homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.168.88
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 91 message thread spans 4 pages: 91 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
More proof of a Google money grab.
venrooy




msg:3049368
 4:00 am on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

When this last algorithm was introduced, Some of my keywords were hit with mammoth minimum bid increases.

Since then, Google has slowly been adding my keywords to their "low quality" list with small increases to the minimum bid (despite very high CTR and Conversion rates). Some of my keywords have had an increase in minimum bid almost every other day. Is Google saying that despite an increasing CTR, that my site is slowly decreasing in quality despite my not having changed it? This does not make sense to me. It does make sense as a pure money grab however.

Absolute proof (in my mind) of this money grab came for me today. Like many people, I've put the name of my website into my keyword list. "mywebsite.com" is one of my keywords. Today Google informs me: "Improve it's quality through optimization, delete it, or raise the keyword's maximum CPC to the minimum bid indicated".

This keyword is my own website! It is impossible for a keyword to be any more relevant than that.

There are only 2 explanations that could be possible for this, and neither one of them has anything to do with "quality".

1. There are major flaws in this latest algorithm (most of us have known this, and now here's the proof)

2. This is nothing but an out-right money grab. With so many option holders on the inside - Why is this such a far fetched scenario?

 

Hipsoul




msg:3049380
 4:14 am on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm not dis-agreeing with you...
but the quality score is based on more than just relevancy.

For example, the name of your website likely doesn't get a lot of direct searches on Google...
this lack of search queries for that term on Google contributes to the quality score.

On the other hand...
if the name of your website has never been searched for on Yahoo!,
YSM won't even let you list the keyword!

At least Google lets you try.

venrooy




msg:3049970
 2:20 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm not dis-agreeing with you either...

But my stats do. Google stats show that my website name receives hundreds of searches a day. If other sites - that have nothing to do with my site - can advertise using my website name, then I should be able to as well. Especially with the high CTR I'm receiving.

PS - There's not a chance in the world that you can find mywebsite.com cheaper on ebay. Please explain to me how a search for "webdsite.com" that turns up a spammy ebay ad is more relevant - or even of more quality than a search that turns up the actual website?

ScottG13




msg:3049995
 2:37 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Wow. That's pretty embarressing. But it's pretty well known that Google and eBay have a special agreement that lets eBay spam AdWords despite obvious irrelavance.

Yet, eBay is not even on the first page of ads for "auction website." I love their targeted marketing.

rbacal




msg:3050015
 2:50 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

This is another one of these threads that indicates a pretty much total lack of understanding of the QS system.

Google has publicly confirmed that the QS system involved humans evaluating sites chosen at random, classifying them re: perceived quality, and then they built an algo to identify and distinguish automatically -- something I indicated they were doing when this whole thing started.

It's PROFILING.

The variables they use in their profiles can include anything -- on page factors for landing, ad text, keywords, other pages on your domain, whether you have anonymous registration, serp rankings, domain registration dates, basically anything. We don't know the specific variables they are using, but we DO know they use a collection of them.

Obviously there will be errors in the algo's classifications. But I'll say that I've looked at four or five sites where owners got hit by the QS, and claim they have high quality sites, and in EVERY case, there have been things that indicate they fit a PROFILE of low quality sites.

That's not to say they are necessarily poor quality, but that they fit the PROFILE that might be reasonably used.

venrooy




msg:3050211
 5:16 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

This is another one of these threads that indicates a pretty much total lack of understanding of the QS system.

As someone who still makes a lot of money and still has many sites that have not been touched by this algo - and as someone who tracks Google's behavior for hours a day for many different websites, I can tell you that I probably have much more of a broad understanding of Google's "QS system" than you ever will.

And from the many bogus posts you make on here daily - it's clear to just about everyone that you have much less of an idea of what's going on than you think you do.

