Message from discussion 'Ethical' SEO?

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsread.com!newsprint.newsread.com!news.glorb.com!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!newspeer1-win.ntli.net!newsfe6-win.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Big Bill <kr...@cityscape.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
Subject: Re: 'Ethical' SEO?
Organization: Kruse Internet Services
Reply-To: kr...@cityscape.co.uk
Message-ID: <st87p0p42k24b1l07abnp5k8060a26p0t0@4ax.com>
References: <cmdsa2$s2e$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <okclo05iha4ev0r722mor4480vvh1dsogt@4ax.com> <QiOid.131499$Pl.125213@pd7tw1no> <418bb5ae.156556270@news.prodigy.net> <5KRid.132517$Pl.123075@pd7tw1no> <dqbro0hr0hp9h6h2h8oeri5mnif0an8p8o@4ax.com> <418dba40.55177897@news.prodigy.net> <o0oto0paf65j1qcv8cemv20s8nvdlb6nk0@4ax.com> <418ee4fa.65872768@news.prodigy.net> <v5o6p0p7lqtoihr5d33da11riod9bbjv06@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 50
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:46:11 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.98.65.4
X-Trace: newsfe6-win.ntli.net 1100195171 81.98.65.4 (Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:46:11 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:46:11 GMT

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:05:24 GMT, SEO Dave
<seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:52:19 GMT, from_...@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:55:52 GMT, SEO Dave
>><seo-dav...@AMsearch-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>*yes, still devil's advocating here. But likely my last devilish post*
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL Well I've enjoyed the discussion, hadn't thought it through in so
>>>much detail before now. I've always known adding a link to my sites
>>>from my clients sites would hurt their sites, so haven't considered
>>>doing it, so not needed to think it out in great detail before.
>>>
>>
>>Well - I know you lean more toward Google whereas I lean to more
>>toward optimizing for Google _and_ Yahoo both. Hence you would think
>>more about PR than I would. Iview PR as just one bit out of the Google
>>algorithem - and one that has been known to have a PR5 site beaten out
>>by a PR3 or PR4 due to other bits of the algorihem. 
>
>Links are important to Yahoo as well. After adding links to a site
>recently (the one that gets no traffic from Google) traffic has almost
>increased 50% (~1500 unique visitors a day). The traffic had been
>stable for months at around 1000 to 1100 unique visitors a day before
>the new links.
>
>Other than the new links I only changed one page (after traffic
>started to rise) and so that page is not responsible for most of the
>new traffic.
>
>>And so this a thought about the unrelated footer link, along with one
>>or two others discussed between us in the past, is probably going to
>>be filed into the category of "you and I will have agree to disagree
>>on some bits".
>
>I don't have a problem with that, would be a pretty boring NG if
>everyone agreed all the time :-)

No it wouldn't.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk S...@kruse.demon.co.uk
          home of SEO that's shiny!