«

On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:14:03 -0400, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writ:

> Jenn wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> I was talking to the techs
>>>
>>> What techs? You spoke with humans at google?
>>
>> Techs I work with ......
>
> Ah yes. That's was I thought. Search engine experts.

No, just the same caliber of tech as Jenn. Think about it - if they'll
pay her, who /wouldn't/ they pay?

>> I also said I found it interesting. I find alot of information
>> interesting. It doesn't mean I participate in it or even would
>> recommend it.
>
> Then you should have added: "this doesn't work, I wouldn't use it, and
> I don't recommend it."

But then she wouldn't be arguing.
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>
>>> What techs? You spoke with humans at google?
>>
>> Techs I work with ......
>
> Ah yes. That's was I thought. Search engine experts.

It's part of their job ...


>>>> and they told me that Google will look at and take into
>>>> consideration the Meta Name keywords, but it doesn't index them...
>>>
>>> And google will penalize you if words in the meta keyword element
>>> are *not* found in the content.
>>
>> On the site I work on these days ... that wouldn't be an issue
>> because the words in the meta keyword element are also found within
>> the content.

> But since there is no benefit, why bother to bother with the meta
> keywords?

It's their thing ... I just do the particular job I was hired to do ...

>>>> I have done a bit of research
>>>
>>> Not much... lol
>>
>> According to you?
>
> Of course. Though others reading here may agree with me.

So? If I was on a group for a long time, our positions might well be
swapped. Opposition is a healthy entity as far as I know.

<snip>
>>>
>>> You also didn't think about speech browsers, which would be boring
>>> the blind people to death reading all your supposedly invisible
>>> "keywords."

>> I also said I found it interesting. I find alot of information
>> interesting. It doesn't mean I participate in it or even would
>> recommend it.

> Then you should have added: "this doesn't work, I wouldn't use it,
> and I don't recommend it."

I haven't tested it, so I really haven't made up my mind about it. At this
point it's just interesting information.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

freemont wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:14:03 -0400, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writ:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> I was talking to the techs
>>>>
>>>> What techs? You spoke with humans at google?
>>>
>>> Techs I work with ......
>>
>> Ah yes. That's was I thought. Search engine experts.
>
> No, just the same caliber of tech as Jenn. Think about it - if they'll
> pay her, who /wouldn't/ they pay?

What sort of paying job do you have? Inquiring minds would like to know?

>>> I also said I found it interesting. I find alot of information
>>> interesting. It doesn't mean I participate in it or even would
>>> recommend it.
>>
>> Then you should have added: "this doesn't work, I wouldn't use it,
>> and I don't recommend it."
>
> But then she wouldn't be arguing.

As far as I can tell ... this particular portion of the discussion is not
*arguing*.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:44:21 -0500, Jenn writ:

> freemont wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:14:03 -0400, Beauregard T. Shagnasty writ:
>>
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>> I was talking to the techs
>>>>>
>>>>> What techs? You spoke with humans at google?
>>>>
>>>> Techs I work with ......
>>>
>>> Ah yes. That's was I thought. Search engine experts.
>>
>> No, just the same caliber of tech as Jenn. Think about it - if they'll
>> pay her, who /wouldn't/ they pay?
>
> What sort of paying job do you have? Inquiring minds would like to know?

I'm not playing that game with you again. We were talking about /you/.
Not me. The people /you/ work with. Not me.

And if someone is paying you full time to work on websites, well, I can
hazard a good guess as to the quality of their other tech support.

On the other hand, sometimes people like you slip through. The others
might be smart and competent. Happens.
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

freemont wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:44:21 -0500, Jenn writ:

>>> No, just the same caliber of tech as Jenn. Think about it - if
>>> they'll pay her, who /wouldn't/ they pay?
>>
>> What sort of paying job do you have? Inquiring minds would like to
>> know?
>
> I'm not playing that game with you again. We were talking about /you/.
> Not me. The people /you/ work with. Not me.

ok .. so you don't have paying work right now... It's not an indicator of a
persons skill level. The job market is pretty tight.

> And if someone is paying you full time to work on websites, well, I
> can hazard a good guess as to the quality of their other tech support.
>
> On the other hand, sometimes people like you slip through. The others
> might be smart and competent. Happens.

.... whatever the case being for me.. I am very thankful and greatful for the
job I have and do whatever they need to the best of my ability, and if I
don't know how to do what they want, I go looking for the answers so I can
do what they want ...

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:17:10 -0500, Jenn writ:

> freemont wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:44:21 -0500, Jenn writ:
>>> What sort of paying job do you have? Inquiring minds would like to
>>> know?
>>
>> I'm not playing that game with you again. We were talking about /you/.
>> Not me. The people /you/ work with. Not me.
>
> ok .. so you don't have paying work right now...

Heheh... classic trolling behavior. So predictable.

> It's not an indicator
> of a persons skill level.

For that matter, /having/ work isn't any indication of skill levels,
either. You are evidence of this.

I'll take your little bait and state that I have full time work and a
small business out of my home.

All this information is readily available if one has the gumption to look
for it. But you don't look things up.