It's not that hard to out wit the QS system - I've done it. But the point is I shouldn't have to. If ebay can spam every keyword on the planet, then I should be able to at least use my own website name as a keyword.

rbacal




msg:3050313
 6:06 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

As someone who still makes a lot of money and still has many sites that have not been touched by this algo - and as someone who tracks Google's behavior for hours a day for many different websites, I can tell you that I probably have much more of a broad understanding of Google's "QS system" than you ever will.

Actually, I haven't seen any indication that you understand the concept of profiling, or the use of multiple variables. You keep talking about the same things, your keywords, or your landing page, and that is CLEARLY NOT reflective of how and why some sites got dinged by QS.

It really doesn't matter to me what you do -- heck your sites are yours, and if you get dinged in the future, and refuse to try to understand the complex reasons why this happens, that's your choice.

I'd certainly like others, though to understand that the profiling process google used (and has confirmed) doesn't address ONLY the variables you discuss, the obvious ones. That understanding is going to be key in avoiding similar hits in the future both in adwords and Yahoo/overture.

Anyway, I don't want to argue with you. If you want to complain, go to it. It can be misleading to others if they take what you say as gospel.

The absolute bottom line on avoiding these kinds of penalties (and it' s no guarantee) is build sites in ways that clearly mark you as reputable, reliable businesses, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VISITORS. One that adds unique value. If you don't, you do that at your own peril. Some will get smacked. Some won't. Some won't now, but will be in the future. And what happens to other sites is completely irrelevant to YOUR sites.

If, for example, you want anonymity (hiding yourself on your sites/registration), then that's one example of a business that will not seem reputable to visitors, or to google QS bot, or to the upcoming yahoo QS.

If all you have is stock product/affiliate text, welcome to the probably going to get squashed by QS in the future.

Sorry, man. It's how it works. Complaining about it isn't going to change it or lessen your pain if and when you get gob-smacked.

Understanding it will.

europeforvisitors




msg:3050388
 6:40 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

If Google said "Yeah, it's all about the money," would people stop arguing that "It's all about the money" and figure out how to turn lemons into lemonade?

Questioning motives may be good therapy, but it doesn't put food on the table.

pdivi




msg:3050399
 6:48 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

The absolute bottom line on avoiding these kinds of penalties (and it' s no guarantee) is build sites in ways that clearly mark you as reputable, reliable businesses

Actually, as far as I can tell, the best insurance against getting hit by the QS seems to be bidding aggressively at spot #1, regardless of cost. Bidders who insisted on being at the top rather than exploring higher return spots down the panel seem to have escaped harm....at least in my relatively small sample of observations. Anyone have info to the contrary?

Not looking to get in a battle, just looking to expand my sample. Anyone who manages multiple clients have any observations to add?

rbacal




msg:3050421
 7:00 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Actually, as far as I can tell, the best insurance against getting hit by the QS seems to be bidding aggressively at spot #1, regardless of cost. Bidders who insisted on being at the top rather than exploring higher return spots down the panel seem to have escaped harm....at least in my relatively small sample of observations. Anyone have info to the contrary?

No. I don't believe there will be much evidence to the contrary. I think you are correct that bid amount is a critical component (but one that interacts with the QS itself).

Once you understand the google reasoning, economically, it makes sense. Low bid ads have an "opportunity cost" to google. As such, it's in their interests to discourage those, UNLESS those ads also supply "quality" to visitors, thus improving the viablity, long term of the program and its reputation to VISITORS.

The opportunity cost refers to the idea that, from google's perspective, let's say there are eight ads for a keyword ranging in bids from .01 cent to $10.00 (that happens in some of the areas I work in).

By showing 3 low bid ads, you LOWER the probability that a visitor will click on a high bid ad. And you don't recoup that cost. By getting rid of the 3 low bids, you increase the chances that a high bid will be clicked, and even if the probability increase is small, with a large bid range, google wins (as do we on content if the same conditions hold).

Google may be willing to show lower bids IF the ads provide "value" in other ways to VISITORS -- hence the QS.

So, QS will "hit" those at the low end, AND particularly those that have junk sites.

