"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> __/ [ Stacey ] on Sunday 26 February 2006 18:35 \__
>> "News" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>I have a client that would change the content, meta tags and occasionally
>>> the design of his home page whilst I was in the middle of optimising his
>>> site (I only ever had access to his index page) He is now very upset
>>> he doesn't rank for his main keyword. I have explained the detrimental
>>> effect his changes have but he refuses to accept this. Does anyone have
>>> advice on how to deal with issue? Any articles or "expert" opinions
>>> very useful.
>>> Thanks in advance
> What promises were made to the client and did the client promise to
> from getting involved? I was in a situation before when one edit suprseded
> another. It can be enormously frustrating and often difficult to recover
> from (by obtaining both versions after the collision occurs), especially
> edits are done directly on the server's filesystem or via a CMS
> Hi Stacey,
>> Why would anyone SEO a site with the only access is to the index page?
> Many people still think of their front page as the one and only facet.
> why people are so obsessed with the perceived value (e.g. PageRank )of
> front page and are reluctant to leak some of it onto other pages/domains.
> The matter of fact is that subpages (additional, sub-categorised content)
> often help attract more traffic than a high-ranked front page or a
> highly-optimised front page.
>> Mistake #1. Mistake #2 Don't ever take on a client with the only access
>> the index page and allowing changes to be done on top of changes(while
>> optimizing). Advice learn by your mistakes.:-)
> CVS or SVN the Web site? It's probably an overkill for small sites, but we
> so on our internet. It involved either file locking or version control
> (merging) with the notion of checking out and committing pages as to avoid
> or treat simultaneous edits.
I agree, but if a site is to be optimized for the better the client needs to
understand that the whole site should be changed. Now if a person doesn't
have full access then maybe a template with the advised changes to be made.
Other than that if someone doesn't do advised changes then it can not be
perceived as the person's fault that something didn't work. It would be the
client for not having the completed changes to be made.
Am I making any sense? I have been working on a site with green and grey
colors. Kind of makes the mind wander. Plus, I had to back up 5 sites last
night to get my FP extensions reinstalled by the hosting company as they(FP
extensions) went coo koo. I had to do it by FTP and everyone knows how much
I hate that and the slowness of it. Plus, my simplestuff site had loads of
stuff since 4 years...I need to do some clearing out.