On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:48:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>____/ Big Bill on Friday 28 September 2007 23:34 : \____
>
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:33:19 -0700, Tim <tm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Google isn't stupid and they've already figured out about filler pages
>>>manipulating their serps. So it no longer matters if you have a billion
>>>pages to your site or 1 single page to your site as far as them visiting
>>>your site or pagerank is concerned. So the SEO Dave method of filler
>>>pages for so called white hat seo is dead and gone. R.I.P. Filler Pages.
>>>You've probably noticed lately that google is indexing a lot less of
>>>them then they used to I'm sure.
>>
>> Some of us noticed they were doing that a couple of years back. Sam,
>> is this you again?
>>
>>> What do you think that's all about?
>>
>> I think it's about saving server space, which if you think about it
>> costs Google a lot of bucks. Remember Google buying all that dark
>> cable and whatever in Oregon, was it? they were going to build a big
>> old server farm there and it's giong to cost big bucks. They don't
>> want to waste resources keeping duplicate copies of Amazon sites. Or
>> public domain books, for that matter.
>>
>>>Google has finally woken up and taking back control of their search
>>>engine. Bye Bye to internal pages created soley for manipulating a
>>>site's serp in Google. Google sees that practice now for what it is
>>>namely Black Hat SEO.
>>
>> This not just in...
>
>Just for the record, those thousands of pages that I mentioned are not fillers.
>I actually wrote them. I still thank you and Tim for some valuable advice and
>I am glad that Google took some steps to knock down jumbo sites filled by
>mumbo-jumbo from the public domain.
by SEO Dave, one imagines. Have his sites actually gone yet? I thought
he actually got proper links to one of them, the big one.
BB
--
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.kruse.co.uk/close-ended-questions.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-software-review.htm
|
|
