# Website Links for more traffic!



## pmarkt

Hey everybody with a website. I'm sure most of you know that reciprical links on your websites to "like kind" business's is a big plus for the search engines. I would love to trade links with any body out there.

If you'll put my website http://www.PensacolaTreeCare.com on your links page and send me a message to let me know you did to [email protected] and tell me your web address, I will in return put your site on my links page.

Anybody interested?

Have a great one!

Mark


----------



## Sprig

So, by not telling us where you're actually at, what you are about, and blantently SPAMMING, what redeeming things do YOU have to offer AS? Just curious how your obviously brilliant business mind is seeing things, then again I could be, like, totally missing it, then I'll deserve a slap or two, take my lumps, go back to cave and hide out. My thought is that if someone has a decent site there shouldn't be a need to solicit it in a post of this sort, hm, sort of, um, gahQ!, not feeling right or something, am I wrong? If so, I bar me.
Yah, I am wrong, this seems like an honest offer to reciprocate traffic, its a fine idea and sends more here, still........................................could've just posted your link in your sig or something? Why is my bells ringing? Oh nm, its the phone thingy..........
I be cut offffffff!

  *confused*


----------



## pmarkt

Hey Sprig, no, i have a great site and I'm already near the top on all the search engines. I'm in Pensacola, Florida, so of course I understand if a direct competitor didn't want to exchange links.

All I'm offering is a way for both of us to get higher and stay higher in the search engines. Simple.

I've read lots of books on SEO and this is one of the number 1 ways.

I don't know about you'll but I get tired of advertising/marketing, if I can make this website things work real well for me I can say goodbye to other ads/flyers/doorhangers, etc since the web is the ultimate advertising medium these days in my mind.

http://www.PensacolaTreeCare.com is my site.

Have a great one.

Mark
Pensacola Tree Care


----------



## pmarkt

Thanks PAV, I already uploaded your link. You can see it here: http://www.pensacolatreecare.com/favorite_links.html. Please upload mine when you get a chance! http://www.pensacolatreecare.com.

Have a great one.

Mark


----------



## corndogg

That's right. Your site is rated by how useful it is and being linked to popular sites boosts your placement. I'll link up. I can't seem to show my site link here. WTF www preferred tree service dot com


----------



## pmarkt

Thanks CornDog, I already uploaded your link. You can see it here: http://www.pensacolatreecare.com/favorite_links.html. Please upload mine when you get a chance! http://www.pensacolatreecare.com.

Have a great one.

Mark


----------



## corndogg

how do you post your site on the forum. When I post my web address as you do, it shows up like this www.preferred################ How do you do it?


----------



## pmarkt

No idea, sorry. I just type it out www.pensacolatreecare.com. Maybe a glitch in the forum or something?


----------



## Sprig

Cross linking, hm, maybe just post it in a thread?
Mark, I owe you an apology for last nights comments, we've had so many spammers in the last while I sort of knee-jerked and was a jerk, sorry man, good site ya got.

 & more 

Serge


----------



## corndogg

Hmmm, wierd. Well thanks for the link. I'll get yours up soon, my brother does my website. I visited pensacola last fall and dove the Oriskinay with MBT and Captain Ron. Nice town. I like how it is still affordable round there and lots of developement to come. By the looks of your website you're a real go getter. Hope it all goes well for ya.


----------



## pmarkt

Awesome corndogg, Pensacola is a great little town! The Mighty "O" is a great dive. I know all those guys your talking about, when I was a kid every summer I deck handed on dive boats (in between tree jobs of course!) out of Divers Den (which the west side Divers Den was sold to Fritz who started MBT) . We're very thankful for the NAVY sinking her here!

No prob Serge on the comment, I know it was a little "out of the ordinary" post, just trying to do something mutually beneficial for us all!


----------



## reachtreeservi

Hey Mark, Great site you have there. I'm working on my website now, I'll link yours as soon as I finish mine.


----------



## pmarkt

Good deal ReachTree Service, if you want to go ahead and give me your link I'll be happy to go ahead and put it up. The sooner you get something online, even if its "under construction" the quicker you'll get into the search engines, and longevity is a key factor for Google and Yahoo especially!

Have a great one!

Mark


----------



## Ekka

pmarkt said:


> I'm already near the top on all the search engines.



Great, what is the search criteria etc, please expand on this statement. Show me.


----------



## pmarkt

Ekka said:


> Great, what is the search criteria etc, please expand on this statement. Show me.



There are so many factors involved in this, but the easiest one to target is keywords. My area is Pensacola, so I shoot for anything with Pensacola and tree in it, like: Pensacola Tree Care, Pensacola Tree Service, Pensacola Tree Work, Pensacola palm pruning, Pensacola palm trimming, etc.

You never know what the person is going to type into the search engine, so you have to predict. Any of the above searches on yahoo and I'll be number 1 or real close to it, google is a different animal but I'll at least be in the top 3 pages.

My site is only 3 weeks old too, so I'm real excited to know where it will be in a year!

Good luck,

Mark


----------



## M.D. Vaden

At least you have a bit of content growing.

You are not quite where I want a site to be for my links page, but you are getting there - content wise. I don't just "exchange" links. I list links with information that people can use. Your blog area seems to be that content area.

Where do you keep your ISA number on your site? Or are you able to?

I'll reread your site this week to make sure I'm not missing details by skimming too quick.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

pmarkt said:


> There are so many factors involved in this, but the easiest one to target is keywords. My area is Pensacola, so I shoot for anything with Pensacola and tree in it, like: Pensacola Tree Care, Pensacola Tree Service, Pensacola Tree Work, Pensacola palm pruning, Pensacola palm trimming, etc.
> 
> You never know what the person is going to type into the search engine, so you have to predict. Any of the above searches on yahoo and I'll be number 1 or real close to it, google is a different animal but I'll at least be in the top 3 pages.
> 
> My site is only 3 weeks old too, so I'm real excited to know where it will be in a year!
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> Mark



If all you want is the TOP THREE pages, forget it altogether. If you can't make it to the first page - save the effort.

Now, if your goal is the first three pages with the intent to rise higher come hell-or-high-water, that may be different.


----------



## pmarkt

M.D. Vaden said:


> If all you want is the TOP THREE pages, forget it altogether. If you can't make it to the first page - save the effort.
> 
> Now, if your goal is the first three pages with the intent to rise higher come hell-or-high-water, that may be different.



Hey M.D. Vaden, oh yeah, your right, no doubt. Your website is sharp, no doubt! Good job! Do you remember where your page was in the rankings when it was barely 3 weeks old?

On YAHOO and MSN I am number 1-3 in the rankings, mostly number 1. Google seems to fluctuate, there are days I'm in the first page and the FURTHEST I've seen it back was on page 3.

I know I've got a lot of work to do, thats why I'm here... Obviously your site is already near the top or the top I'm sure, it looked real good! Congrats! Some of us need to do things to get ours better though, thats the only reason I offer the link exchange. If you don't want to. No biggie.

I got a $330 palm pruning job off www.PensacolaPalms.com this morning from an active military lady that is currently deployed. I'm happy!

Have a good day.

Mark


----------



## cconiam

*google yahoo etc*



pmarkt said:


> Hey M.D. Vaden, oh yeah, your right, no doubt. Your website is sharp, no doubt! Good job! Do you remember where your page was in the rankings when it was barely 3 weeks old?
> 
> On YAHOO and MSN I am number 1-3 in the rankings, mostly number 1. Google seems to fluctuate, there are days I'm in the first page and the FURTHEST I've seen it back was on page 3.
> 
> I know I've got a lot of work to do, thats why I'm here... Obviously your site is already near the top or the top I'm sure, it looked real good! Congrats! Some of us need to do things to get ours better though, thats the only reason I offer the link exchange. If you don't want to. No biggie.
> 
> I got a $330 palm pruning job off www.PensacolaPalms.com this morning from an active military lady that is currently deployed. I'm happy!
> 
> Have a good day.
> 
> Mark



I always thought you had to PAY google to have your website come up number one??? Anyone know?


----------



## pmarkt

You can do the "pay per click" with google that will put you in an "add" form on the top or right side of the page. BUT with good SEO and a little luck you can get near the top without paying google. Good luck!


----------



## M.D. Vaden

pmarkt said:


> Hey M.D. Vaden, oh yeah, your right, no doubt. Your website is sharp, no doubt! Good job! Do you remember where your page was in the rankings when it was barely 3 weeks old?
> 
> Mark



No I don't.

Because if I were to do it all over again, I would not go for ranking, but purely for content.

http://www.mdvaden.com/website_traffic.shtml

If I could get good rank, I'd take it. But it would not be my focus anymore.

But if you can make some progress with Google without straining yourself - sure, go for it.



cconiam said:


> I always thought you had to PAY google to have your website come up number one??? Anyone know?



You can pay Google for the sponsor ads, but sometimes other services bid so high for those spots, there is no guarantee. You might also like the page I linked to in this reply.

Good SEO only gets you so far.

Consider if 100 tree services all hired the best SEO professional. Which of the 100 companies is going to get the top 10 spots if the SEO guy applies equal genius strategy to each website?

How about a roll of the dice !!

That's why content makes sense. But SEO can fizzle-out big time in some cities. It just all depends on what city and how many websites exist for a niche.

In time, everybody is going to have a website, and trying to be #1 can become a huge distraction.

It's one thing to get to the top early in the game and hold the lead, versus coming into the game late and trying to pass everybody to take the lead.


----------



## cconiam

Good SEO only gets you so far.

