Thursday, 10 August 2006
|
| The New Business Space Pmulder 13:27:40 |
| | Good Day to you,
I am associated with thousands of networking professionals from around
the world who may be interested in you. You would be a welcomed
addition to our business community.
Get connected today and increase or start a business. This is a great
business opportunity. Many serious entrepreneurs will view your contact
and business information.
Post your free profile. Join free, Advertise free. Become a Manager or
Executive and have the potential to earn $6,000 to $12,000 per
month..!!
LEARN HOW TO EARN INCOME WITH DIRECTMATCHES
visit: http://www.growourteam.com
You can sign using this link:
http://directmatches.com/mulder_pam
Thanks, Pamela Mulder Executive IR
Special Offer: EARN INCOME WITH DIRECTMATCHES
http://directmatches.com/mulder_pam
Hours: 24/7
How To Order: we accept any credit card and or paypal acct.
Questions or comments?
Get in touch with us at:
pmulder@ptd.net
|
| |  2 answer | Add comment |
|
| Link building Lucy 12:17:35 |
| | Hi
I want to know about link building how it helps in site ranking
Regards
Lucy
|
| | 33 answer | Add comment |
|
| WTF - Yahoo? Phil Payne 04:58:35 |
| | Furtlingly trivial.
I changed http://www.isham-research.co.uk/fb/index.html for some
trivial reasons. Not a commercial site - just a friendly thing I do
for a few musicians. Odd little details - nothing of consequence.
I added the word "rock" to the <title>.
Less than ten minutes later - Yahoo has indexed it.
Google - eat your heart out.
|
| | 9 answers | Add comment |
|
| Troubling findings on how some third parties detect click fraud Shuman Ghosemajumder, Business Produ Spamhotmail@Yahoo.Com 01:40:30 |
| |
http://adwords.blogspot.com/2006/08/troubling-findings-on-how-some-third.html
Troubling findings on how some third parties detect click fraud
Shuman Ghosemajumder, Business Product Manager for Trust & Safety,
returns today with important information regarding third party
detection of click fraud:
A rigorous technical analysis by Google engineers has found fundamental
flaws in the work of several click fraud consultants - flaws that
help explain why widely quoted estimates of the size of the click fraud
problem are exaggerated. We would like to share this research so that
advertisers can be aware of these problems and so these consultants can
use the information to improve their services.
We provide detailed analysis and explanation of this work here. Two key
findings are below, which explain the fundamental flaw we have seen in
all of the reports we examined - fictitious clicks: events which are
reported as fraudulent, but are never recorded or charged as ad clicks
by Google:
Fictitious ad clicks because of mischaracterizing events. This finding
may be the most significant flaw responsible for exaggerated click
fraud claims. The problem lies in the fact that many click fraud
consultants don't count actual ad clicks. Rather, to determine the
number of ad clicks, they use a number of other signals, including
counting visits to a particular webpage. As a result, the consultants
count page reloads and subsequent visits on an advertiser's site as
multiple clicks on the advertiser's Google ad. This generates
fictitious ad clicks in the consultant's reports. For example, if a
user browses deeper into an advertiser's site, then hits the back
button, this causes a potential reload of the original landing page,
which a consultant would record as an additional ad click - even
though no Google ad click actually occurred.
Fictitious ad clicks due to conflation across advertisers and ad
networks. Some consultants "cookie" users and track their activity
across their network of client advertisers. One often-used consultant
implements the cookie in such a way that clicks on Yahoo ads can be
counted as clicks on Google ads, and vice versa.
These kinds of flaws in methodology cause click counts in consultant
reports to be artificially inflated. One clear indication that the
consultants' results are flawed: they're not even getting the total
number of clicks correct. We have seen some instances of reports
showing 1.5 times the number of clicks in our logs - for example, in
one case 1,278 clicks were claimed as being "fraudulent" by the
consultant while only 850 actually even appeared as clicks in
Google's logs.
More evidence of the consultants' defective methodology is revealed
when looking at conversion rates. We found clicks identified as
"fraudulent" in reports often converted at nearly the same rate
(and in some cases better) compared to other clicks. In one case,
"fraudulent clicks" converted 5.1% of the time - only a bit less
than the advertiser's overall conversion rate of 5.8%.