It's ALL the things together. We tend to bid at or towards the bottom (not .01 cent but certainly below .10 cents for most terms that have a large bid range). Last I checked only ONE of our campaigns was hit, and that was just at the beginning, and it's "fixed" itself without our doing anything.

So, if you have low value sites (not just landing pages), AND you have low bids, AND if there's a range (maybe), then you're high risk to get hit again.

If you have high bids, you're probably pretty good.

If you have high value sites but low bids, it's unpredictable.

Pibs




msg:3050520
 8:05 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Pointing out that someone doesn't understand that which Google makes deliberately mysterious and obscure doesn't really help.

A more detailed profile of the profile, so's to speak, would be handy?

I ask as I too recently tried sticking mydomain.com on to Adwords if only to lend a spot of brand credibility. I found myself faced with a min bid of 20 cents.

Hello?

The name of my domain is not an actual word, but may get used, like "peasy" is not a word but may be added to "easy-peasy".

So in effect peasy.com but an act pointing at peasy.com's homepage, on a site with peasy all over it, the only site in existence with that name anywhere in the url aside from one other, at number 1, 2 and 3 in Google's own SERPs - but I have to improve the freakin' "quality" of the ad?

peasy.com
Official homepage of peasy
Widget with Widets
peasy.com

?

The site's been up for 2 years, around 30 pages outside the faq, contact etc, and is a perfectly clean little site selling it's own product and only has adsense on about 3 article pages a click deep.

Now if Google wanted to impress me they'd give me an ad under my own domain for freebies but for the sake of 20 cents they've peeved me off.

Bottom line any algo changes are all about Google's bottom line, period. They've built the branding to the point the average surfer thinks if it aint on Google it doesn't exist.

I appreciate your measured and polite response to the poster but I'm with him in the sense I don't buy this "quality" pants for one minute.

If "quality" mattered how come you can BUY it by bidding higher?

Same with "relevancy". Bid a buck more than matey and you're the most "relevant" chap on the planet!

"Improve it's quality through optimization, delete it, or raise the keyword's maximum CPC to the minimum bid indicated Mr Peasy".

"Here's a dollar"

"Why Mr Peasy! Just LOOK at the high-quality glow of your relevancy!"

BS.

I've only been on Adwords a week or three and the money-grubbin' stench is hard to avoid. It quality/relevancy really mattered then how about some ACTUAL GUIDELINES of just what the heck they want?

For example I sell software, mentioned you can do a task with one click - disallowed, not allowed to use "click" as it's a "call to action" - yet their guideline joke states "improve your quality score and CTR with a call to action"

I mean Dood, WT...?

When I started adwords (adworse, as someone said) I was on the interface on the hour every hour, wondering what the heck was going on. Now I don't really care and am just building my site, reading up on marketing and site structure and frankly, while keen to learn more, somehow I just don't give one?

The words "**** Google" come to mind. And yes, I'll be trying MSN.

P.
(OK, I feel better now!)

pdivi




msg:3050535
 8:18 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, rbacal, it seems we agree...as I've mentioned many times, opportunity cost of people who are dragging down the return of the total KW 'portfolio' is a major driver here. I'm not talking about Google maximizing profit by improving long-term quality -- I'm talking about basic profit optimization by changing the customer landscape (i.e. culling the lowballers who are pulling clicks from high bidders). Pricing 101, not high science. Q3 EPS, not long-term strategy.

So, it seems the only surefire way to avoid problems is to bid to #1; meaning you can launch whatever site you want, just stay in spot #1 and you're safe. Beyond that, things get more speculative. You could take some stabs at building a 'quality' site, but your fate may very well be sealed by your bid behavior (as measured against that of the top bidders)...or you may not nail the metrics Google uses to measure site quality.

