First, please answer my first question: do the pages get unlisted
or do they just drop down the rankings? If they drop, it's fixable.
There will not be a quick fix, but there is a fix.
I doubt that Infoseek is refusing to keep pages in its database merely
because they don't already have an established link structure. That would
create a situation like the "can't get hired because you have no experience"
dilemma, and would prevent them from growing.
However, a secondary indexing filter that heavily weights exterior
links would tend to reward sites that are liked by many sites. sort of
a popularity poll as well as a robotic filtering. It's not 100% accurate,
but the really good sites tend to have a lot of pointers to them because they
impressed their visitors with something.
>1st off I wrote Support Freedom because that's what I meant. Obviously
>you see yourself as such a superior promotion artist that not
>only do you not have a problem telling your clients (if you really have any personally I think you're
>an IS spy)to wait 4 to 6 months to see results,
I do not have any financial relationship with any commercial search engine.
I will not take a client who wants fast results. If they aren't willing to give it
a year's trial, I let them find another manager. It's merely being practical.
>I don't think you're cynical, I think you're just another one of those
>people who think you know the way the internet is supposed to work for everyone
>and you don't mind pointing out that you think you're superior.
I've watched the net work. It works slowly, unless the web site is that of a
well-known corporation. Everyone else has to grow.
>As far as adapt or die, if you had read my post, the point was to adapt, only I
>didn't judge anyone who may read it and tell
>them how they were a spammer and insinuate they were trying to rip-off their clients
>by swindling Infoseek.
Neither did I. However you did seem quite agitated because of the time it
would take to develop the links that Infoseek wanted. If that's what it takes
to get good rankings, then that's what we'll all have to do. I already do it, because
the information from the GATECH surveys has always indicated that links between sites
were as effective as search engines (heck, before search engines, it was the only way.)
> My only intention was to help clear up the issue which
>a lot of people (including you according to some of your other posts here) were
I study long-term traffic patterns and traceable sales due to the web site,
look for places to place reciprocal links, and don't spend much time on the
search engines beyond writing good pages. It's the reverse of the typical strategy,
but I started designing web sites when Yahoo was a subdirectory off of a college server,
and Lycos was the only engine in town. In web years, I'm older than dirt.(In dog years, I'm dead.)
You can't build an entire sales presence on the web based on getting high rankings
in the search engines ... there's way more than that before the visitors will hand over
money for product.
> I was trying to help. Of course now I can see
>that you only create such high quality pages that getting hundreds of
>links to your pages is not a problem.
I plan the "linkability" into the site: if the client is selling llama
wool, I ask them to provide content about spinning and weaving and llama
history. Then I use the search engines to find established sites where reciprocal
links would be effective, and write a personal message requesting the link.
Few persons refuse, because I explain how the content of the two sites
relates ... I've obviously read their site.
Links multiply like clotheshangers in an unused closet: get the first 10 and
others magically appear. If course, I periodically open the closet and throw
a few more in there, but getting the first few is worth the time it takes.
You don't need "hundreds", and a few dozen in the right places will produce
amazing amounts of traffic.
>I'm not as good a salesman as you seem to be, because I don't know how to
>sell them the idea of waiting 6 months to justify paying me to assist them
>in promoting their site.
I don't sell "results", because it's not under my control. I sell setup, design,
and management services at a reasonable price. (that's where the money is) I advise
the clients that it's going to take 4-6 months to become known because the Web it
huge and slow-moving. They are essentially starting all over in a new town, and
can't expect to leap to the top.
>If you're really wanting to be a friend to the professional website
>promotion industry, why not share some of your sales secrets.
I have: see other posts under this name.
>I've been a professional website promoter for about 18 months now and I don't spam
>the engines, but I do stay very aware of their policies and changes. I resent you
>implying that just because I was able to "figure out" what they were looking for
>that makes me a spammer and less deserving of your (or anyone else's) respect.
If my words seemed to imply that, my apologies. But the thing to remember is
that Infoseek and the rest are in it to make money, and that means making the
persons searching find high-quality information so they come back to see the expensive
banner ads sold by Infoseek. They will change the rules as often as they need to so
that happens, regardless of what it might do to the site promotion industry. It's
their service. You seemed irate that they had raised the hurdle (again) for getting
good rankings, and inserted an obstacle that apparently will take considerable time
>Whether anyone likes it or not, the internet is going to be driven by commerce, which was the point of my
>post. That includes Infoseek.
I totally agree. So why are you so angry at Infoseek for coming up with a strategy to make their users happy
and maximize their income at the same time? If they could manage a way to do without all the non-paying sites,
they'd do it, but you have to give away information to make money, and the indexed sites are the bait. It's a
mutual benefit thing, but it's like dancing with an elephant. I have to watch the elephant, the elephant doesn't
have to worry about me.
>it will only get better when people realize that the net is all about
>freedom. Not having one person tell a lot of other people how it is supposed to be done, but more
>when people start thinking more in terms of what is possible to accomplish.
Nice soapbox. However, the Net is really a technocracy: those that own/invent the technology can pretty much make up
their own rules because they own the equipment we "live" on. It's like medieval times: We peasants can get on nicely
by bowing and scraping to the ruling class, but that's the extent of our freedom until we can buy our own castle.
>Finally, you said it's not that hard to get hundreds of people to link to your site, WHAT? That one I don't get.
See above: the discussion of getting reciprocal links. I'm not talking about getting site visits, I'm talking
about showing up as a link on someone else's site.
>You mentioned two pages,
One site with a lot of voluntary links is THIS site - because of the quantity of useful
information. The other is a site that has a link from almost every academic site that discusses
the 18th century, because of the quality of the links list Jim Lynch maintains. People tend to send
him new sites for his list, so it just keeps growing with little effort on his part.
Or perhaps you meant the GATECH site: that's a survey of web use patterns, and it has always shown
that sites are found as often by links from other sites (not directories, just regular sites) as from
>Was that really your suggestion to try to "help"? If you think that Infoseek deciding who gets to advertise
>what and where and how is really the way the net is supposed to work,
Forget how the Internet is "supposed to" work. Here's how it works: Infoseek owns their servers. They
can set any rules they want for how their service will run. That's business, e-commerce, or plain capitalism.
My choices on the Internet are limited to working within the rules set by the owners of the search engines and
directories I use OR starting my own search engine site and running it to suit myself. That's the freedom.
Freedom to start whatever service you think will survive and prosper.
>then I can only assume you have stock in IS or some reason to support them in their decision
>to exclude the majority of website promoters
I don't own any IS stock. I respect their right to set whatever rules they want, because they own the servers.
If I want to benefit from their servers, I have to accept their conditions. I'm being realistic. I'm a peasant
on the internet social scale. I have no rights exxcept what the people who own the equipment I rent choose to give me,
until I can buy my own castle.