and your userbase should promote you themselves. Yes, you will have to do some promotion yourself.

    The second is just an important because it provides a safety net. Realistically, though, you should start focusing on it more and more, and making Google traffic the "cherry on top," as it were. Stay independent of Google traffic as much as possible, because one day the bottom might drop out.

    Oh, and if your site deals purely in short, digestible facts, expand or die.

  • diberry




    msg:4610140
     6:42 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

    I have been altering my conception of what a website is by trying to think in terms of how a site can become a tool for people to use for accomplishing their goals, rather than a dead-end destination for visitors to do a limited set of activities. Should a site be limited in scope to what the publisher believes people want to do?


    This is great advice because if you're just a destination, you have to be the very best destination and that puts you up against Wikipedia, Amazon, etc. And even if Google dialed down the brand dominance, you're still up against about a million similar pages. Even if yours really is the best for some reason, it's not always easy to get search engines - and in some cases actual human users - to recognize that.

    Making your site a "tool" doesn't mean you have to develop a script that does something no other site has ever done, either. Most free CMSs probably have plugins that will expand most any kind of site into something users can use in a way you didn't anticipate. Give them ideas, and they'll give you ideas.

    EditorialGuy




    msg:4610166
     8:15 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

    Another way to increase your chances of survival in an era of "shrinking SERPs" is to maximize clickthroughs by writing better titles and descriptions. Think of search results as ads, and think of yourself as a copywriter (such as a writer of catalog copy who has to sell the product in 50 words).

    buckworks




    msg:4610178
     9:06 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

    writing better titles and descriptions


    That's good advice, but alas, Google sometimes turns up its nose at the most carefully crafted titles / descriptions and inserts its own ideas.

    I wish I had an answer for that ...

    EditorialGuy




    msg:4610187
     9:53 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

    alas, Google sometimes turns up its nose at the most carefully crafted titles / descriptions and inserts its own ideas.


    True (and I'm annoyed when that happens), but if you can win five or seven or eight out of 10, you'll be ahead of where you were.

    turbocharged




    msg:4610199
     11:04 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

    For meta titles and descriptions to have any impact, they need to be in front of a user's eyes. Even if you give away free bars of gold, and note that in the title and description, you will never give away any gold if you can't be found in Google. That's the whole point of this thread - surviving with limited or no visibility in Google.

    hasek747




    msg:4610200
     11:10 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

    I'm curious, what type of terms do you guys search for / rank for that you are actually noticing organic results being moved down the page? I'm yet to see this happen for any keyword I search for or rank for.

    austtr




    msg:4610204
     11:21 pm on Sep 16, 2013 (gmt 0)

    Can I survive Google's shrinking SERP's?

    No.. the days of small independents dining on the crumbs that fall from Google's table are over. It's been coming since Google became a listed company with shareholders. From that moment it became all about the money and any business model that gets between Google and the money was going to have a limited life at best. Penguin and Panda were the first of what will probably be many "restructing of influences"

    Google's income from search is totally dependent on SERPs, not for the quality and accuracy of the rankings, but as necessary screen real estate to display/promote the things that make them money. Google Hotels is a recent example that gives them another big chunk of page 1 real estate.

    The fact that there can't be any SERP's without using the intellectual property of website owners is, I suspect, going to become a very hotly debated topic (a class action would not surprise) as Google seemingly believes it has an entitlement to mould the internet to Wall Street's will.

    As pointed out in earlier posts, when we strive for top rankings, we are really talking about a placement on page two at best. For most sites, that is never going to generate enough traffic to remain viable.

    EditorialGuy




    msg:4610226
     1:45 am on Sep 17, 2013 (gmt 0)

    For meta titles and descriptions to have any impact, they need to be in front of a user's eyes.


    Are you suggesting that nobody is seeing organic listings? That sounds pretty farfetched to me.

    By maximizing clickthroughs from the search results that searchers do see, you help to make up for the search results that searchers don't see. You can't make Google reduce clutter on its SERPs, so you might as well try to make the most of what you've got. IMHO, that makes a lot more sense than just complaining and giving up.

    JD_Toims




    msg:4610230
     2:01 am on Sep 17, 2013 (gmt 0)

    This is one of those "interesting" threads to me, partly because of the result-set I posted about in a different thread:

    Different thread meaning this one: [webmasterworld.com...] - 24th msg: #4609143

    Interesting note about the results I got: I also have 7 local results, plus 3 news and 3 in-depth articles -- I personally don't see how any "non-webmaster" would see the result-set I'm see for the query as "bad" in any way. It's got everything most people I know would want to see/find and counting the news, local and in-depth articles there are 21 results on the page *but* there's only 1 add at the top.

    If Google is really going to "all ads", why is there only 1 ad at the top or bottom of the page for a query like computer? I highly doubt it's because only a few businesses bid on the phrase.

    [I'm actually fairly certain the preceding has nothing to do with the number of bids -- There were 6 ads on the right of the page ;) ]

    The bottom line question for me: "Is Google really being as biased as we think sometimes, or, is Google trying to make the largest number of people they can happy by serving searchers the results *searchers* have a bias for?"