It's tough to buck-up and make lemons out of lemonade when you're not really sure whether you're dealing with lemons, oranges or hamburgers. Personally, I come here to hear anecdotes that might point to patterns. I keep pushing the short-term profit aspect because that's where I've been able to find possible drivers in talking to others.

rbacal




msg:3050540
 8:21 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

So, it seems the only surefire way to avoid problems is to bid to #1; meaning you can launch whatever site you want, just stay in spot #1 and you're safe. Beyond that, things get more speculative. You could take some stabs at building a 'quality' site, but your fate may very well be sealed by your bid behavior (as measured against that of the top bidders)...or you may not nail the metrics Google uses to measure site quality

I guess. I just don't know if you need to bid to be #1. I'd doubt it. My guess would be that you'd need to be bidding within top 50% of competitors bidding on the term.

But it's a guess. Also, keep in mind that your spot isn't determined just by the bid, so that can be a bit tricky.

I also figure nothing, not even things that are clearly "surefire" are, or will remain so. It's kind of an elusive grail.

davidzhawk




msg:3050630
 9:24 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google gets rid of MFAs = not a money grab, just good usability

Google gets rid of affiliates = possibly a money grab (if Google believes that non-affiliates will bid more than affiliates in the long-term), possibly good usability

Google implements Quality Score for some advertisers, but continues to make millions of dollars a month off trademarked "typosquatter" URLs through their Oingo domain park, none of which meet *any* of the Quality Score factors = definitely a money grab.

venrooy




msg:3050747
 10:39 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

It really doesn't matter to me what you do -- heck your sites are yours, and if you get dinged in the future, and refuse to try to understand the complex reasons why this happens, that's your choice.

Like I said before - The QS is easy enough to manipulate. And if you think you know the complex reasons why this happens... you haven't a clue. You spend too much time in here defending google to know how it really works.

PS - If you don't like posts complaining about google - Then Why do you keep them alive?

europeforvisitors




msg:3050754
 10:44 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google implements Quality Score for some advertisers, but continues to make millions of dollars a month off trademarked "typosquatter" URLs through their Oingo domain park, none of which meet *any* of the Quality Score factors = definitely a money grab.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what does AdSense for Domains have to do with the Google Search/AdWords user exprience?

rbacal




msg:3050763
 10:55 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

PS - If you don't like posts complaining about google - Then Why do you keep them alive?

Made my day with this comment. Why do you complain and start them might be a prior question, yes?

I hope to counter the bad information posted by bitter people who can't weasel what they want out of google, and who will soon be bitter about yahoo, and no doubt MSN.

Maybe it will help some people from doing dumb*ss things. Obviously there are others who are beyond help.

bostonseo




msg:3050794
 11:29 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

How come the Adwords Advisors never reply to the threads that actually need the most clarifying? Anyone else notice this?

Alex_Miles




msg:3050809
 11:50 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes. And I also noticed who they did send.

Only when the FUD campaign is showing some sign of success will the official spokespeople show up.

europeforvisitors




msg:3050831
 12:17 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you were AWA, would you feel compelled to feed the trolls? What would be the point?

rbacal




msg:3050844
 12:32 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Warning warning Will Robinson.

Thread hijacking in process.

So many Dr. Smith's. So little time.

AdWordsAdvisor




msg:3050853
 12:35 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

How come the Adwords Advisors never reply to the threads that actually need the most clarifying? Anyone else notice this?

A good question actually, and deserving of an answer, bostonseo. And since you've been commenting on this quite a bit of late, I'll answer it briefly and sincerely. I don't want to be drawn into a debate on this, however, and will let my 3470 posts over three years speak to my commitment to this forum and its members.

So. As a rule, you'll find me conspicuously absent from threads that have words like 'conspiracy', 'cartels', 'Google money grab', and so forth in their subject lines.

The same is true for threads that are essentially discussions of Google's business model, and how it should or should not be. I've posted many times over the years that this is not something that I am able to comment on, and it still holds true.

Same goes for threads which have degenerated into name calling and expressions of personal spite - and there have been many of these of late. More than I've ever seen in three years on the forum. Speaking simply as a human being, and not as a Google representative, it makes me want to stay away.

