We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for dupes of my posts?
> We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which > others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for > dupes of my posts?
>> We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which >> others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for >> dupes of my posts?
I want to know which newsgroups people are copying now. I'm thinking of the potential for related backlinks. It would be sensible to post to a newsgroup about fine art with links to some of my poster pages in my sig. I'll get more bang for my buck if the groups are copied as this one is.
Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which > others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for > dupes of my posts?
Subscribe to a group or use GG and find a message that's 2-3 days old. Copy a sentence from that article in Google search.
A lot of Usenet is copied to sites, some groups pop up on tens of sites. But there is no one place to check this, since a site doing this often picks just a handful of groups that match the theme of the site.
>> We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which >> others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for >> dupes of my posts?
>Subscribe to a group or use GG and find a message that's 2-3 days old. >Copy a sentence from that article in Google search.
>A lot of Usenet is copied to sites, some groups pop up on tens of sites. >But there is no one place to check this, since a site doing this often >picks just a handful of groups that match the theme of the site.
>On 22 Aug 2006 09:50:55 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.bey...@gmail.com> >wrote:
>>Big Bill schreef:
>>> We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which >>> others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for >>> dupes of my posts?
>>> BB >>Huh? Ours?
>>Every newsgroup in Google has an xml file ...
>>So you can copy every newsgroup in a site.
>>Or what do you mean?
>I want to know which newsgroups people are copying now. I'm thinking >of the potential for related backlinks. It would be sensible to post >to a newsgroup about fine art with links to some of my poster pages in >my sig. I'll get more bang for my buck if the groups are copied as >this one is.
>>> We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which >>> others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for >>> dupes of my posts?
>>Subscribe to a group or use GG and find a message that's 2-3 days old. >>Copy a sentence from that article in Google search.
>>A lot of Usenet is copied to sites, some groups pop up on tens of sites. >>But there is no one place to check this, since a site doing this often >>picks just a handful of groups that match the theme of the site.
>>IT related groups are very popular of course.
> Yeah, but what could I usefully contribute? :-(
Questions? Like: is there software that helps me to catalogue fine art?
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:20:46 GMT, Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> >wrote:
>>On 22 Aug 2006 09:50:55 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.bey...@gmail.com> >>wrote:
>>>Big Bill schreef:
>>>> We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which >>>> others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for >>>> dupes of my posts?
>>>> BB
>>>Huh? Ours?
>>>Every newsgroup in Google has an xml file ...
>>>So you can copy every newsgroup in a site.
>>>Or what do you mean?
>>I want to know which newsgroups people are copying now. I'm thinking >>of the potential for related backlinks. It would be sensible to post >>to a newsgroup about fine art with links to some of my poster pages in >>my sig. I'll get more bang for my buck if the groups are copied as >>this one is.
>>BB
>Will they - if they aren't already - merely be seen as duplicate >content?
Well they aren't supposed to be ranking for anything themselves, just getting my sites indexed better and puling in visitors from the links themselves.
Big Bill wrote: > Well they aren't supposed to be ranking for anything themselves, just > getting my sites indexed better and puling in visitors from the links > themselves.
Don't hold your breath, Bill. Any sane administrator of such site would disable the links by at the very least adding the rel="nofollow" attribute. You would not believe what kind of junk people link to in their Usenet posts. Trust me, I know ;-) (see site sig below). Anyways, I have ability to select which ones I want to convert into HTML links, and your main site is actually a link in your messages on my site, but your posters stuff is not. It has been a while since I enabled your links and you are a very prolific poster in a relevant category. So, if you think you did not get any boost from hundreds of links from my site then it means these links probably don't weight too much. What a shame...
-- Cheers, Dmitri See Site Sig Below
-- +------------------------------------------------+ | Follow alt.internet.search-engines threads | | with your Firefox Live Bookmarks! Set it up at | | http://www.1-script.com/forums/ | +------------------------------------------------+
>> Well they aren't supposed to be ranking for anything themselves, just >> getting my sites indexed better and puling in visitors from the links >> themselves.
>Don't hold your breath, Bill. Any sane administrator of such site would >disable the links by at the very least adding the rel="nofollow" >attribute. You would not believe what kind of junk people link to in their >Usenet posts. Trust me, I know ;-) (see site sig below). >Anyways, I have ability to select which ones I want to convert into HTML >links, and your main site is actually a link in your messages on my site, >but your posters stuff is not. It has been a while since I enabled your >links and you are a very prolific poster in a relevant category. So, if >you think you did not get any boost from hundreds of links from my site >then it means these links probably don't weight too much. What a shame...
>-- >Cheers, >Dmitri >See Site Sig Below
None the less, folk may choose to follow them, the more they are aired...
>>>> We know that ours is, several times over. How might I find out which >>>> others are? Aide from joining them all and posting, then searching for >>>> dupes of my posts?
>>>Subscribe to a group or use GG and find a message that's 2-3 days old. >>>Copy a sentence from that article in Google search.
>>>A lot of Usenet is copied to sites, some groups pop up on tens of sites. >>>But there is no one place to check this, since a site doing this often >>>picks just a handful of groups that match the theme of the site.
>>>IT related groups are very popular of course.
>> Yeah, but what could I usefully contribute? :-(
> Questions? Like: is there software that helps me to catalogue fine art?
I can think of JLA Forums as an example of a site that makes it seem as though UseNetters are site subscribers. Very cheeky. In another group, one of the posters calls them thieves in the sig, which gives them bad reputation and had them contact the person in question.
best wishes,
Roy
-- For governments that eavesdrop, here is a quick list of tags: Communism, Hawaiian shirts, China, Suitcase, Martha Stewart, Encryption, Prison, Stalin. Thanks for tuning in.
Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: > I can think of JLA Forums as an example of a site that makes it seem > as though UseNetters are site subscribers. Very cheeky. In another > group, one of the posters calls them thieves in the sig, which gives > them bad reputation and had them contact the person in question.
Yeah, I was thinking some time ago to just put some bad words in the sig :-)
Maybe a good thing if a small group starts to complain with the hosting providers of "boards" that do nasty tricks like you describe, or use nofollow.
Complaints from 5-8 people would be enough I guess.
|