So what's your next bait going to be, I wonder. I assume we can't compare
dicks. Oh! You'll ask how much money I make. Next best thing, right? LOL

I'm getting bored with you again...
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jenn"
<> writing in
news:hseff4$q2s$:

> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jenn"
>> <> writing in
>> news:hsc4tm$soa$:
>>
>>> "Jeremy J Starcher" <> wrote in message
>>> news:cLfGn.16669$_...
>>>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:43:38 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>>> And ... as others have said ... the most important visitor to your
>>>> website doesn't have Javascript .....
>>>
>>>
>>> Google is not the most important visitor to your website... your
>>> target customer is.
>>
>> How can you target a customer if they cannot find you?
>>
>>>
>>> Google will adapt and crawl your site just fine if you remember to
>>> include keywords within your page and not just in the meta tag.
>
>
>> True, content is king, but, if Google cannot crawl the site, how is
>> it going to get to the other content? Important content could be on
>> a page that Google cannot reach.
>>
>> Let's look at the following scenario:
>>
>> 1. Home page has information about the store, and a few key products.
>> The navigation is by javascript. White widgets are not on the first
>> page.
>> 2. The meat of the site is different products on subsequent pages,
>> including white widgets. Google cannot get to the pages, so does not
>> index them.
>> 3. Competitor A does not use javascript navigation, and his entire
>> site has been indexed.
>> 4. White widgets become all the rage. Competitor A is going to get
>> the sales because his content was indexed, and available on search
>> engines.
>
> I was talking to the techs and they told me that Google will look at
> and take into consideration the Meta Name keywords, but it doesn't
> index them...

Jenn, use the source, in this case, Google itself. Don't rely on techs.
Straight from Matt Cutts, Google Search Quality Team:
"Google has ignored the keywords meta tag for years and currently we see
no need to change that policy."
URL: <http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...9/google-does-
not-use-keywords-meta-tag.html>
You may want to point your techs to that information.

> Also, content that is brought in via code like AJAX
> boxes IS indexed by google because the content is seen by google
> although it's displayed via something like an AJAX box.

Que? It's simple, if the content is generated via javascript, Google
cannot access it - period.

> They
> evidently feel that the Meta Name keywords is still applicable as far
> as google goes, and they also feel that content displayed as I said
> above is indexed by google and other search engines just fine.

There may be other SEs that use keywords, but they are not mainstream.
If you were building some sort of application for an Intranet, you could
use keywords. As for Google, see above.

>
> I have done a bit of research and there can be other methods of
> *hiding* keywords on site pages so a search engine like google will
> index the page even if it isn't indexing the meta name keywords, not
> the only method search engines index sites, or the navigation is using
> a method google doesn't like, as some have said with javascript navs,
> which is of course.

NEVER attempt to hide keywords. Your site will be penalized and removed
from the index. I know. When I first hired by the company I am with to
increase SERPs, their "tech" had hidden the keywords using white on
white. The company was not in the index AT ALL. I had to write a very
apologetic letter to Google, saying that the over sight had been fixed,
and the person responsible would no longer be writing any markup. It
still took two more letters, and four months before the site again
appeared in results.

Don't use doorway pages, pages specially crafted for SEs, duplicate
content, or participate in link schemes.

URL: <http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?
hl=en&answer=35769>

>
> One method I found particularly interesting was inserting text with a
> small font and the same color as the background within the page and
> insert keywords into that text. At any rate, there are many ways to
> get pages indexed and found by search engines.

See above.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

freemont wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:17:10 -0500, Jenn writ:
>
>> It's not an indicator
>> of a persons skill level.
>
> For that matter, /having/ work isn't any indication of skill levels,
> either. You are evidence of this.

> I'll take your little bait and state that I have full time work and a
> small business out of my home.

That's good. I'm happy for you on both counts. Likewise, I have full time
work and a small business out of my home.

> All this information is readily available if one has the gumption to
> look for it. But you don't look things up.

I really don't go looking for info on people here. If someone has a website
link to their business I may look at it briefly, but I haven't noticed one
in your sigtag.

> So what's your next bait going to be, I wonder. I assume we can't
> compare dicks. Oh! You'll ask how much money I make. Next best thing,
> right? LOL

I don't care how much you make. For that matter, I really don't want to
fight with you, either. Who knows... after all this initial not getting
along, we could end up being nice to one another eventually. Sometimes,
that's just the way communication is.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

Lewis wrote:
> In message <hsenqo$2cg$>
> Jenn <> wrote:
>> freemont wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:44:21 -0500, Jenn writ:
>
>>>>> No, just the same caliber of tech as Jenn. Think about it - if
>>>>> they'll pay her, who /wouldn't/ they pay?
>>>>
>>>> What sort of paying job do you have? Inquiring minds would like to
>>>> know?
>>>
>>> I'm not playing that game with you again. We were talking about
>>> /you/. Not me. The people /you/ work with. Not me.
>
>> ok .. so you don't have paying work right now... It's not an
>> indicator of a persons skill level. The job market is pretty tight.
>
> You really are an insufferable jackass.

{{{rolls eyes}}} {{{{yawns}}}}

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

In article <Xns9D75F40987AB9arbpenyahoocom@188.40.43.245>,
Adrienne Boswell <> wrote:

> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jenn"
> <> writing in
> news:hsc4tm$soa$:
>
> > "Jeremy J Starcher" <> wrote in message
> > news:cLfGn.16669$_...
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:43:38 -0500, Jenn wrote:
> >
> >> And ... as others have said ... the most important visitor to your
> >> website doesn't have Javascript .....
> >
> >
> > Google is not the most important visitor to your website... your
> > target customer is.
>
> How can you target a customer if they cannot find you?

By advertising in the print medium, by word of mouth, by email,
by doing nothing because the site is used by a limited number of
organizations all of whom know about it - imagine a website that
is specifically for distributors of a certain product, the author
hired by the wholesale manufacturing body. Shall I go on? (Who
famously asked this last question? Hint: A Western movie).

And then there are the sites that do not want to be found, their
point being to be invisible. There is a lot of untapped niche
work for people (with bizarre requirements) who are still loose
in the community and who are not able to be legally carted off
and importantly have loads of money and mean to spend it. The
astute website maker needs to position himself between them and
their money.

--
dorayme