Lastly, I have a limited amount of time in which to post on WebmasterWorld - not nearly enough time to 'defend against' or even comment on the many theories and conjectures which are routinely published on this forum. I try to use my limited time as wisely as I can - knowing full well that, inevitably, I can not satisfy everyone.

AWA

bostonseo




msg:3050936
 2:16 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

AdWordsAdvisor thanks for addressing your lack of participation. With Google becoming more and more covert, the extent to which you can 'help us advertisers' here seems to be on the decline. Sure there will continue to be the routine 'how to' question, but more and more, our challenges are the pursuit of the truth :) I'd still love to know how I have a 91.2 ranking on a keyword with a $9 max bid, but I know I'll get that answered 'on the record'.

aeiouy




msg:3050944
 2:30 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google implements Quality Score for some advertisers, but continues to make millions of dollars a month off trademarked "typosquatter" URLs through their Oingo domain park, none of which meet *any* of the Quality Score factors = definitely a money grab.

The flaw in your logic is those are not Google's visitors, so they are not concerned with the quality experience. They are placing ads on those sites from advertisers. It is up to the actual publisher of those sites to determine how they want to treat their visitors. Google simply has a higher standard then those sites have.

What happens on the content network, or on ad parking has nothing directly to do with search ads. The search traffic is google's own traffic and they are choosing to try and nuture it for the long-term. I consider it a sound strategy. I think way too many webmasters/publishers view visitors and traffic as disposable, which is a huge long-term mistake.

rbacal




msg:3050950
 2:37 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sure there will continue to be the routine 'how to' question, but more and more, our challenges are the pursuit of the truth

Just to balance this off, there are thousands of advertisers who do not express that they are quite happy with google (but they are)and the truth they have been offered. I would certainly like more information about what google does and how it all works, because I'm a curious guy.

But I believe that given the issues google has to face regarding how any information it provides can be used to game the system, and basic proprietary info, I'm really content with the routine 'how to'.

When I look around and take the initative to find out things about google, I start to find all kinds of information that has been presented by google staff (I just listened to Kim Malone on webmasterradio who explained a bit about the appeals process for adsense).

There's lots of stuff out there, enough to convince me that google gives a reasonable amount of explanation. But it's OUR responsibility to look for it. Yeah, google could be better at it, but if you want to find out more, you can research some of it.

Finally, I think most of us understand (even when we get frustrated)that a) it's not google's job to tell us how to run our businesses successful and b) that no matter what google does or says, a lot of people (in fact the same people) will complain, accuse, even libel.

Given it's a part no win situation for google, I'm happy with the flow of information. I'd like more, but I don't expect more.

Hipsoul




msg:3050951
 2:39 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

...degenerated into name calling and expressions of personal spite - and there have been many of these of late. More than I've ever seen in three years on the forum.

When you keep people in the dark and tell them everything is OK,
while they can plainly see it's not...emotions run high.

Everytime Google pulls the rug on everyone, people go out of business.
That's not a game to those who are playing it.

If you notice people becoming more and more aggressive about the secretive and hidden knowledge each has on the topic of PPC...
I wouldn't blame that on people so much as I would on the purveyors of the secretive and hidden knowledge. (We won't even touch on the topic of SEO!)

It just seems as time goes on, the Big 3 are nurturing some major issues with their advertisers and are insistent on playing a relentless game of cat and mouse with people's lives.

That kind of stuff tends to raise tempers.

rbacal




msg:3050956
 2:45 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

The flaw in your logic is those are not Google's visitors, so they are not concerned with the quality experience. They are placing ads on those sites from advertisers. It is up to the actual publisher of those sites to determine how they want to treat their visitors. Google simply has a higher standard then those sites have.

I love to read these kinds of posts rather than the whining boy moan stuff (a great van morrison song).

Food for thought. I think it's in google's long term interests to "be concerned with the quality experiences related to their ads -- on the adsense side (MFA issues), and adwords side, no matter where they occur.

