Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I wonder if the first step might be to start a thread on here. Be nice if webmasterword would give it some prominence.
Would seem to me it could operate initially with pretty modest dues and a pretty small staff. I guess one initial issue would be that I would argue the association should be world wide as is the web and we all face the same problems, but that raises language and other issues.
Anyway, a thread on here might be a gage of interest, a chance to thrash out issues and a jumping off point.
OK. Lets have a webmaster union... and Google says get stuffed....now what?
I'll set one up for spammers, they deserve a voice. For years they have helped Google identify what keywords they are targeting and because they want that traffic they no doubt have a relevant reason for targeting it.
Can you imagine how poor the serps would be and how frustrated Joe Public would be if spammers did not force Google (despite the odds) to show their site for a keyword? At least they don't mess about with endless boring 'original content' written by sad self opinionated 'spam reporters'.
Spammers get right to the point and send a user to a decent simple, fast loading page for what they want. They don't clutter the page with pointless text, they hide that.... thank God. You know instantly what the page is about because the Keyword is in your face 53 times and a nice big link to the affiliate.... who couldn't get the traffic for himself. Affiliates would suffer big time without spammers. Think of all the businesses that will suffer without spammers in the index. How will they get their traffic? Original white hat sites?.... I don't think so, people will loose the will to live before they find the affiliate link, hidden between endless waffle about "how pretty the daisies are in June".
Get the spammers back and save the world from 'original content'... we just don't want your dribble.
I would avoid all link exchanges. If you read Matts comments (especially in a recent invterview) he talks about "natural linking" and acquiring links by creative methods....not reciprocal linking.
Problem is reciprical link exchanges are natural.
If you read how the Internet actually came about you'll understand this methodology which Google still applies.
I have been involved with the internet long before google ever existed. I have a pretty good grasp on the history of the whole thing. Reciprical linking has pretty much existed since there were two web pages.
I see more and more sites which have historically relied on link exchanges actually going down the serps.
Perhaps so perhaps no.. I have not seen anyone provide any compelling evidence, just lots of speculation.
My main site got badly hit with jagger and is still nowhere to be seen. Google accounted for 70% of my traffic. However, as soon as this happened I came up with some creative methods of generating traffic. Traffic to my main site is now at the same level before jagger hit (still no Google traffic by the way).
Sounds like you did an excellent job. Everyone needs to continue to work on diversifying as much as possible.
Who needs Google anyway? There are SO many ways of generating traffic....you have to think out of the box.
Absolutely. I think for most sites and most areas there are tons of ways to get traffic besides serps that don't cost money. It does require work though.
Jagger2 (nickname Spam Terminator) shall continue until around Wednesday next week where Jagger3 (dealing with Canonicals & Supplemental issues) starts. Then followed by the Flux.
Can someone tell me if this what is called canonical is done by:
<VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80>
Servername www.example.com
Serveralias example.com www.example.com
or do I have to set up a new server to just throw example.com over to www.example.com
and do a
RedirectMatch permanent ^/(.*)$ http://example.com/$1
Current google results show the same for both constructs. IMO Google already has the right settings. I use only 301's for my pages when I move pages.
I could have one server and do php etc redirects.
I have to say I do not really understand what Google wants as the correct way to do this?
Set up the non-www as a server alias and then Redirect 301 the non-www traffic to the www.
Google, and most SEOs, generally recommend using 301s when redirecting old sites and pages to the "correct" or canonical site or page. Creative use of .htaccess helps with this type of forwarding if you have a lot of pages.