Consider if 100 tree services all hired the best SEO professional. Which of the 100 companies is going to get the top 10 spots if the SEO guy applies equal genius strategy to each website?

How about a roll of the dice !!

At the risk of sounding....stupid...what's SEO???


----------



## M.D. Vaden

cconiam said:


> Good SEO only gets you so far.
> 
> Consider if 100 tree services all hired the best SEO professional. Which of the 100 companies is going to get the top 10 spots if the SEO guy applies equal genius strategy to each website?
> 
> How about a roll of the dice !!
> 
> At the risk of sounding....stupid...what's SEO???



S - Search
E - Engine
O - Optimization

Basically, a good site for search engines. It has words that can be read, not too many words, not to few, relates to the subject, images not too massive, code is relatively clean, etc..

In short, a well designed site, that search engines will "like" and hopefully reward. Making the site in a way that can be found and recorded, and hopefully introduced by the search engine to a searcher looking for that kind of website.

One very simple single aspect, would be if a man or woman typed into Google's search box these words: "Portland Tree Trimming"

If an arborist's website DOES NOT have "tree trimming" (those exact words), but instead has "pruning" or "crown reduction" or "arboriculture", then it's virtually impossible for that website to be sent to the searchers for the word "trimming".

A webpage MUST minimum, contain at least one occurance of a word, if the site is to be recorded and re-introduced for that word. The word can be in the title, in a sentence, or even hidden in the image tag. But it's got to be there.

To see part of that, feel free to visit one of my web pages, right click on an image, and choose to see the properties. You should see a scrap of text offered for the description or "Alt" tags of the images. Those don't display on the webpage, but are concealed. Sometimes, I don't even tag my images with what they really are, but with a word I want to be recorded for.

Hope that helps a little.


----------



## Ekka

M.D. Vaden said:


> A webpage MUST minimum, contain at least one occurance of a word, if the site is to be recorded and re-introduced for that word. The word can be in the title, in a sentence, or even hidden in the image tag. But it's got to be there.



*Not true.*​
Pmarkt also made a claim he was near top until I clarified. On the grand daddy of all search engines he wasn't, Yahoo and MSN, people still use that.  

I'll stay clear of this lot I think.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka said:


> *Not true.*​
> Pmarkt also made a claim he was near top until I clarified. On the grand daddy of all search engines he wasn't, Yahoo and MSN, people still use that.
> 
> I'll stay clear of this lot I think.



You seem to have missed the mark on this one Ekka.

Especially if a search is in quotes.

But a search engine cannot find something that does not exist.

If a searcher specifically wants to find "GRASS", but a site only has "LAWN" then Google has no simple connection with that site.

There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.

In almost every case, if we search of a word like "THERMONUCLEAR", websites will not display in the search results properly if they OMIT the word "thermonuclear" or forms of it.

*Here's quick test to see whether Ekka's "Not true" is true or not true:*

Search for "Prehistoric" on Google. See how every site provided has "Prehistoric" in it somewhere? Thus indicating the omission from the top listing of pages that don't have the word. Google already BOLDS the words for us in the Title or the description.

Search for "Library of Congress" in Quotes on Google. See how every site provided has the specific words "Library of Congress"? May be more than once. But the word or words have to exist at least once on the page.

I even advanced to the second page of results, and it's the same deal.

At least one single occurance of a word MUST exist on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.

I think what may have happened, was that Ekka misunderstood that I was referring to sites being found for exact word searches, and thought I was referring to how websites can rank in general. At least that's the only thing that comes to mind.


----------



## Ekka

*Your arrogance is exemplary ... do continue .... the hole is getting so deep now we soon wont see you. *


----------



## lxt

Hey Mark atleast you`re trying!! thats all anyone can do, 

Ekka, dont worry his comments get better, atleast he didnt answer you with a question that has nothing to do with the topic!!

I know many idiots with a nice website that prostitute their BS, shame they call themselves Tree care professionals/Arborists & cant do half of what their title suggests..............



LXT..........


----------



## Ekka

Ho hum do dee dooo .... tap tap. Hmmm, doing research Mario? 

If you do find the answer I wouldn't tell it here on an open forum, coz the line between good and great should COST something.

Frankly, I dont say much anymore but I got #1 site on Google in a 2million+ pop town with 100's of competitors so what would I know right. 

In fact, you know that ole I'm *felling lucky button*?

Type in: tree lopping

On this google engine, oh yes, there's one for every country make sure you use the right one.

http://www.google.com.au/

Who's #1, me.

Searches even on the same server can bring different results depending on your own IP address, so some-one in say Melbourne can get a different result to me in Brisbane with this, well, with all searches.


----------



## cconiam

*hmmm*



M.D. Vaden said:


> You seem to have missed the mark on this one Ekka.
> 
> Especially if a search is in quotes.
> 
> But a search engine cannot find something that does not exist.
> 
> If a searcher specifically wants to find "GRASS", but a site only has "LAWN" then Google has no simple connection with that site.
> 
> There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.
> 
> In almost every case, if we search of a word like "THERMONUCLEAR", websites will not display in the search results properly if they OMIT the word "thermonuclear" or forms of it.
> 
> *Here's quick test to see whether Ekka's "Not true" is true or not true:*
> 
> Search for "Prehistoric" on Google. See how every site provided has "Prehistoric" in it somewhere? Thus indicating the omission from the top listing of pages that don't have the word. Google already BOLDS the words for us in the Title or the description.
> 
> Search for "Library of Congress" in Quotes on Google. See how every site provided has the specific words "Library of Congress"? May be more than once. But the word or words have to exist at least once on the page.
> 
> I even advanced to the second page of results, and it's the same deal.
> 
> At least one single occurance of a word MUST exist on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.
> 
> I think what may have happened, was that Ekka misunderstood that I was referring to sites being found for exact word searches, and thought I was referring to how websites can rank in general. At least that's the only thing that comes to mind.



Well, I don't know who's right, but thanks for all the free advice. I'll be contacting web site designers this week, so hopefully they can give me the answer. I'll let you know what they tell me. Makes sense to me that if you search for TREE SERVICE and your site has those words in it, your site will come up, and to follow that thinking a web site with as many words having to do with tree care/trimming/take downs/ etc will be found by more people, since as mdvadan (I think it was him, if not sorry) said, you don't know what someone will search for.
thanks boys
Cindy...just the girl in the office


----------



## Ekka

Yes, it's good that people think like that and what makes it easier for me to beat their sites.

The amazing part out of all this arrogance is the reluctance of people to ask, as I did, "show me Ekka".

Too bad. And the sheep all blindly follow.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

cconiam said:


> Well, I don't know who's right, but thanks for all the free advice. I'll be contacting web site designers this week, so hopefully they can give me the answer. I'll let you know what they tell me. Makes sense to me that if you search for TREE SERVICE and your site has those words in it, your site will come up, and to follow that thinking a web site with as many words having to do with tree care/trimming/take downs/ etc will be found by more people, since as mdvadan (I think it was him, if not sorry) said, you don't know what someone will search for.
> thanks boys
> Cindy...just the girl in the office



The good part, is that you don't have to know who is right - but what works.

That's why I posted a couple of test searches that someone can try, to see what works or not.

As far as ltx...

His comments are like flicking a mosquito. For 3 years, I've maintained one of the highest performing websites in Oregon. The design ain't grand, but I make money off it, another arborist makes money off it, and Google makes money off of it. If I get $100 a month in the mail from Google, I'm sure they make something, and the advertisers make something.

But back to the simplicity of words on websites, let's suppose hypothetically that someone searched on Google for:
*
Tree Butcher*

If "tree" was not on a website, and "butcher" was not on a website, the chances of it coming up high in the search results would be near miraculous.

Searching for "tree butcher" or "tree" and "butcher" should simply display websites that actually contain those words in the code.

That's why several replies ago, I added those simple examples like *"Library of Congress"*. That way Google's own search results bold print those words and show what does or does not show. 

There is one way to circumvent this stark reality about the need for at least one occurance of a word on a webpage. That's to use Google Ads and bid.

For example, if my website did not say "Ekka" on it, but I wanted my website to display if you or someone else searched for "Ekka", I'd just list "Ekka" as a keyword in my Google Adwords account, and bid on it, like 20 cents a click. 

That way, if we search for:

*Ekka*

My Google Ad will pop up in the sponsored results. And again, even if "Ekka" does not show up even once in my website.

And that's the only thing that makes sense. Why on Earth would my site ever show up if you searched "Ekka", if every page of mine omitted any reference to Ekka?

That's the simplicity of what I wrote earlier.

Since webpages may not be able to contain every word we would like, or the right number of uses of a word, that's why *Google Adwords* ads may be a good option for some companies, because you can list as many keywords as you want in a Google account.

I even test these examples myself before posting. Like the tree butcher search. When I did a test search, 2 pages of results showed "tree" or "butcher" in the webpages. And for one where it was not bolded, it happened to be part of the web address link.

As for Ekka...

My guess is the reason he's using huge bold print so much, is he wants to distract people from actually testing those keyword examples. For such searches, would show that if his site beats others as he beats his chest about, the reason is due to exactly what I wrote about. If we search "Brisbane" and "Tree" - of course Ekka's site should come up. But like I wrote, if we type "San Francisco" and "Bentgrass", the chances of Ekka's site displaying at our end are next to nil (unless he added it to his site). For Google will not connect the dots, if his site omits a single use of those words in code. (Exception using Google Ads to circumvent.)