Our report provides detailed case studies for three third-party
auditing firms - AdWatcher, ClickFacts, and Click Forensics - which
represent the vast majority of the last 100 reports advertisers have
submitted to us. All of the reports we've seen from these consultants
exhibit the serious problems we have described above. The pervasiveness
of these problems concerns us, especially because advertisers may be
hurting their businesses by changing their campaign settings based on
erroneous information. We will continue to devote attention to this
issue to keep our advertisers well-informed, and perhaps help
third-party auditing firms improve their methods so that they can
provide value to advertisers.
If you would like to know more about the general issue of invalid
clicks and how we manage them, we have posted previously here and here.
If you would like to learn more about how to track invalid clicks in
your account, you can find information about our Invalid Clicks
reporting feature here.
|
| | 1 answer | Add comment |
Wednesday, 9 August 2006
|
| PR7 music pages Bh 23:22:46 |
| | Any PR7 music pages out there selling Ad space
Barrie,
--
BH
|
| | 11 answers | Add comment |
|
| How search for sentence-like relationships between search words? Tom Amoth 23:20:23 |
| | How search for sentence-like relationships between search words?
Search engines generally search for documents in which the
key words are scattered throughout
(or else the words can be "anchored" to a particular part of the
document such as the title).
But it would be desirable to be able to find documents in
which a group of words are closely connected--as in the same sentence.
Ideally, natural-language understanding would be used,
but such understanding is difficult/error-prone to program.
A compromise would be to require a set of words to be in the same
sentence--or at least close together, but I can't find any such feature.
A search could be done for each possible anchor location, but that
would be cumbersome.
How can I search while requiring a stronger connection between
a set of words than merely requiring those words to be in the
same document (or all anchored to the same part of the document)?
|
| | 3 answer | Add comment |
|
| MSN ranking Check Roxxy 23:14:33 |
| | How to check site ranking in MSN?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | 4 answer | Add comment |
|
| PHP generated content seen by spiders? Liam 17:48:45 |
| | I did a search here for php pages, and basically all I've found for
sure, is that you pretty much don't want to use pages where ? is in the
URL. Nor session ID's and cookies.
What I'm wondering, is what about pages that have mostly all static
content, except a little here or there that's PHP generated? Either
from an include pulling from another file, or pulling some text from a
database?
For example: In order to improve search ranking, having a section on my
site that has a new customer quote, and a different item from the
catalog featured each day would probably help. But I'd use PHP to
randomly select the quote and item from a database and echo it to the
page.
Would this cause a problem with spiders being able to see this new
content?
Thanks for any feedback.
-Liam
|
| | 34 answer | Add comment |
|
| Google Shitemaps Big Bill 15:28:26 |
| | I now have two sites with sitemaps that are accepted and register ok
for whom I can get no crawl stats or diagnostics on the basis that the
sites are not yet verified. Both of these are sites that have long
been verified and I've been receiving sitemaps info from for months,
some of which I continue to receive. Both are sites I continue to
receive Google Analytics info from.
This is what happens when you get too many smart people in one place,
ask them to do rocket science and they're boffo at it, ask them to
boil an egg between them and you'll starve.
BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/marilyn-monroe-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis-orbis/amici-della-luna-glass.html
|
| | 4 answer | Add comment |
|
| Google Blacklist Sph001 14:17:16 |
| | I am working with a web site www.freedomeldercare.com. it's a parked
site - with the main domain being njhomecare.com.
Freedomeldercare was last indexed on may 17 -- and everything I have
done (submit url, sitemap submission) -- and yet no spider visit.
anyone have a clue why the spider doesn't want to index this site>
thanks!
stephen
|
| | 11 answers | Add comment |
|
| Alexa Rank !!!! Seocold 13:04:24 |
| | Hi friends,
First of all hello to everyone in this group. this is
my first topic and my first day
I have bit strange problem. i never consider alexa rank
sincerely but our head thinks alexa ranking is important. so my
question is how i can get good ranks in alexa? i mean i've done
google,msn,yahoo but our alexa rank is getting down and down i don't
know why. my site ranks for top 10 in some of keywords in google and
yet he is not satisfied and he asks everyday about alexa. i don't know
how to improve alexa. my friends said to me use alexa toolbar and your
alexa ranking will up so i tried alexa and mcaffee antivirus said
"Alexa is a adware" and removed it automatiocally. so friends tell me
how to improve rank in alexa.
