On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:43:21 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:59:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>> I agree with Dave about the old domains thing, he'll need to be buying
>>>> domains that were already associated with the subject he intends to
>>>> fill them with though, dunno if he realises that but he probably does
>>>> and should have mentioned. And I agree with what he says about sub
>>>> domains. It should be born in mind though, that when you or I say we
>>>> added new content to a site we generally mean a few pages of original
>>>> content here and there. Dave reproduces public domain content
>>>> thousands of pages at a time, hence the large number of visitors he
>>>> gets. So if you or I add a few original pages to our little site about
>>>> our Aunt Petunia's pressed flower collection, as is our wont, we can't
>>>> expect the same kind of visitor figures. Which you might notice he
>>>> entirely fails to mention.
>>>I have learned to accept Dave's conduct over time. There is no harm if the
>>>content is public -- something _which I failed to grasp at first_.
>> I don't mind him doing it as he does what he does well, so far as I
>> can see. He misleads by omission, though, and does it repeatedly,
>> seemingly in an attempt to present himself in a far better light than
>> he deserves to be. So, he presents himself in an overly-flattering
>> light, and he runs other people down without any justification. This
>> is what I object to. He's ALWAYS done this, for years. If this place
>> had a moderator he'd have been kicked off years ago.
>I was deceived too at first. It was only once I went to his sites that I
>realised it was somewhat a monkey business. Don't get me wrong, he does
>everything he does quite well, but he cannot mention and present the high
>numbers to someone with a 5-page Web site and the desire to lure more
Exactly. It all *sounds* very clever but it just isn't relevant. I
notice that his efforts working with Amazon's XML feed, which again
*sound* very clever, seem to have been achieved with the £50 jobbie
handily available from, funny enough, Amazon. I'm going to give it a
try myself when I come out of hospital. Again this is very useful to
know and without Dave mentioning they even had an XML feed I wouldn't
have thought to look for it (no time) but things as always with Dave
are not what they appear.
>>> I think
>>>he is doing a fine job delivering people what they search for, however at
>>>the expense of smaller sites whose owners are the _authors_, who will get
>>>greater gratification from visits. When I published a modified version of
>>>a GPL'd (General Public Licence) project that I had hacked on, I had some
>>>unjustified feelings of guilt. If not _all_ the code is genuinely mine, I
>>>think the other authors must be credited (in terms of stats), which is not
>>>possible. That's what the GPL is all about though.
>>>Getting back on topic, I have seen some sites that got acquired by
>>>different owners but stuck to related topics (often restricted by the
>>>domain name, e.g. palmnews.com will not become a family page).
>> Yeah, I can see that working, there are companies, Snapnames used to
>> be one, maybe still is, that deal in these. I tracked
>> Maliceinwonderland.com for years but never got it, heh-heh.
I now, thanks to an alert from one of our regular lurkers, am the
proud owner of maliceinwonderland.co.uk. Tee-hee!
Elvis does my seo