The best way to optimize for any SE is to have REAL content on the website.

However, that seems to have been forgotten somewhere along the way...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lesjkajski" <lesjka@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wiWPf.304412$2y1.9664554@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:45:54 GMT, lesjkajski <lesjka@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

True, some people may not be the only one seeking out a "new strategy"
after each update that sends some sites tumbling. But then not many
are after updates that has similar results for their sites. Just like
some folks ain't alone going out and buying new domain names when they
got one banned on Google or Yahoo. *shrug*

Then again, some of those same folks don't necessarily think of a
"better strategy" .... but then again, there's a reason why some folks
will "do about anything" to rank well at Google. *shrugs shoulders
again* Which, in my opinion (again), makes the whole thing about
griping about mean ol' Google and-or Google's updates lose a bit of
the bite.

One can claim they will "just SEO" for another SE if/when they feel
another SE is not ranking them to their liking/expectation. However,
when optimizing for _any_ SE then that page/site's ranking will be
affected somehow on other SEs anyway, so even if focusing on one SE in
particular you are really optimizing, to some extent, to others.

So, to answer your question - per the subject line - of "SEO for
Google useful for websites?" the answer is, naturally, of course. Just
like if you had asked "SEO for Yahoo useful for websites?" would been
answered the same way when looking at the bottom line of things.

In regard to the "spammish example" shared, the updates are an attempt
to help eradicate a larger number of those kinds of sites appearing in
the results. Will one update eradicate all? No, likely not - so some
will still appear every so often in the results. Try the same searches
at MSN and Yahoo and I imagine some sites that some could view being
"spammish" appears in their results as well.

Folks wanna be #1 (or in the Top Ten at least) - even if there are
10,000 or 1,000,000 other pages/sites wanting to achieve the same
status for the same search term. Been like that since before Google
even appeared on the Web. When looking at a "spammish example" it is
clear that the person did not care about "quality results" for the
searcher but "ranking well" instead.

Without updates, then those kind of sites won't drop in rankings. With
updates, some or many of those sites will drop in rankings. I
seriously doubt Google is the _only_ SE that tweaks its algo or rolls
out updates; perhaps they are the one most publicized about having
updates though.

Personally, I don't look at many examples of "spammish sites" people
share about as most of those - if one's competitor - could, most
probably, be surpassed. Sometimes people share such kind of examples
as an excuse, per se, for them to adopt similar tactics. *shrug*

Your example - from the sounds of it - was very likely an example of
someone using one of those "SEO scripts" to create a "keyword-rich"
page (dime-a-dozen)- which, you state, did drop in rankings (therefore
results short-term versus long term). Yyou didn't feel, by sharing
about that site, that the site deserved high of placement that it
originally had achieved and I know you tried to use the example in
hopes of putting Google into a negative light - but that kind of
backfired as you may have, instead, helped show that updates are a
good thing since the site in question, per your commetns about it, has
dropped in rankings.

Me? I prefer long term results and have ridden most of the updates of
the past 2 to 2 1/2 years. Even when Google, or Yahoo, updates their
index (doubling in size or whatever), my placement has not been
adversely affected (e.g. tumbling oodles of slots).

Carol

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:02:21 -0000, "Andrew Heenan"
<andrew4@heenan.net> wrote:

Aw, you're no fun ;(

Carol

Carol W wrote:
You should try www.google.es, it is full of them.

:-)

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:28:06 -0500, Carol W <from_you@nomail.com>
wrote:

He shows no signs of developing either.

BB
--

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bill.kr...ird-prints.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/harmo...dom/index.html
kruse@crystal-liaison.com Gifty! Shiny! BB!

Tonie stay updated or shut up

Google has some problems and i was wright when i told you i saw
something else then bigdaddy.

See ya, sucker
Lesjkajski

there is somthing else going on then bigdaddy

Lesjkajski

Wright??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"scalle" <pascal.beyens@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142063361.257557.291440@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

"Windsun" <wind-sun@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VFyQf.3727$Bj7.2526@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Fixing top posting of course isn't as bad as just posting and not knowing
who the person is posting to.

Windsun the poster doesn't know all the spellings for English. He is Dutch
so we can understand that he meant "right" and "than" for then. It is a
common mispelling for both. I have seen English speaking people do the same.

Stacey
--
Rustic Lodge Decor- http://crookedcreekcountry.com
Gifts for any Occasion- http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gifts/
Home Decor- http://eleganthomedecorandgifts.com/home-decor/
Flowers and Gift Baskets - http://flowerdeliveryplus.com

Stacey wrote:

No, this one is Belgian and ranting in several groups.



--
Webontwerp: http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/
Korte handleiding zoekmachine optimalisatie / gevonden worden:
http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html
Lifestyle - wonen reizen en genieten : http://vision4living.com