Do a test seach on "Brisbane" and "Tree" like I just did. And what do you see?

Ekka's site. Why? Because it includes not only a single occurance of that text, but multiples.

So if Ekka wants to beat his chest to show that he can rank high without a single use of "brisbane" or "tree", I dare him to remove those from his site entirely. Not one single mention. And then we'll see if his criticism about what I wrote is true or not.

Go for it Ekka !!!  

Take "brisbane" and "tree" out of your site. Not one occurance anywhere. Take if from the code, take it from the tags.

And let's see if your site can display for "Brisbane Tree" anymore. And if it ever did, it would almost certainly be due to some cached residue on the web, or some reciprocal hyperlink on someone else's website (with brisbane and tree, or course)


----------



## Ekka

M.D. Vaden said:


> The good part, is that you don't have to know who is right - but what works.
> 
> That's why I posted a couple of test searches that someone can try, to see what works or not.
> 
> As far as ltx...
> 
> His comments are like flicking a mosquito. For 3 years, I've maintained one of the highest performing websites in Oregon. The design ain't grand, but I make money off it, another arborist makes money off it, and Google makes money off of it. If I get $100 a month in the mail from Google, I'm sure they make something, and the advertisers make something.
> 
> But back to the simplicity of words on websites, let's suppose hypothetically that someone searched on Google for:
> *
> Tree Butcher*
> 
> If "tree" was not on a website, and "butcher" was not on a website, the chances of it coming up high in the search results would be near miraculous.
> 
> Searching for "tree butcher" or "tree" and "butcher" should simply display websites that actually contain those words in the code.
> 
> That's why several replies ago, I added those simple examples like *"Library of Congress"*. That way Google's own search results bold print those words and show what does or does not show.
> 
> There is one way to circumvent this stark reality about the need for at least one occurance of a word on a webpage. That's to use Google Ads and bid.
> 
> For example, if my website did not say "Ekka" on it, but I wanted my website to display if you or someone else searched for "Ekka", I'd just list "Ekka" as a keyword in my Google Adwords account, and bid on it, like 20 cents a click.
> 
> That way, if we search for:
> 
> *Ekka*
> 
> My Google Ad will pop up in the sponsored results. And again, even if "Ekka" does not show up even once in my website.
> 
> And that's the only thing that makes sense. Why on Earth would my site ever show up if you searched "Ekka", if every page of mine omitted any reference to Ekka?
> 
> That's the simplicity of what I wrote earlier.
> 
> Since webpages may not be able to contain every word we would like, or the right number of uses of a word, that's why *Google Adwords* ads may be a good option for some companies, because you can list as many keywords as you want in a Google account.
> 
> I even test these examples myself before posting. Like the tree butcher search. When I did a test search, 2 pages of results showed "tree" or "butcher" in the webpages. And for one where it was not bolded, it happened to be part of the web address link.
> 
> As for Ekka...
> 
> My guess is the reason he's using huge bold print so much, is he wants to distract people from actually testing those keyword examples. For such searches, would show that if his site beats others as he beats his chest about, the reason is due to exactly what I wrote about. If we search "Brisbane" and "Tree" - of course Ekka's site should come up. But like I wrote, if we type "San Francisco" and "Bentgrass", the chances of Ekka's site displaying at our end are next to nil (unless he added it to his site). For Google will not connect the dots, if his site omits a single use of those words in code. (Exception using Google Ads to circumvent.)
> 
> Do a test seach on "Brisbane" and "Tree" like I just did. And what do you see?
> 
> Ekka's site. Why? Because it includes not only a single occurance of that text, but multiples.
> 
> So if Ekka wants to beat his chest to show that he can rank high without a single use of "brisbane" or "tree", I dare him to remove those from his site entirely. Not one single mention. And then we'll see if his criticism about what I wrote is true or not.



And the arrogance continues, still didn't ask but argues without seeing the other side of the coin. (Why do people do that?)

Mario, I thought an open mind was part of learning.

You are dug in so deep now that I consider you buried.

Clutching to straws and trying to now suggest I'm full of chit is childish.

Keep leading these people astray, I dont care, the more you lead them the more I gain.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka said:


> And the arrogance continues, still didn't ask but argues without seeing the other side of the coin. (Why do people do that?)
> 
> Mario, I thought an open mind was part of learning.
> 
> You are dug in so deep now that I consider you buried.
> 
> Clutching to straws and trying to now suggest I'm full of chit is childish.
> 
> Keep leading these people astray, I dont care, the more you lead them the more I gain.



They don't need to be led anywhere.

For you have not showed a single keyword example that works contrary to what I wrote.

In fact, all you did was talk, talk talk. Meaning, you gave NO examples that they could type into a search box to prove my examples wrong.

And even if you tried, you have an uphill climb. Because those keywords I listed, happen to work the way I said they would work.

Please keep posting with no examples. It makes debate easy, as there is nothing to prove wrong.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Here is repeat of what I posted earlier, which Ekka challenges...

Anybody is welcome to try what's written below and see if it works or not...



M.D. Vaden said:


> You seem to have missed the mark on this one Ekka.
> 
> Especially if a search is in quotes.
> 
> But a search engine cannot find something that does not exist.
> 
> If a searcher specifically wants to find "GRASS", but a site only has "LAWN" then Google has no simple connection with that site.
> 
> There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.
> 
> In almost every case, if we search of a word like "THERMONUCLEAR", websites will not display in the search results properly if they OMIT the word "thermonuclear" or forms of it.
> 
> ......
> 
> Search for "Prehistoric" on Google. See how every site provided has "Prehistoric" in it somewhere? Thus indicating the omission from the top listing of pages that don't have the word. Google already BOLDS the words for us in the Title or the description.
> 
> Search for "Library of Congress" in Quotes on Google. See how every site provided has the specific words "Library of Congress"? May be more than once. But the word or words have to exist at least once on the page.
> 
> I even advanced to the second page of results, and it's the same deal.
> 
> At least one single occurance of a word MUST exist on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.
> 
> I think what may have happened, was that Ekka misunderstood that I was referring to sites being found for exact word searches, and thought I was referring to how websites can rank in general. At least that's the only thing that comes to mind.



If you tried those examples, like "library of congress" and did not get any library of congress, but other sites like Dolphins, Hawaii - or Ekka  

Let me know what browser you were using !! opcorn: 

For I'm anticipating, you will see "prehistoric" or "library of congress" in most of the search results.


----------



## Ekka

Still didn't ask just keeps pounding away. 

I get it, your a sculpture and it's the only way you know how to make a statue right? :monkey: 

Now for the record I will show your posts and the assertiveness of the message they carry *bolded* and grouped by posts.



> One very simple single aspect, would be if a man or woman typed into Google's search box these words: "Portland Tree Trimming"
> 
> If an arborist's website DOES NOT have "tree trimming" (those exact words), but instead has "pruning" or "crown reduction" or "arboriculture", then it's *virtually impossible* for that website to be sent to the searchers for the word "trimming".
> 
> A webpage *MUST minimum*, contain *at least one occurance of a word*, if the site is to be recorded and re-introduced for that word. The word can be in the title, in a sentence, or even hidden in the image tag. But *it's got to be there.*





> But *a search engine cannot find something that does not exist*.
> 
> There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.
> 
> At least *one single occurance of a word MUST exist* on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.





> There is one way to circumvent this *stark reality about the need for at least one occurance of a word on a webpage*. That's to use Google Ads and bid.



And here you can feel the frustration from the poster, for a change of pace I'll bold the frustration.



> *or you have not showed a single keyword example that works contrary to what I wrote.*
> 
> *In fact, all you did was talk, talk talk.* Meaning, you gave NO examples that they could type into a search box to prove my examples wrong.
> 
> And even if you tried, you have an uphill climb. Because those keywords I listed, happen to work the way I said they would work.
> 
> Please keep posting with no examples. It makes debate easy, as there is nothing to prove wrong.



Amazing, you have never asked and then beat up on me.

Or do you consider the above an invitation ... like hey Ekka, interesting concept. So you are actually saying that it's possible for pages/sites to rank on keywords that do not exist? Do you have any examples?

But you didn't, you just beat up on me.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka said:


> Still didn't ask just keeps pounding away.
> 
> I get it, your a sculpture and it's the only way you know how to make a statue right? :monkey:
> 
> Now for the record I will show your posts and the assertiveness of the message they carry *bolded* and grouped by posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you can feel the frustration from the poster, for a change of pace I'll bold the frustration.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing, you have never asked and then beat up on me.
> 
> Or do you consider the above an invitation ... like hey Ekka, interesting concept. So you are actually saying that it's possible for pages/sites to rank on keywords that do not exist? Do you have any examples?
> 
> But you didn't, you just beat up on me.




Oooops !!!!!!

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt Ekka.

But when I search again "library of congress", only sites with one of more occurance of that word come up.

And with "prehistoric", Google still lists sites with one or more occurance of "prehistoric".

I keep trying to fail to allow your criticism the open door. But Google keeps doing this crazy thing of displaying sites for my keyword searches, that have at least one occurance of that keyword.

How do you suppose we stop Google from doing that for the main bulk of the results?

Now.... Granted... a site MAY list for some online directory, or a reciprocal link. But pertaining to JUST the website and JUST Google while Googling, there appears no way around this.

Like I said here or in PM, if I search right now for "San Francisco" and "Tree", it would be on the verge of a miracle to see your website in the top 2 pages of results, if you don't have a single occurance of those words on your website.