Ad blindness and the credibility of the brand, ads by gooooogle are involved here. I think google knows this. I think google WILL raise quality bars as it is both technically and economically feasible over the long haul.

My guess is they will move on the larger quality issues within the next twelve months and there's be a whole lot more people on adwords and adsense who are going to get "slapped" -- in essence the bottom feeder lower value folks.

It's going to be a HUGE competitive advantage, which leverages their time advantages they have now. MSN can't deal with quality issues. Yahoo is planning to, but they are about one year behind now. Google is going to stretch their lead and be recognized as THE premium place for advertisers and publishers, even more than now.

rbacal




msg:3050967
 2:57 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Everytime Google pulls the rug on everyone, people go out of business.
That's not a game to those who are playing it.

I understand the frustrations, but to blame a failed business that was poorly set up, poorly planned, on anyone but the business owner is just plain dumb, let alone inaccurate. You do that, you blame failure on others when your business model sucked, and you'll just fail again and again.

I've learned a lot from reading stuff here. I've learned that the people who can't discuss business in a professional and business-like way, and act like children, are also the same people who don't have (at least not yet) a real good idea of what is involved in running a long term business. I've met this "type" in offline business as well. Bad business model, bad planning, no desire to learn, and a strong desire to cut corners. They almost always fail, and fail again and again. I know a few specific people just like that. Nothing is ever their fault.

I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to insult anyone here, but it gets pretty clear when you see one group of people hit by something google does that accuses, libels, etc, and another group of people hit by exactly the same thing (and suffering to the same degree) that posts professional, dignified and business like communication. I can tell who's going to probably succeed or even still be around in 2007-8.

I understand the venting. I understand some of you think you are anonymous (in many cases you arent), so you can say what you want. But I think if you communicate in an accusatory, childish accusing way and blame all your woes on others, that it reflects your general attitude towards making a living, and business.

And that's why the winners are going to develop better business models and the losers are going to game the system, and fail and fail.

It's sad. I post this stuff hoping it will get through to someone who might decide to look at their own actions rather than blame everyone else.

venrooy




msg:3050992
 3:30 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hope to counter the bad information posted by bitter people who can't weasel what they want out of google, and who will soon be bitter about yahoo, and no doubt MSN.

First of all - I make too much money elsewhere to let anything that google does make me bitter. And second - The people on this forum are not stupid. They don't need you to put your 2 cents into every thread. Especially as ill-informed as you are. You pretend like you have all of the answers to the QS, but I guarantee you don't.

Here's a good example - Maybe you can explain this:

Ebay owns paypal right? So if I were to put "paypal sucks" into google, should ebay receive a high QS for advertising that "paypal sucks"? Should ebay even be allowed to advertise that "paypal sucks"? (I guess they can, they own it.) But what if Ebay advertised - "paypal Sucks for less on ebay"? Should that be allowed in google ad space, when so many other legitimate ads are being stomped out? Please explain that one in terms of the QS.

rbacal




msg:3051003
 3:44 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ebay owns paypal right? So if I were to put "paypal sucks" into google, should ebay receive a high QS for advertising that "paypal sucks"?

QS is calculated using a variety of "indicators" Since I'm not going to explain the whole deal again, all I can say is that a) YOU have no idea what ebay's QS score is, and b) you have no idea what variables are involved in permitting ebay's ads to show at presumably lower prices.

Why can ebay do stuff you can't do?

You ain't ebay. That's the REAL answer.

Now if you understand QS, how it was developed and how it works (and I've pretty much mapped this out), you'll understand HOW and WHY Ebay gets to do this stuff and you don't. While I hate those damned ebay ads, I understand why they are there. See if you can figure it out on your own without imputing bad motives, and applying your great knowledge about how QS works.

When and if you develop a site that resembles ebay enough in many many variables so that it falls into a different profile, you too can do it.

I'll leave you with that. If you're up to it.

This 91 message thread spans 4 pages: 91 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
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