Thanks to read my post.
Have a good day.
Bye & Best of luck
site:www.4colordesign.com
|
| | 9 answers | Add comment |
|
| How can I find out how many inbound links my website has got Marcus 11:02:02 |
| | Can I use Google toolbar or something to find out how many sites on the
Internet that links to a specific URL?
|
| | 8 answers | Add comment |
|
| AISE Stats: 01/08/2006-08/08/2006 Roy Schestowitz 03:12:31 |
| | В¤ Times are Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) +0:00
В¤ Statistics span a period of approximately 7 days
and are automatically generated every Tuesday
В¤ Subject line formatted consistently "AISE Stats: <DATES>"
В¤ Killfile <subject contains "AISE Stats: "> if uninterested
____________________________________________________________
Turquoise SuperStat 2.2 * Message area statistics
=================================================
(c) Copyright 1998-2005 Peter Karlsson
This report covers 750 messages written between 2006-08-01 00:02:43 and
2006-08-08 22:03:02
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoters (includes people who have written at least three messages)
Place Name Msgs Ratio
1. Brian Wakem <no@email.com> 3 80.55%
2. dcashley <dcashley@adelphia.net> 3 76.87%
3. Tom James <tombenjames@yahoo.com> 4 70.33%
4. DJ <notreal@notreal.com> 4 69.38%
5. Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> 176 68.68%
6. Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> 6 67.21%
7. tonnie <t.prasing@chello.nl> 16 60.75%
8. canadafred <canadian_web@hotmail.com> 119 55.44%
9. mark r <markrush@gmail.com> 5 53.07%
10. Doc <doc@tyretraders.com> 3 50.54%
11. softwarelabus@yahoo.com 6 50.28%
12. Stacey <Remove-the-Y-stacey@staceyssimplestuff.com> 113 49.55%
13. Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> 10 47.43%
14. listadeyo@gmail.com 4 46.11%
15. David <seodave@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> 30 43.34%
A total of 880790 bytes were written (message bodies only), of which 454279,
or 51.58%, were quotes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toplist of writers
Place Name Msgs Bytes Quoted
1. Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> 176 230459 68.7%
2. canadafred <canadian_web@hotmail.com> 119 147479 55.4%
3. Stacey <Remove-the-Y-stacey@staceyssimplestuff.com 113 131668 49.6%
4. John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> 37 38474 40.1%
5. David <seodave@search-engine-optimization-services 30 50636 43.3%
6. Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> 19 44523 40.4%
7. tonnie <t.prasing@chello.nl> 16 18007 60.8%
8. webseoguy <webseoguy@gmail.com> 15 8658 17.8%
9. catherine yronwode <cat@luckymojo.com> 11 12632 37.6%
10. Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> 10 9880 47.4%
Borek <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.these.com.part 10 7305 35.0%
12. BH <tower@tower-forte.demon.co.uk> 7 4505 39.6%
markbiernat@yahoo.com 7 4289 21.5%
14. softwarelabus@yahoo.com 6 10072 50.3%
Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> 6 6209 67.2%
A total of 108 people were identified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toplist of original content per message (of people who have written at least
three messages)
Place Name Orig. / Msgs = PrMsg Quoted
1. spamhotmail@yahoo.com 18048 / 3 = 6016
2. Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com 26538 / 19 = 1396 40.4%
3. David <seodave@search-engine-optimization-s 28690 / 30 = 956 43.3%
4. ato_zee@hotmail.com 2789 / 3 = 929 14.8%
5. softwarelabus@yahoo.com 5008 / 6 = 834 50.3%
6. www.1-script.com <info_at_1-script_dot_com@ 3187 / 4 = 796 19.9%
7. catherine yronwode <cat@luckymojo.com> 7880 / 11 = 716 37.6%
8. ketan9@gmail.com 3428 / 5 = 685 38.9%
9. John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> 23027 / 37 = 622 40.1%
10. Liam <news@celticbear.com> 1858 / 3 = 619 42.0%
11. Stacey <Remove-the-Y-stacey@staceyssimplest 66424 / 113 = 587 49.6%
12. darkness_devilz@hotmail.com 2308 / 4 = 577 43.2%
13. canadafred <canadian_web@hotmail.com> 65710 / 119 = 552 55.4%
14. Vyoma <k.mahesh.bhat@gmail.com> 1588 / 3 = 529 24.2%
15. Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> 5194 / 10 = 519 47.4%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toplist of subjects
Place Subject Msgs Bytes
1. Understanding SEO Factions 73 88017
2. PHP generated content seen by spiders? 31 67219
3. the Google to be - the future is dark 30 44846
4. Reference on Fred Joly 27 27788
5. Are search engines going to die? 26 29510
6. Ping Els 23 36380
Site owners check your site for robots.txt file! 23 27910
What is this thing spidering my site? 23 19744
9. To hyphen or not to hyphen (Was:Re: Google's Little Devil 22 37069
10. webpage generators for content 20 16057
11. Can some one give me a tip.... (re Google rank) 17 41162
Search Engine Ranking Reports 17 19672
Why do you prefer Google? 17 16434
Site disappears then comes back on Google 17 15493
15. Google Adding Previously Dropped Pages 15 25579
A total of 105 subjects were identified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toplist of programs
Place Program Msgs
1. G2 251
0.2:251
2. Forte Agent 216
1.7/32.534:176 1.8/32.553:1 1.91/32.564:10 2.0/32.652:27 3.3/32.846:2
3. Microsoft Outlook Express 143
6.00.2800.1106:1 6.00.2800.1409:1 6.00.2900.2869:141
4. Xnews 38
2005.10.18:37 2006.03.14:1
5. KNode 22
0.7.2:19 0.8.2:3
6. Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 17
7. Opera Mail/9.00 11
8. 40tude_Dialog 7
2.0.15.1:7
Turnpike 7
6.01-M:7
10. http: 4
/www.1-script.com/forums/:4
newsSync 4
PCBOARD.IN):4
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 4
13. News Rover 8.2.2 3
14. MicroPlanet Gravity 2
v2.30:2
Mozilla 2
5.0:2
A total of 19 different programs (not counting different versions) were
identified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings per weekday
Day Msgs
Monday 86 ***********************
Tuesday 219 ************************************************************
Wednesday 108 *****************************
Thursday 79 *********************
Friday 88 ************************
Saturday 96 **************************
Sunday 74 ********************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings per hour
Hour Msgs
0000-0059 25 **********************************
0100-0159 27 ************************************
0200-0259 31 ******************************************
0300-0359 28 **************************************
0400-0459 25 **********************************
0500-0559 26 ***********************************
0600-0659 30 ****************************************
0700-0759 38 ***************************************************
0800-0859 35 ***********************************************
0900-0959 31 ******************************************
1000-1059 22 ******************************
1100-1159 37 **************************************************
1200-1259 36 *************************************************
1300-1359 37 **************************************************
1400-1459 24 ********************************
1500-1559 31 ******************************************
1600-1659 26 ***********************************
1700-1759 38 ***************************************************
1800-1859 33 *********************************************
1900-1959 28 **************************************
2000-2059 44 ************************************************************
2100-2159 35 ***********************************************
2200-2259 34 **********************************************
2300-2359 29 ***************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | Add comment |
Tuesday, 8 August 2006
|
| AOL giving personal search data to third parties Mabon Dane 22:44:18 |
| | If you are a customer of AOL perhaps it is now time to quit AOL for
another internet provider.
Why I say this? AOL has long been criticised for its poor customer
service and tactics. Now there is a new reason to get rid of AOL, and
fast. AOL has been keeping information on all the search engine
requests by customers, no problem there, however AOL has also been
giving this information to third parties who could identify AOL
customers. AOL has admitted a breach of the privacy of their customers.
