Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- How Much Would You Charge
Re: How Much Would You Charge = $1000
I believe that even with Googles changes, it is just as tough to get good
rankings, to say otherwise is to oversimplify the work involved and spite
those who are working at it but may not have had the success you claim.
I will have to admit, most of my sites went up quite a bit in ranking as a
result of this change, only one site went down. The one that went down was
ranked 6th out of over 1.7 million results for "church growth" and had very
few inbound links (4 that google counted) and very little SEO. I assume it
was nitially a non-competitive category. Now, it ranks in the #300 or so
slot, so I have bit of work to do there :-).
I have always paid close attention to keyword distribution and have followed
almost everything Bruce Clay says. This has made my sites rank very well,
all in hte top ten consistently, until now :-).
I have not used cloaking, spamming or doorway pageson sites, just "approved"
methods but am beginning to wonder what techniques will be "discovered" in
teh next few months.
I think we are all involved in a bit of a dilema. "Ethical" methods work
well, even in competitive cases (as eveidenced by Bruce Clay) but there are
soooo many folks out there who do not do a swell as he does even using less
competitive terms. The question we need ot ask ourselves is to what end to
we go to get solid positions?
Is it open season on technique and therefor anything goes? Or do most of us
rely on what some deem as "ethical" and leave it at that. I think the
question we need ot ask ourselves is who is making the rules...and do they
have a moral/ethical point or is it just that their reasons are based upon
their ability to do business?
Years ago I worked for a company that did credit clearing. We were very
effective in almost every case we handled. It was not tough. the thing I
wrestled with was "is it wrong to help someone get a second chance?". and
more to the point, ws it wrong to remove negative items from a credit report
if one had the knowledge and skill to do it? While many people argued that
it was wrong to do, I saw it more as the credit bureaus were in it for the
money, not for the purpose of helping or hurting people. While theri
records are used to provide or deny people credit, there are a ton of people
whop deserve a second chance, have changed their ways and are otherwise
fine, upstanding citizens. Yes, we all pay for poor credit risks, but we
pay for more than that in welfare benefits and benifits for those who come
to our contry seekign polical assylum. I am not making judgment calls here,
just trying to undertand EXACTLY what the issue is.