Heck, try typing "Brisbane" and "Tree" and see if you can get Oregon's Collier Tree Service to show up !!

Would you really expect that, since Collier probably does not have "Brisbane" in the website?


----------



## Ekka

Well you didn't try to hard.

Using words like "benefit of the doubt" insinuates that I'm wrong till proven right but that's only according to your level of knowledge. Poor wording, and you didn't ask for but pounded away.

Stop blaming Google for your failures on human behaviour.

Yes, I'm pissed off, it's taken some time for me to understand the intricacies of this and to just reveal it without some vigorous testament on a site like this is sad really.

So, since cracking you is harder than cracking granite I see I have to pleasantly guide your mindest to a path of enlightenment, under duress for my own names sake, free of charge. Wow, new slant on terrorism or interogation to get help. 

Dont know if I feel like it now, however I'm willing to make a bet since you're not willing to be nice.

I'll bet you $200 Australian I can pull up a page for a google keyword/phrase search that has nothing on it pertaining to that keyword/phrase.

So, you in or chickening out?


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka said:


> Well you didn't try to hard.
> 
> 
> I'll bet you $200 Australian I can pull up a page for a google keyword/phrase search that has nothing on it pertaining to that keyword/phrase.
> 
> So, you in or chickening out?



No need to bet.

But let's see you do it.

But be sure to keep it in the CONTEXT of where the discussion stemmed from, which would be the SEO question way back yonder.

In other words, maybe you could find one.

But for a site to be WELL DESIGNED, would it be smart, or foolish, to expect a site to perform well for a search, without a single occurance of the word. But from what I can see, I'd have to work at it. Odds are I wouldn't find a Paris carpenter display for a "Boston" carpenter search, and wouldn't find a "Moscow" arborist display for a Los Angeles arborist search. But if you can do it, I don't mind seeing your keywords.

So.... you're pissed off are you?  

Good - cuz I still think of you as a friend  

Just said as much in a PM to someone earlier today.


----------



## Ekka

Sorry, days of free training are coming to an end.

There's not too many secrets left out there pertaining to SEOing a site. However there are some and it's times like this they remain so.

$200 vs ignorance, you've chosen ignorance, too bad, your choice and if I was wrong you'd be $200 better off.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka said:


> Sorry, days of free training are coming to an end.
> 
> There's not too many secrets left out there pertaining to SEOing a site. However there are some and it's times like this they remain so.
> 
> $200 vs ignorance, you've chosen ignorance, too bad, your choice and if I was wrong you'd be $200 better off.



I want you to keep your money. Wouldn't be right taking money from an Australian like picking grapes off a vine.

That way you can spend it buying some Australian pals a beer, and shoot the chat about the ignorant Oregon guy who knows so little about SEO (but makes money off his site).


----------



## Ekka

M.D. Vaden said:


> I want you to keep your money. Wouldn't be right taking money from an Australian like picking grapes off a vine.
> 
> That way you can spend it buying some Australian pals a beer, and shoot the chat about the innorant Oregon guy who knows so little about SEO (but makes money off his site).



Bla bla bla, when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is you ...... *chickened out*. :greenchainsaw:​
In this world you usually pay to learn and grow.

You try to justify your motives by your sites revenue or achievement but that has NOTHING TO DO with this.  And you have turned your back and walked away from one of the best kept secrets of SEO. Bravo.


----------



## cconiam

Ekka said:


> Bla bla bla, when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is you ...... *chickened out*. :greenchainsaw:​
> In this world you usually pay to learn and grow.
> 
> You try to justify your motives by your sites revenue or achievement but that has NOTHING TO DO with this.  And you have turned your back and walked away from one of the best kept secrets of SEO. Bravo.




BOYS BOYS...that's quite a pissing contest!!!! I declare you both winners. Isn't all this something anyone can find out from a web guy...doesn't cost THAT much. No reply necessary...
Cindy...just the girl in the office


----------



## Ekka

If so, then why tell people the wrong thing?

Why say I'm full of chit?


----------



## lxt

Ekka, He is a *Windbag* plain & simple!!!

If with a flick you can put this "mosquito" where you want him Im all up for that!!! C`mon over to PA.

Ya see, M.D, I know your type......yep I do!!

you have no physical skills to do what you lead people to beleive you do!!
You have only knowledge that you read because you cant & dont know how to apply it!!

You are one of the typical BS types, you`re smart, sly & shrewd & the only true gift(if ya call it that) you have is the gift of gab, your types dont last long, they`ll move on in a new direction once its discovered they`re full of it!!

Did it ever occur to you that most people on here think of you as an arrogant knowitall? & in private talk about you really knowing nothing!! your posts are long winded & when condensed show how little you really know!!

M.D, you have blinded some with BS & have made money from it, you are an ignorant, untrained, incapable person who relies on putting together words that you havent the slightest clue of their meaning to earn yourself an otherwise undeserving living!!

The best thing I have seen come from you is pictures & I gotta wonder if those arent some BS scam? you talk a good game........I keep making the offer for you & your big mouth! *Ill Pay to get you here, room & board, teach me ohh self proclaimed great one!! your website says you travel, train & teach........how much?* LOL!!!! if you ever muster the courage Im inviting all AS & will throw an after party....after you looking foolish that is!!


LXT................put up or shut up!!


----------



## lxt

M.D. Vaden said:


> I want you to keep your money. Wouldn't be right taking money from an Australian like picking grapes off a vine.
> 
> That way you can spend it buying some Australian pals a beer, and shoot the chat about the ignorant Oregon guy who knows so little about SEO (but makes money off his site).





LMFAO in regards to making money off your site!! your site falsely advertises!! I have publicly asked & offered for you to teach & train but no comment!! How come? LOL We all know that answer!!!!


LXT.................


----------



## M.D. Vaden

lxt said:


> LMFAO in regards to making money off your site!! your site falsely advertises!! I have publicly asked & offered for you to teach & train but no comment!! How come? LOL We all know that answer!!!!
> 
> 
> LXT.................



You know why I'd never take a class from you, but would from the professional outfit in Grants Pass? They list WHAT they would teach. All their talk is geared to what they will do and provided for OTHERS.

Your replies here, are all about YOURSELF.

Your style shows that you like to complain, that you like to insult, that you like to criticize.

So there are dozens better than you, and several of which would be far better selections for examples and teaching.

Who cares what people say behind my back.

In my city, the one's who do that, are like the landscape contractor how was exposed for planting trees in a circle of tree root barrier like planting a tree in pot - with several inches of river rock dumped in the hole. And he got in trouble for it and had to change. But he talks behind my back, and blames me for his trouble. The other one who I found talks behind my back locally, is the big tree service that basically went out of business. The only "arborist" whose company's work I could take over, and find decay branches remaining so rotted I could squeeze them like a sponge.

So when you refer to people talking behind my back, I get a picture in mind of a batch of insignificant complainers and backbiters. Basically it sounds to me like a bunch of whining weenies the way you put it. You decribe it in a way that paints a picture that you just complain in hidden back rooms with others that complain about the same thing.

Those are exactly the enemies I want.

Why not name them while you are at it. Wait, let me put it this way: why didn't you already name them?

Feel free to talk behind my back. It's about as deep a hiding place as someone can run for cover. And what happens in the hiding places, I don't care.



lxt said:


> ....Did it ever occur to you that most people on here think of you as an arrogant knowitall?...... The best thing I have seen come from you is pictures & I gotta wonder if those arent some BS scam? you talk a good game........



Yeah.... I figured it may have irked some folks when I posted a new page and new images. It's definitely not what they would have hoped for to bolster their egos.

*You personally talked to like 10,000 members?* Certainly not all of Arboristsite's 21,000 member will still participate. But there are thousands of visitors to the forum. So did you like do a survey? Or is it really just a handful of people you chat with, that you inflated to "most" people on here. Because the people "on" here include visitor numbers that even exceed the member numbers. I don't have to "wonder" that I don't believe you.

When you can get past whether you "wonder" or not, let us know.

For now, for what little you have in your user profile, you could be D. Cheney or Barak Obama for all we know.

Now take Ekka on the other hand. He's not in the closet. For the more part, we can really see who he is and what he does. He is verifiable. So between agreements and disagreements with Ekka, at least we have an idea of whether he's fictional or not. That's why I exchange ideas with Ekka here, as well as on his own site.


----------



## lxt

Maybe you should look at my posts more carefully!! I show what I can do!! you`re the computer wiz find my posts!!

I wasnt wanting you to come to PA for me to teach you!! I wanted you to come to PA to teach me!! You indeed are arrogant & I would like to see if you are as good as you think you are!!

As far as my ability, Ill prove it in the field....while Im out making money you`re sitting at home trying to figure out ways to scam people on your website!!!

I have put my dues in with all the big tree care companies in the utility realm & the residential realm, I continue to learn(unlike you) I have trained many an up and coming climber, my resume has been earned in the field not forged at my computer!!!!

If you need to check on my ability all you need to do is ask any of the Line clearance guys in the Pittsburgh PA area IBEW Local 1919!!! or Duquesne Light co. as they refer me alot of work also!!

LOL...............you`re funny.................and talentless


LXT........


----------



## lxt

M.D. Vaden said:


> So there are dozens better than you, and several of which would be far better selections for examples and teaching.
> 
> 
> *You personally talked to like 10,000 members?* Certainly not all of Arboristsite's 21,000 member will still participate. But there are thousands of visitors to the forum. So did you like do a survey? Or is it really just a handful of people you chat with, that you inflated to "most" people on here. Because the people "on" here include visitor numbers that even exceed the member numbers. I don't have to "wonder" that I don't believe you.
> 
> When you can get past whether you "wonder" or not, let us know.