Report here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/business/media/08aol.html?hp&ex=115...
So I advise dump AOL fast.
Mabon Dane
|
| | 2 answer | Add comment |
|
| What's your AOL rank? John Bokma 22:43:22 |
| | AOL rank: max number of times a domain that belongs to you pops up in the
"leaked" dataset.
Mine is 17, and my average number of daily visitors is 10,000
would be cool if there is a(ny) kind of correlation.
Any takers?
--
John
Googlebot Stats: http://johnbokma.com/perl/googlebot-statistics.html
|
| | 8 answers | Add comment |
|
| 500k of user data released by AOL Mark R 21:32:39 |
| | http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/08/06/aol-proudly-releases-massive-amounts-of-user-search-data/
the data is of their marketing stats, showing clicks etc for different
campaigns
links to zip file of data! makes interesting reading
mark
www.iosilver.co.uk - silver jewellery
|
| | 3 answer | Add comment |
|
| similiar sites - differently indexed by google? Danny 18:01:45 |
| | LetВґs take a company and its several international subsidiaries. Each
of these has its own website of identical structure and number of
pages. For all the pages are fully translated, duplicate content should
be no problem. Each site has also got its own domain/URL.
The first site that was launched was indexed by google almost
completely (over 12,000 pages known by google). All the other sites are
not well indexed. Only a few hundred pages are shown by google.
Maybe you want to take a look:
www-buerkert-de -> well indexed
As an example:
www-buerkert-fr -> poor indexed
Group Site:
www-buerkert-com (where you can reach alll sites)
IВґm very excited to hear your your ideas
D.
|
| | 3 answer | Add comment |
|
| Get listed in MSN Roxxy 17:35:49 |
| | MSN is one of the most popular and growing Search Engine. It may bring
a large number of visitors to your site. Million of visitors use MSN
to get to get their desired result. It is not hard to get listed in
MSN. You have to submit your URL such as http://nfo.atspace.com to
MSN add URL page. It generally takes 4 weeks to get listed in MSN. At
first MSN will crawl few pages of your site then will cover all of
your pages gradually. To get listed more quickly and cover all pages
you should follow some SEO technique.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | 4 answer | Add comment |
|
| Link popularity check Roxxy 17:31:01 |
| | Link popularity is an important factor to rank you site higher in
Search Result. You can easily count how many site has linked your
site. To calculate how many site has linked your site in Google
search by simply typing site:http://www.yoursite.com and will show
the search result and number of site that has placed your link. You
can do the same thing in yahoo or MSN search engines.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | 3 answer | Add comment |
|
| Duplicate content in non framed pages Marcus 17:25:14 |
| | I have read that frames makes life harder for search engines. Therefor
I have built my website without frames.
To the visitor it looks like they have a frame though. I have an area
on the left containing links to external pages. But since I avoided
frames I have copied this area with the links to every page on my site.
This is where I believe I could have a problem with SEO. I guess search
engines like Google consider this to be duplicate content, and since
some of my pages contains very little text, the duplicate content rate
is sky high.
Does anyone have a recomendation what I should do about this to NOT
have my PR penalized?
|
| | 4 answer | Add comment |
|
| Google sitemaps problems now Big Bill 16:38:56 |
| | Mine aren't verified now, some of them, so I have to go through the
verification process again. What is wrong with these idiots? What this
means is that everyone will be trying to re-verify at the same time so
the system will grind to a halt again. Gawd - if you had a choice, you
wouldn't bother with Google, would you?
BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/marilyn-monroe-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis-orbis/amici-della-luna-glass.html
|
| | 8 answers | Add comment |
|
| (Article) 175,000 Blogs Born Every Day Roy Schestowitz 06:09:20 |
| | There's a blog born every half second
,----[ Quote ]
| According to recent statistics from blog-tracking site Technorati,
| the blogosphere has doubled every six months for the last three years.
| That's 175,000 new blogs per day worldwide. Technorati added its 50
| millionth blog on July 31, 2006.
`----
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6102935.html
Gives a whole new perspective to the sheer amount of content out there...
|
| | 6 answers | Add comment |
|