    Note: I might have gotten a bit OT here, but I think [hope] with the direction the thread has gone my post fits.



    Right now I have 3 ads at the top, 14 results for the query below the ads, 0 ads at the bottom, 7 ads on the right, no map, very little localization within the result-set -- My IP Address / Location appear to have changed, so the difference could be caused by the change in locations, but there are still 14 results on the page.
    .

    [edited by: Robert_Charlton at 4:24 am (utc) on Sep 17, 2013]
    [edit reason] fixed link, added msg reference [/edit]

    turbocharged




    msg:4610240
     4:07 am on Sep 17, 2013 (gmt 0)

    Are you suggesting that nobody is seeing organic listings? That sounds pretty farfetched to me.

    Not far fetched at all but a reality for many who sell actual physical goods. Most any business that sells products over the internet understands what I am talking about. Now to be fair, being beneath the fold may net you 3-5% of the eyeballs viewing the page at best. The other 95-97% end up departing the serps by clicking paid ads, youtube videos or one of the "chosen brands" that commonly benefits from domain crowding. Although these "chosen brands" may be listed in organic positions, their placement and multiple listings are something I would consider "inorganic" at best. At worst, they are whitelisted for whatever reason. Even the actual manufacturers of products rank beneath the likes of Amazon, despite the fact that many manufacturer's websites have more information about the product, pictures and a telephone number to call for sales and support. It would seem that the powers to be don't consider these points or would rather see all goods shipped directly to the consumer from a warehouse. I would think the later is more likely considering where Google ranks actual manufacturers in relation to big warehouse etailers.

    If Google is really going to "all ads", why is there only 1 ad at the top or bottom of the page for a query like computer? I highly doubt it's because only a few businesses bid on the phrase.

    Maybe personalized search? I see 3 ads on top, a map for computer (lol) and six ads on the right. Wikipedia sits at number one and a news block directly underneath the wikipedia listings. Once again, all organics except for the non-commercial/competing wikipedia are beneath the fold.

    The bottom line question for me: "Is Google really being as biased as we think sometimes, or, is Google trying to make the largest number of people they can happy by serving searchers the results *searchers* have a bias for?"

    I don't think having wikipedia sitting at number one for a broad term like computer makes people happy. If they are accessing the internet with a computer, do they really need to see a wikipedia definition of it? IMO it's non-competing "froth" to fill in the space with a non-competitive listing that makes the paid ads look good. Or does Google really think people using a computer to access the internet really need that wikipedia listing to find out what a computer is?

    JD_Toims




    msg:4610247
     5:01 am on Sep 17, 2013 (gmt 0)

    I don't think having wikipedia sitting at number one for a broad term like computer makes people happy.

    I'm not sure, and I guess my question needs to be revised a bit: Would the *average* searcher be disappointed with the results on page 1, or, would they likely be able to find what they are looking for even if what they want specifically is #2 or #3 or #12?

    [One thing I have to remind myself of is: We're dealing with a heuristic, not an algorithm, so at the top the results shown should likely be a "best 10 [or so] guesses" that attempt to include everything a given searcher might be looking for -- Yes, that will likely mean result #8 sometimes is the best result for a given set of results/searcher, but how many "normal people" are really left scratching-their-head, searching, wondering why the results are ordered the way they are + how they got this bad, then decide to quit using Google because of the results Google generates for any given query on page 1?

    bodashka




    msg:4610280
     10:36 am on Sep 17, 2013 (gmt 0)

    You cannot survive because Google always shrink more and more. We remember when no ads on top, now on products all ads. Little by little only ads or almost zero clicks on organic search because so far down.

    Only way 2survive is to have more search engine competition. That should be main focus of webmaster, maybe google then changes.


    ">>Because advertising works best (and attracts the highest rates) when it runs alongside content"

    On Google not alongside but way down where receive no click. Semantics no matter when clicks are very few or zero.

    turbocharged




    msg:4610291
     11:10 am on Sep 17, 2013 (gmt 0)

    "Would the *average* searcher be disappointed with the results on page 1, or, would they likely be able to find what they are looking for even if what they want specifically is #2 or #3 or #12?"

    If people are doing research, the wikipedia, news block and in-depth articles would prove to be useful. If the query was transaction based, they may wonder where Apple, HP, Gateway and other computer manufacturers are. With so few organic listings to please users of transaction based queries, all the companies selling computers in the paid ads look more appealing.

    For this particular search query, the page display is setup to funnel transaction based queries to paid ads - still satisfying users but highlighting the ever shrinking real estate devoted to organic listings.

    JS_Harris




    msg:4610300
     12:09 pm on Sep 17, 2013 (gmt 0)

    Yes, I will survive Google's shrinking serps. Even if I get no traffic from Google the internet is not owned by Google and there will always be ways of bringing my content to interested people.

    Google, however, has already stated that they are no longer just a search engine. They want to be a knowledge engine despite relying almost exclusively on other people's content. As they move more of that content onto their own domains webmasters will see less and less traffic, it's not just the ads that are denying you visits.

    This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: 63 ( [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