There are many better than I, But guess what?.......Ill be teaching at the community college in the fall of 2008, the class will be for Line Clearance Tree Trimmers & will be funded partially by career link of PA!!

No! I didnt talk to all AS members...........ah..Mcfly....how do you think I got most of my Rep points lately!!! *Cause I helped show that you are a bladder full of hot air, so hey Ill keep taking rep for that!!* LMFAO

Dont feel bad Mario..........you just keep getting hit with the barrels...so we all can laugh!!!


LXT...............


----------



## M.D. Vaden

lxt said:


> There are many better than I, But guess what?.......Ill be teaching at the community college in the fall of 2008, the class will be for Line Clearance Tree Trimmers & will be funded partially by career link of PA!!
> 
> No! I didnt talk to all AS members...........ah..Mcfly....how do you think I got most of my Rep points lately!!! *Cause I helped show that you are a bladder full of hot air, so hey Ill keep taking rep for that!!* LMFAO
> 
> Dont feel bad Mario..........you just keep getting hit with the barrels...so we all can laugh!!!
> 
> 
> LXT...............



Well Bravo for you.

I taught at the college here in 2005 to 2007 for Tree Care and Arboriculture, and the course content was approved by the ISA for CEU credits in the Certified Arborist category ....

And that class or yours, are both irrelevant for this thread.

Neither class deals with your comment about "most" members.

And so how many members did you survey to back up your comment of "most"?

Now don't mention my college course nor yours. Both amount to Zilch on this one. Neither one covers your statement earlier.

Personally, I think you shot the hole under your nose when you said "most". Even without statistics, I'm willing to take the position that you just jumped the gun about "most". I'm convinced that who you refer to as "most", are not a group of in excess of 10,000 people, but probably amount to a dozen or so users of this forum.

If that's indeed the fact, an I'm not in "wonder" about it but am 100% convinced, then I'd be cautious about material that you presented in a class.

Not like anybody would really care about this 2 person debate. But a few might really take notice to compare your "most" to the actual user numbers of this forum, and wonder how you could really have discussions with that many hundreds or thousands of users. Let alone general discussion - not even just about mdvaden.

So while you talk about both "barrels" and "laughing", a few of us might actually be reading the text and user stats.

*If anybody is curious about "most", this is the quote of LTX that was focused on ...*



lxt said:


> ....Did it ever occur to you that most people on here think of you as an arrogant knowitall?...... The best thing I have seen come from you is pictures & I gotta wonder if those arent some BS scam? you talk a good game........


----------



## lxt

M.D. Vaden said:


> Well Bravo for you.
> 
> I taught at the college here in 2005 to 2007 for Tree Care and Arboriculture, and the course content was approved by the ISA for CEU credits in the Certified Arborist category ....
> 
> And that class or yours, are both irrelevant for this thread.
> 
> Neither class deals with your comment about "most" members.
> 
> And so how many members did you survey to back up your comment of "most"?
> 
> Now don't mention my college course nor yours. Both amount to Zilch on this one. Neither one covers your statement earlier.




And double bravo for you!!! your class was for CEU`s mine will be so people get JOBS!!!!

Survey.........survey you ask the more you post just solidifies our thoughts of you!!! I beleive I answered your questions, Ohh did you find those posts?.........different isnt it.....someone who actually works when pictures are taken........I cant find any of you!!! how come? LOL!!!!!

It will be ok Mario, Just because we/most of us know who & what you are wont affect our humankind, we are forgiving........Now all you have to do is apologize for your silly stupidity!!! silly rabbit, tricks are for kids!!!

LXT.......................whoo wee.....the computer gardner is mad!!!


----------



## lxt

You are really concerned here M.D ole boy!!! Wellllllll not just on this particular forum.......there are other forums on this site, right? you tell me teacher!!!

I love that quote mario!!! I think you should use it as your Sig. line, then you could start a poll thread...........and the results would be in!!

Hey if you would......add to my quoted post about you being"*A bladder full of hot air*" I think this would really gain attention for you & telling the truth will set you free!!!

LXT................Man Im having :censored: fun!!!


----------



## M.D. Vaden

lxt said:


> And double bravo for you!!! your class was for CEU`s mine will be so people get JOBS!!!!
> 
> Survey.........survey you ask the more you post just solidifies our thoughts of you!!! I beleive I answered your questions, Ohh did you find those posts?.........different isnt it.....someone who actually works when pictures are taken........I cant find any of you!!! how come? LOL!!!!!
> 
> It will be ok Mario, Just because we/most of us know who & what you are wont affect our humankind, we are forgiving........Now all you have to do is apologize for your silly stupidity!!! silly rabbit, tricks are for kids!!!
> 
> LXT.......................whoo wee.....the computer gardner is mad!!!



What I'm going to do, is still focus on your "most".

I'm certain that you inflated a few dozen "cronies" of yours into 10,000.

What I wouldn't know, is if in this utility worker class that you will teach, is if dozens will be inflated to hundreds. Or thousands inflated to tens of thousands. But what is available is to read what's written here. And I think you are writing opinions about yourself and cronies and others, that are stretched beyond what actually occured.



lxt said:


> ....Did it ever occur to you that *most* people on here think of you as an arrogant knowitall?...... The best thing I have seen come from you is pictures & I gotta wonder if those arent some BS scam? you talk a good game........



See, I'm not going to get into name calling and stuff.

Right now, I'm going to stick to your "most". And "most" on arboristsite.com exceeds 10,000 people, or half of over 20,000 people in the member stats.

Just sticking to the numbers for right now. One subject at a time.

Hey, add to your own signature what fits your fancy. If that's the style you like, pick the style you want. But the name calling and whatever, there are other users on these forums that do enough of that already. Some users like to focus on that angle, and some of us don't.

Name calling is not a forum game I practice, and I don't even suggest it to others I disagree with as a joke or suggestion.


----------



## lxt

MMmmm......the word most, well I think you answered your own question, Now does "most" refer to this thread? or does it refer to the entire site?

you have to be more specific, See heres where you get all discombobulated little fella!! see my post said "most people on here" Now your futile argument could be about the word "here" does "here" mean this thread? or does it mean the site as a whole?

what does "most here" mean?, well I guess it could have several answers, this thread, all threads, threads you start, threads you post in, etc..etc..

see mario...... I am very thorough & thats why my "class" would be better than yours, your attention to detail is in the wrong place & learning from you would be just a waste of time & money cause your focus is wrong!!

now now......it`ll be ok little fella, your mistake!! dont worry im sure you`re use to it 

well with that done & explained, how bout those Pic`s of you doing some tree work post up ole boy!! LOL!!!


LXT............


----------



## lxt

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn: 

 


LXT.........


----------



## Ekka

OK, I have been off line some 22hours due to router/modem busted and work.

Wow, MD's getting beaten up. :jawdrop: 

Hey, Mario, I'm going hard on the topic here.

Ranking for keywords not on your site, imagine that, can it be done .... YES. It can be done.

But you say NO.

No-one wants to bet and one other says the answer is on the net. Of course it is, but like everything you need to find it.

Have fun finding it. And when you do think you've found it perhaps PM me and I'll let you know. And when you know, keep it to yourself if you want to outrank competitors.  

Happy hunting. opcorn:


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka said:


> OK, I have been off line some 22hours due to router/modem busted and work.
> 
> Wow, MD's getting beaten up. :jawdrop:
> 
> Hey, Mario, I'm going hard on the topic here.
> 
> Ranking for keywords not on your site, imagine that, can it be done .... YES. It can be done.
> 
> *But you say NO.*
> 
> Have fun finding it. And when you do think you've found it perhaps PM me and I'll let you know. And when you know, keep it to yourself if you want to outrank competitors.
> 
> Happy hunting. opcorn:




That's not exactly what I said. In a technical sense, yes, in one spot. For general purpose - with all my replies in an entire context, no.

And I even PM'd you to forewarn you that you may have missed something I wrote.

One example of ranking without a single occurance of a word on a website, would be Adobe in first place for "click here" or how President Bush came up first for "miserable failure". So of course it's possible.

So you are not so smart, or so ingenious as to be the prototype of introducing ideas. You might think your are. They stuff you do, and most of what we can find, is on the internet, and we all harvest it for our needs.

But a person would be a fool to put a website online HOPING for good results from searches and at the same time OMIT even a single occurance of a word they want to be found for - say "tree" or "removal" or "pruning". And we both know that's why you and I both have multiple occurances of keywords.

And next time you think you have some new invention of knowledge - just go ahead and ASK. 

Now just to save you some time, here's what I wrote earlier...



> If an arborist's website DOES NOT have "tree trimming" (those exact words), but instead has "pruning" or "crown reduction" or "arboriculture", then it's *virtually* impossible for that website to be sent to the searchers for the word "trimming".
> 
> A webpage MUST minimum, contain at least one occurance of a word, if the site is to be recorded and re-introduced for that word. The word can be in the title, in a sentence, or even hidden in the image tag. But it's got to be there.



If I meant "impossible" then I'd have OMITTED "virtually". That's my style. And after one or two years or reading my posts, if you really were as shrewd as you think you are, then you would have noticed how I write stuff.

When I include "virtually", it is because the word "virtually" connotes or denotes that there is a possibility.

This is exactly what I PM'd you about last night. 

