Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Very encouraging indeed! Thanks.
And here is "One for the Gipper" :-)
Folks! Don't wait to send Jagger-related spam feedback; I'd send that now. Using the keyword "Jagger3" at [google.com...] will get someone reading and checking it out.
P.S. Thanks joeduck for "Gipper" :-)
[edited by: reseller at 7:15 am (utc) on Nov. 11, 2005]
From my side I cant see any evidence that G is trying to make more money from its SERPS. In fact from my side it would seem G is staying true to its core.
I see Matt posted something very interesting. Guess he is going now after "spammy doorway domains" ;-)
SEO Mistakes: Autogenerated doorway domains
But to be fair, I wouldn't call it "SEO Mistakes", because its more a "Spammers Mistakes" :-)
Thanks for giving feedback here, much apreciated by all webmasters!
Hopefully you received my reports a few days ago, I'm also preparing another one (I'll send it out in a few minutes with my nick) since I found some "crazy" search type of site with over 300,000 pages which seems to be willing to hijack traffic using domain names....very weird, you guys will be judge but I think those are sneaky ones! :)
I will send to site:sneakydomain.com and you will see, for me this is a real major spam!
BTW, if you guys take care of cloaking and the like, I guess that my favorite major spammers will have a hard time, go inigo...GO!
[edited by: followgreg at 8:19 am (utc) on Nov. 11, 2005]
>> And besides, you really seem to be confused about this: why is any site deserving of any position in an absolute sense? Where do you get this idea from? What algorithm did you use to determine that a certain site had a right to a certain serp position? Can you show it to me? Is it published anywhere? Why does noone have access to this superior method? Would you be kind enough to publish it so we can all see it? <<
There you go again, implying that I said something that I didn't! I did not say that any site was deserving of any position. Nor did I say that there was any legal obligation on Google's part to ensure this.
What I did do was question your comparison of Google search with other media sources, which you obviously didn't like. As a result, the whole point of my original post has been lost in this unrelated squabble about who has the better understanding of corporate definitions.
First you misquote what I say. Then you go to town on this point with an overdose of sarcasm. Point taken. I won't question your authority in these matters again!