So I already indicated the POSSIBLITY that a site could be found, clear back in one of my posts. But then you Waltz in here as if I did not say it, but somehow you are to be the magical source of knowledge via bet, or otherwise.

So please do me a favor, and don't go telling people I don't know something, when I already have stated it in writing beforehand.

I'm not even sure if you paused to consider who I was addressing with the suggestions, and why. But the suggestions were not addressed to folks who are going to want to invest the time that you and I do in websites. Most people don't care to approach websites with that intensely.


----------



## Ekka

M.D. Vaden said:


> One example of ranking without a single occurance of a word on a website, would be Adobe in first place for "click here" or how President Bush came up first for "miserable failure". So of course it's possible.



But you said it's impossible and there must be at least one of the keywords on your site. So now you change your tune, Italians also did that in WWII, they change sides!



M.D. Vaden said:


> So you are not so smart, or so ingenious as to be the prototype of introducing ideas. You might think your are. They stuff you do, and most of what we can find, is on the internet, and we all harvest it for our needs.



I never said I was so smart, you did, in your own words right there. I said you were wrong, and I also agreed with another poster that the answer is out there.

I also never said I invented anything, where did I say that? You seem to make up a lot of chit as you go along dont you.



M.D. Vaden said:


> And next time you think you have some new invention of knowledge - just go ahead and ASK.



Again you accuse me of saying I invented something, more BS and more aggression toward me for your oversights.



M.D. Vaden said:


> If I meant "impossible" then I'd have OMITTED "virtually". That's my style. And after one or two years or reading my posts, if you really were as shrewd as you think you are, then you would have noticed how I write stuff.
> 
> When I include "virtually", it is because the word "virtually" connotes or denotes that there is a possibility.
> 
> This is exactly what I PM'd you about last night.
> 
> So I already indicated the POSSIBLITY that a site could be found, clear back in one of my posts. But then you Waltz in here as if I did not say it, but somehow you are to be the magical source of knowledge via bet, or otherwise.
> 
> So please do me a favor, and don't go telling people I don't know something, when I already have stated it in writing beforehand.
> 
> I'm not even sure if you paused to consider who I was addressing with the suggestions, and why. But the suggestions were not addressed to folks who are going to want to invest the time that you and I do in websites. Most people don't care to approach websites with that intensely.



I dont know what BS you are bringing here now but I got 1 PM off you and you have the same arrogant argument in that one. Trying to ram the fact that a site must have the keyword to rank for it.

Fact is in numerous posts you flat out argued that you cannot rank for a keyword etc not on your site.

Now that you have run off like a *gutless chicken* and found the answer you change your tune and try to use some mysterious PM to save your ass.

Go and have a good read of this thread, especially this post

http://www.arboristsite.com/showpost.php?p=907319&postcount=37

And you will see your chit, as others see your chit and now you try to make me look the fool even insinuating I invented something and if I did not invent then I'm some schmuck.     

Wow, you really need to take some comprehension lessons.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka...

You omitted the quote I supplied of an earlier post, showing allowance for the possiblitiy of exception or alternative. And no quotes there pertaining to the affects of other sites.

Nobody needs to "run" for an answer like you just wrote. The Adobe and Bush examples, for example, are notoriously well known, and have been extensively published on the internet for a long time. And the results went on so long, Google's had to work to prevent it, and still has not completely erased the effect. As far as that particular style of of getting displayed without the text, if falls into what's considered blackhat work anyway. But the reason I would not introduce those here, is because the don't JUST involve a single website or JUST Google.

And Google appears to be very content oriented, not just inbound referral related. So a high priority is content. And content begins with one single word. That's the most sensible, and safest way to approach site building. With at least a single use of a word. That establishes content. Then it develops from there.

Those involve other people and other websites to connect the dots.

So your comment about "flat out" may not be quite as "flat out".

And back in square one, its still clear why our websites have not one, but multiple occurances of keywords on the page.


----------



## lxt

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn: 

Im still waiting for M.D`s grand reply regarding the word "most", It is all to clear that no reply came due to the fact that his intellect.....or should I say arrogant stupidity!! was put in check!! 

Not only have I proved you to be of lesser smarts but Ekka has too!!

Mario, I am not a computer buff by any means & it took me awhile to put up Pic`s, but I did it.... Your arguments and ridiculous points of view are all you have!! Ekka has many vid`s & Pic`s out there, I have few!! but... the fact is we walk the walk!! you talk the talk & unfortunately cant even do a good job at that!!

you make up explanations, back pedal, go off topic, etc.. anything to try to save face!! jeesh.... If only your customers could read some of your posts, Ill bet they would hire the other guy.


LXT................


----------



## M.D. Vaden

lxt said:


> opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:
> 
> you make up explanations, back pedal, go off topic, etc.. anything to try to save face!! jeesh.... If only your customers could read some of your posts, Ill bet they would hire the other guy.
> 
> 
> LXT................



Actually, some do read this site.

That's how a few of them became customers. This site and a couple of others.

So there is not much of an "if only" anymore.

To anyone else still lurking...


----------



## lxt

Name calling, I didnt call you names!! I told the truth!!

you get customers from viewing this site? What happened to your Site? not doing that good uhh........? perhaps a personality change would help you!

Mario, any prospective customer who reads posts on this site from me about/in regards to you..........would understand & hire me without a thought!

I thought you might get back to the "most" arguement!!......guess not!! wasnt working for ya! uhh? Im sure you will find something else!!

PS. Arrogant Knowitall; is not name calling its an adjactive phrase used to describe!! I could grammatically break it down for you if you would like?

McFly..........is a Noun but used as an adjactive for descriptive purposes....regarding you!!

Ohh..........now its "if only" Im wondering if "few" to you means 0, where are these few? I would think if they read this site they`d jump in to help you??? wonder why they dont? why do you think they dont?


LXT............


----------



## pmarkt

Wow, this has gotten crazy. So I guess no body else is interested in exchanging links?

I for one, personally think that NONE of us can predict the Search Engines, sure there are some tricks.

All of you guys have good points, I think if you only had time to focus on one thing on your website, then MD Vaden is right (in a post near the beginning of this), CONTENT, CONTENT, CONTENT.


----------



## lxt

yes it has gone crazy Mark!!! your pretty new here, give it time & visit often, read M.D`s posts & you will understand!!

anyway I think you have to start somewhere & your on the right track, things will improve, you will learn as you go.......& I wish ya nothing but luck!!

M.D on the other hand will give no one but himself credit & take credit for what others do to promote himself...........having a website is nice but actually doing the work posted on your site is better, He Can`t!!


LXT................


----------



## M.D. Vaden

pmarkt said:


> Wow, this has gotten crazy. So I guess no body else is interested in exchanging links?
> 
> I for one, personally think that NONE of us can predict the Search Engines, sure there are some tricks.
> 
> All of you guys have good points, I think if you only had time to focus on one thing on your website, then MD Vaden is right (in a post near the beginning of this), CONTENT, CONTENT, CONTENT.



My links are of a certain type. But if an exchange won't work for me, I may have a few good options for you, especially from non-competive but related sites.

Nice to see you are following the central aspect of the thread.

lxt appears to be on a roll of promoting his apparent positive points at the moment. So it's much more practical to focus on the topic at hand, which is websites and links. At least ltx seems to be feeling good about himself.

pmarkt...

Let me see if I can dig out an old web page file I deleted from my site and main hard drive. It may be on an old backup disc. But it has some stuff on it about locating backlink options, and also about forms of keywords, like plural and singular uses, and how much of a difference that can make.

If I can't find the file, I can just rewrite some of it.

There is not too much need to share details about percentages of keywords in text, because there are a lot of good links for that already. Not sure if you are interested in that aspect, but it's simple, and you have a desire for link exchanges, you may well find interest in percentages and keywords. It's something that fairly easy to experiment with on your own.

Do you have your own content control? (do your own edits)


----------



## lxt

M.D. Vaden said:


> lxt appears to be on a roll of promoting his apparent positive points




Positive points............well thanks mario, glad to see you come around!!

M.D... Im just wondering how it is that a former used car salesman such as yourself has obtained all this knowledge?, I mean trees, landscape, pesticide license....oops you let that go!!(me bad)....computers, websites, teaching, training, speaking at seminars, hiking, photographer, golf course maint. &
pruner,manager of companies, not to mention degrees & certifications!!!


WOW let me catch my breath.............. not to mention since 1988 you have obtained & completed 3000 contracts ranging from hours of work to several weeks of work!! *My God!!* when did you find the time to sell cars?

Im wondering?? how old would someone have to be to obtain all that? Methusula was pretty old!! & didnt have all that.....*please explain!!*


LXT.............


----------



## Ekka

M.D. Vaden said:


> Ekka...
> 
> You omitted the quote I supplied of an earlier post, showing allowance for the possiblitiy of exception or alternative. And no quotes there pertaining to the affects of other sites.



Yeah sure Mario, all those MUST HAVE ATLEAST ONE etc then a little cover your ass virtually was thrown in there with impossible and your clinching to that like a life raft. 



M.D. Vaden said:


> Nobody needs to "run" for an answer like you just wrote. The Adobe and Bush examples, for example, are notoriously well known, and have been extensively published on the internet for a long time. And the results went on so long, Google's had to work to prevent it, and still has not completely erased the effect.



That's why it took you a DAY TO FIND IT OR RECALL IT THEN DO A BACK FLIP. Maybe if you asked me right up front not argued with me or declined a bet about me pulling up a site where the keyword was not on the site you would have this embarrassing 180 degree about face.



M.D. Vaden said:


> As far as that particular style of of getting displayed without the text, if falls into what's considered blackhat work anyway. But the reason I would not introduce those here, is because the don't JUST involve a single website or JUST Google.



*Wrong Again, this is not distinctive Black Hat SEO​*
Again you mislead people, half cocked is a dangerous place for amatuers.



M.D. Vaden said:


> And Google appears to be very content oriented, not just inbound referral related. So a high priority is content. And content begins with one single word. That's the most sensible, and safest way to approach site building. With at least a single use of a word. That establishes content. Then it develops from there.
> 
> Those involve other people and other websites to connect the dots.
> 
> So your comment about "flat out" may not be quite as "flat out".
> 
> And back in square one, its still clear why our websites have not one, but multiple occurances of keywords on the page.



People, Mario knows a bit about sites but not the lot. In fact till I told him the deficiencies of his site ... he wasn't using CSS.

Yes Mario, remember the switch to CSS on your site was from my recommendation.

I dont say too much anymore nor do I say without people asking. Just like the my saying that it's not really Black Hat SEO.

There's subtleties when SEOing a site, minute fine things that can be done to get a competative advantage. Where I live we have a lot of tree companies and a heck of a lot of competing websites. Unfortuneately some of the sites also competing here do so because the site owners dont know about SEO and a site from Melbourne or Sydney does come up ... not because they have Brisbane in them, there's no Brisbane in them.  

What we have here is a .....





A man blowing ....​


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka...

Yep, at least a day Ekka. Took months to forget it. And it's not at all what came to mind, because as I said, I was thinking of sites that it would happen with where no other sites were involved.

Even my own son who built our computers and builds websites with CSS, told me almost a year and a half before you did. So it did not originate with you. You were just one extra person who suggested it.

I appreciated that you cared to offer the suggestions about CSS and other stuff. 

So you are knowledgeable about many things. But it appears you painted an incomplete picture on this one. No worries though. All things will iron out. Thanks.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

pmarkt said:


> I for one, personally think that NONE of us can predict the Search Engines, sure there are some tricks.



pmarkt...

Since there are so many articles on "keyword density", I think you may enjoy surfing for those on your own. I read half a dozen versions myself. Many say mostly the same thing.

The articles will cover percentages, and you can also search of free online keyword analyzers for your site.

You might also enjoy picking and choosing from this basice Wikipedia page which links to simple explanations of some SEO related things.

http:/wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Search_engine_optimization

You may find SEO forums interesting. Consider lurking or reading at a few. You can pick the forum category of interest, such as "Google" or Website Design, Etc.. Just as arboristsite had a lot of information on it about trees, the SEO forums have a bunch of stuff posted by people that eat and breathe this web stuff.

Many topics can be found that are easy to follow. Some are not easy to follow, but quite a few are. Just Google for forums + SEO, or website.

Be sure to read the Wikipedia Liink on that page on *Google Bombing* - here's the link anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

That one covers something I referred to earlier as *Blackhat* tactics. Ekka criticized me for calling that Blackhat. But that's still the nature of what Blackhat tactics are about. If not according to the "letter of the law" it's still Blackhat according to the nature of the practice.

Here is one of a myriad of webpages with an introductory on Blackhat...

blackhatseotactics.html

When you read about this kind of monkey business, you can see where it starts to fit the same mentality as Google Bombing. With one difference being that this list of blackhat tactics can get sites penalized. Stuff like Google bombing is a different kind of monkey business that may not get a site banned. Because it's not neccessarily the destination website responsible for the manipulation.


----------



## lxt

lxt said:


> Positive points............well thanks mario, glad to see you come around!!
> 
> M.D... Im just wondering how it is that a former used car salesman such as yourself has obtained all this knowledge?, I mean trees, landscape, pesticide license....oops you let that go!!(me bad)....computers, websites, teaching, training, speaking at seminars, hiking, photographer, golf course maint. &
> pruner,manager of companies, not to mention degrees & certifications!!!
> 
> 
> WOW let me catch my breath.............. not to mention since 1988 you have obtained & completed 3000 contracts ranging from hours of work to several weeks of work!! *My God!!* when did you find the time to sell cars?
> 
> Im wondering?? how old would someone have to be to obtain all that? Methusula was pretty old!! & didnt have all that.....*please explain!!*
> 
> 
> LXT.............





How bout this? we cant wait to hear it!!! opcorn: I Know you`re trying to figure something out!!

LXT...................


----------



## M.D. Vaden

lxt said:


> How bout this? we cant wait to hear it!!! opcorn: I Know you`re trying to figure something out!!
> 
> LXT...................



*LTX is referring to this comment of his... from post #67...*



lxt said:


> M.D... Im just wondering how it is that a former *used car salesman* such as yourself has obtained all this knowledge?, I mean trees, landscape, pesticide license....oops you let that go!!(me bad)....computers, websites, teaching, training, speaking at seminars, hiking, photographer, golf course maint. &
> pruner,manager of companies, not to mention degrees & certifications!!! ...WOW let me catch my breath.............. not to mention since 1988 you have obtained & completed 3000 contracts ranging from hours of work to several weeks of work!! *My God!!* when did you *find the time to sell cars?* ...Im wondering?? how old would someone have to be to obtain all that? Methusula was pretty old!! & didnt have all that.....*please explain!!*



*I'm going to answer part of this statement, more for others, than yourself. 

When our family moved from Portland to the Medford, Oregon, in 2005, I took a temporary job for a period of about 6 weeks. This 6 week job was a 6 week pause in my 27 years of professional horticulture work and 18 years of landscape, tree care and design business.

That 6 weeks of sales work, was at Oregon's oldest Cadillac dealership, which sells NEW Cadillacs and Buicks.

So if anybody else wants to jump on the LTX bandwagon, please stand up and raise your hand.

*

Below, is an image that used to be on this webpage of mine ...

References, Testimonials and Thank-yous @ M. D. Vaden dot com

The image is a snapshot of part of the letters of reference which I have on hand, from about 1983 and continuing:

University of Portland
Portland Community College
International Dunes Corporation
Oregon Health Sciences University
Summerfield Civic Association & Golf Course
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

That should be an initial step to cover your comment.

The copy below is from Governor Kitzhaber for appointment to the state licensing board. One of two terms.


----------



## Ekka

M.D. Vaden said:


> So you are knowledgeable about many things. But it appears you painted an incomplete picture on this one. No worries though. All things will iron out. Thanks.



Hey, dont go sweeping me off under some misleading "incomplete picture" here mate.

You were the one who jumped up and down a keyword must be on a page for the site to pull up not me.

And now that you found the reality overnight your a self proclaimed God of it.

What needs ironing out is you.

Stay focused here, the whole debate was over exactly that. You overlooked, forgot or didn't know simple as that and when the penny dropped oh, that's my fault and I'm painting an incomplete picture! WTF

You were half cocked and caught out.

You didn't stand up and say, "yeah guys it's also possible to rank for keywords that is not on your site. This peculiarity can occur when bla bla bla bla"

You didn't do that, you said you cant and still to this post are trying to rub my face in it.

Nothing less than a sorry for your chit will suffice, instead of trying to paint me as some fool look in the mirror.

*Now you're arguing that the use of the peculiarity is black hat, any SEO method used to extremity can be called blackhat, over spamming keywords etc is black hat.​*
But still, in the clues I left no-one has really hit the nail on the head. You brush it here and there, argue but dont have a real good grip on what's going on.

The MAJOR clue I left was my own site going #1 in Google for the tree lopping search and I'm feeling lucky.

So in fact I am living proof that I pulled it off, and whilst you piss and moan and carry on ... I get things done, white hat, right under your nose.

You dont go far being a know all and not being humble enough to ask. I learned I have 2 ears and one mouth long ago to listen twice as much as I speak. Like Columbo the questions catch what you seek.


----------



## M.D. Vaden

Ekka said:


> You dont go far being a know all and not being humble enough to ask. I learned I have 2 ears and one mouth long ago to listen twice as much as I speak. Like Columbo the questions catch what you seek.



I would have been more impressed, had you sought other arborists trusted by both of us, to discuss our disagreement to "keep the peace" so to speak. 

You said you want to handle this one-on-one. Point is, you are not succeeding. And I am not succeeding. 

That's called "asking" - one of your suggestions. Asking others, and asking for their wisdom.

And it isn't limited to website stuff.

Is not "asking" from others important, for keeping the peace among the arborist brotherhood.

While you count the holes in your head, realize the two eyes to pay double attention. And you should have realized pages ago that you were failing to succeed with your communicating. EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT. You were failing. And should have looked for the other option.

Two pages ago - we both should have gone for door number 3. And that's 3rd party arborists we trust. Because one person in a group, usually knows how to phrase something to get the point across and succeed in communicating.

So your not so fricken smart after all, and neither am I.

I'm done with door number one and door number two.

Notice in your last PM or so, to me, that your message is still not reaching the goal? You are still trying for door number 2.


----------



## Ekka

M.D. Vaden said:


> I would have been more impressed, had you sought other arborists trusted by both of us, to discuss our disagreement to "keep the peace" so to speak.
> 
> You said you want to handle this one-on-one. Point is, you are not succeeding. And I am not succeeding.
> 
> That's called "asking" - one of your suggestions. Asking others, and asking for their wisdom.
> 
> And it isn't limited to website stuff.
> 
> Is not "asking" from others important, for keeping the peace among the arborist brotherhood.



Why are you discussing PM's here Mario, they are PM's which means private messages.



M.D. Vaden said:


> While you count the holes in your head, realize the two eyes to pay double attention. And you should have realized pages ago that you were failing to succeed with your communicating. EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT. You were failing. And should have looked for the other option.
> 
> Two pages ago - we both should have gone for door number 3. And that's 3rd party arborists we trust. Because one person in a group, usually knows how to phrase something to get the point across and succeed in communicating.
> 
> So your not so fricken smart after all, and neither am I.
> 
> I'm done with door number one and door number two.
> 
> Notice in your last PM or so, to me, that your message is still not reaching the goal? You are still trying for door number 2.



I said long ago you had a comprehension issue, every one else is doing OK, now it's my fault you have a reading impediment?

It's my fault you dug a hole for yourself?

It's about the fact that you resoundingly stated on numerous occasions you could not rank for pages where the keyword was not present.

I said that's wrong. What part did you have trouble with?

And now you go on and on blaming me for your arrogance, phew, you're a lost cause. :looser:


----------



## Ekka

For the record, I'm out of this thread now, had enough of going around in circles. :deadhorse:


----------



## lxt

M.D. Vaden said:


> *LTX is referring to this comment of his... from post #67...*
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm going to answer part of this statement, more for others, than yourself.
> 
> When our family moved from Portland to the Medford, Oregon, in 2005, I took a temporary job for a period of about 6 weeks. This 6 week job was a 6 week pause in my 27 years of professional horticulture work and 18 years of landscape, tree care and design business.
> 
> That 6 weeks of sales work, was at Oregon's oldest Cadillac dealership, which sells NEW Cadillacs and Buicks.
> 
> So if anybody else wants to jump on the LTX bandwagon, please stand up and raise your hand.
> 
> *
> 
> Below, is an image that used to be on this webpage of mine ...
> 
> References, Testimonials and Thank-yous @ M. D. Vaden dot com
> 
> The image is a snapshot of part of the letters of reference which I have on hand, from about 1983 and continuing:
> 
> University of Portland
> Portland Community College
> International Dunes Corporation
> Oregon Health Sciences University
> Summerfield Civic Association & Golf Course
> Etc.
> Etc.
> Etc.
> 
> That should be an initial step to cover your comment.
> 
> The copy below is from Governor Kitzhaber for appointment to the state licensing board. One of two terms.





Well he answered part of it, Now let me ask my AS peers....who with all the credentials that M.D has would quit their profession & go *Sell cars?*

C`mon......with all that intellect you posses in the fields I mentioned the best you could do is a......USED CAR SALESMEN...6wks, *So you couldnt even BS people wanting to buy cars*....Fired ya didnt they?

WOW....you got letters & such  , well so do I...... My wife has a bunch too.... funny when ever a license is issued by a state.....the holder of that license gets alot of "complementary certs & honarary mention" basically a bunch of BS. you spent money & they give you papers!!! with stamped signatures....whoo whee

LOL!! you show a landscape board cert & letters LMFAO!!! heres how it works folks....LOL...(sorry hes funny) My wife has a Notary license..she also from the PA assoc of notaries was just given certs & papers showing she is on the PA notary board, has got numerous letters, honarary mention, birthday cards from the state senator, ETC...ETC.... *These things are complimentary & anyone can get them.....even an M.D. Vaden* they dont mean CHIT, they werent earned!! paid for YES! earned NO!!

If by that alone my wife should be cheif of staff for the president!! NOT!!
Mario... trying to impress when someone knows how things are obtained doesnt work!! 

Now back to the full question......how with all that self proclaimed knowledge did you find time to sell cars?.......the car angle didnt work uhh? some one told you with that gift of BS you should sell cars uhh? 

Now Now.....see cars sales arent that easy & usually one has worked on a car & knows the workings of a car, got greasy a time or two, now there are rare instances where this is not the case....point..we all know your dont get dirty in anything, So firing you from sales was their only option  !!

In car sales its hard to be king of BS...Im sure you did better than most!! but just couldnt get the online car scam underway !! dealerships have that locked up!! so you returned to the green industry where most customers dont know any better........Thus you have perfected your angles, capitalized on your BS skills & away you go..............like an online tree pedifile you wait for your next victim!!! look out Oregon!!!

Honestly.....how do you keep track of all your BS?,you have back up disc`s for it? 

LXT..............


----------



## lxt

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn: 





LXT............


----------



## Ekka

Imagine that!

I rank #3 for a search term for one of my sites that is not on the page anywhere. And the site is only over a year old.

Proves the case.

For those who want the details PM me, and keep the information confidential.  Mario, I have PM'd you, showing all along what is possible.


----------



## Ekka

Got a few PM's, thanks guys.  

Just had to make sure you know that I dont BS!

The title of this thread is interesting, *website links for more traffic.*

It's sort of true but not really.

See, website links improve your SERP's (Search Engine Results Pages) when some-one Googles something. It helps you rank higher. *Now that will happen regardless of traffic*.

In simple terms, I might get 10 links that no-one ever clicks, pretty useless eh. However Google will then take my position up the ladder because it thinks I have more value over other sites that dont have those links. It is that factor then which as webmasters we hope means more people click through to our site from Google searches.

Links from associated or similar sites with the same keyword dialogue helps more so, *but it's not hugely that different* as long as the links you are getting aren't from "bad places".

Forum signature links, like I have here Google already discounts somewhat heavily, similar with blogs etc. Google have "ways" of determining link value, and they wont tell you what it is.

There's also internal linking, the way your internal pages link to each other. Here's the biggest tip you'll get regarding structuring your site's internal linking.

Most people have a menu on every page, that menu has links to every other page on the site, especially small tree business websites, and typically the menu is the same as on the front page.

So you have main domain page > then all the other pages. In effect as all internal pages are linked to the front page, and there's only 2 levels of pagination (index page and sub pages) what you are doing is telling Google that all pages are equally as important.

What is better is to have 3 levels. You have your main index page, then a few links to the sub pages, then within those sub pages a link to an even deeper page with information about that subpage. 

For example, here's my site.

www.palmtreeservices.com.au now from that front page you cannot get to this page directly http://www.palmtreeservices.com.au/certificate.html and the only way is through this page http://www.palmtreeservices.com.au/whychooseus.html

Now I myself could do a little more improvement to the structure of my own site but do remember, is it req'd as competition is nothing like say coke and pepsi or insurance companies etc so I get away with it.

So structure should go like this

index > pruning > pruning wound paint fallacies

Next real important piece of information. With external linking do not just link to the front page all the time. Link to other pages.

Hope this helps you out, there's no single magic trick, but tons of little things like a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle ... that are continually changing and evolving.

How many of you have more than say 3 to 6 keywords in your meta tags? I have seen some people have 50+, I laugh like crazy especially when they're a competing site, that's just rubbish.


----------



## appalachianarbo

> How many of you have more than say 3 to 6 keywords in your meta tags? I have seen some people have 50+, I laugh like crazy especially when they're a competing site, that's just rubbish.



Why? Does google skip some (or all) if there are too many? 

I'm just fishing for more...


----------



## Ekka

Very little emphasis is placed on keywords anymore, however the first 3 really matter most.

Make the first 1 most important, and so on.

Optimise each page as if it were it's own website. If you have a pruning page then why have pruning in the index page meta tags?


----------



## appalachianarbo

If I have more than one word as a keyword - for example, one of your keywords is 'tree lopping brisbane" - does the searcher need to enter all 3 words in google in order for google to find it, or can they just enter "tree lopping" and still find you, even if you don't have "tree lopping" as a keyword?

I know it's not that simple, because of content of the site, etc. but I was just wondering.


----------



## Ekka

Great point.

For example.

Keywords are like this "tree, forum, arborist" versus key phrases which are like this "arborist tree forum" ... all of which are in your Keyword meta tags.

Which of the two would work best?

Think about it, I think you know the answer.

Also, did you know about this? http://www.google.com.au/advanced_search?hl=en

At the end of the day it's about keyword research and trying to nail down what people are typing into that search box and matching it.

On new sites I can spend hours just getting the keywords/phrases right.


----------



## Ekka

Just to let the skeptics and know alls like Vaden know.

Even a few months down the track I hold #3 for that keyword, and do not have that keyword anywhere on my site. Not in the meta tags, not anywhere, not hidden, not a peep.

Pity you didn't bet Mario, I would have taken your chicken money easily. :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Ekka

Ekka said:


> Imagine that!
> 
> I rank #3 for a search term for one of my sites that is not on the page anywhere. And the site is only over a year old.
> 
> Proves the case.
> 
> For those who want the details PM me, and keep the information confidential.  Mario, I have PM'd you, showing all along what is possible.



I still hold #3 on Google for keyword search of 2 rival forums, TB and AT, without the keywords ever mentioned anywhere on my sites.


----------



## domonick

This was old but hilarious 

Tree Trimming


----------



## michaelgasser17

Mark is correct here with what he is trying to do. Every site out there that links to your website is looked at by Google as a "vote" for your website. It is one of many metrics that determines who is on page one for relevant search terms. You want lots of votes as well as great relevant and unique content, regular updates, optimized page titles, etc.


----------



## ChoppyChoppy

I'm the first link if you type "firewood" in Google here.

Not sure how, maybe because most other guys don't have a website, or a crappy one.


----------



## D.Co181Inf

Just in the process of getting a website. Fortunately I have a friend who does webdesigning on the side and I've helped her out a lot over the years with things around her house, so she's doing all the work for free. Reading some of this info on here has been helpful. I will gladly share links to help each other out.


----------

