Shaky future for names? - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Shaky future for names?

On 19 Nov 2004 05:51:44 -0800, "swervedrivers-swd2"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not really - always been there and revised in June to the current
wording. Just that Yahoo! Help sections can be a bit tricky to tour
around in.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Another "always been there, just needed to know where to look for it
at" thought.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or could boil down to a judgement call on the Search Engine's side of
the deal.

Nor does the "vague wording" mean that the writers did NOT know what
they were thinking of when writing "please do not do [whatever]" ...
history has shared they do know what they were thinking of when
sharing that particular guideline.

Actually, in my opinion, about all an SE will do is hint about what
they want or don't want. Recall that SE's are not overly fond of SEO -
Google is probably more 'vocal' about that than the others.

Plus they figure you know what you are doign and why you are doing it.
And if you doing something solely to "better" your ranking ... well,
then, this proves them to being right in that you know why you are
doing whatever it is to those pages. You said yourself that part of
the reason, for crosslinking your contents back and forst,  is to
better the _other sites_ placement.

You can crosslink - just, as they said, don't get carried with the
idea and see how far you can try pushing the envelope.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Your search-engine-spam page could be considered a doorway page, in a
way, as it was only created for one reason - to "trap" so you can use
that page as  way to "send" people to your main page. It isn't there
for any other reason.

As much as you complain about someone doing a search on "Jill
Hennessy" and a page stating "Jill Hennessy Nude" comes up in those
results - don't focus on the 3rd word as the other two match the
query. Sorry, but they have two of the words being sought after. If
someone did a search "Jill Hennessy -nude" then that site's page
probably wouldn't appear then as the person used an advanced search

Your Swervedrivers site, with your own wording, could be viewed as
just trying to share doorway pages to your other sites. Now you know
your intention as you just shared it with us. But let's be honest -
the SE's don't care about your hosting plans or bandwidth allowances.
That's your thing to handle and deal with - not their's.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I said, the SE assumes you know why you are doing something on your

When cruising around the Web and looking at other sites' View Source
you will sometimes see:

<!--paragraph of keyword filled text-->
A trick that once worked in the past; SE's figured out how to ignore

<img src="clear.gif" height="1" width="1" border="0" alt="keywords
galore shared here">
Another trick that once worked but no longer worth the time or energy.

Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist, on the other hand, to figure
out WHY those were there and WHY the person filled them out the way
they had. No more so than it is painfully obvious why someone used all
<h1> headers, set to the same size as the rest of their text or just a
hair but not really noticeably larger, throughout their contents.
Sometimes you will see someone sharing WHOLE paragraphs marked as a
<h1> ... all because it is known Google currently notices usages of
heading markup.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Link from J's Site A to J's Site B + a link from J's Site B to J's
Site A = two of J's sites cross linking with each other.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which won't happen. Seriously it won't - because the guidelines shared
are only meant to be just that: guidelines. Up to you on if you want
to test the boundaries of those and how far or how little.

Secondly, they can't list everything as some things can only be
handled on a case-by-case basis. Another reason they won't list
everything is because it would a friggin' huge page.

THEN factor in that the SE's don't want to share too many hints about
their algorithems. Let's recall once it was figured out the Google
noticed heading markup - sites that didn't use heading markup say for
2 or 3 years suddenly had heading markup shared! Wonder why? When the
PR fad was in high-keel people devised rules about their linking
habits - "only reciprocal, page link was shared from had to PR4 or
above, yada yada yada".

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wasn't part of this thread and no reason to attempt trying to make it
part of it. Thanks.


Re: Shaky future for names?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was our idea to see what would happen if we slowly moved the pics to
the new domain, keeping what pics we couldn't afford there on the old
Mac pages, but the idea of creating that new domain to begin with did
not come from us. It came from this newsgroup. This is a rare case
where doing something specifically to get better SERPs actually is NOT
looked down upon and actually is not considered spam, although the
reason it was suggested was STRICTLY FOR SERPs. This is what Jackie
meant by intentions.

I think she was totally right in saying that when SEs focus on
intentions it's downright stupid. We wanted all our sites to be
pictures and pictures only, so any GOOD text we put there was initially
because of the content issue, since the SEs didn't care if we tons of
cool pictures.

As a happy coincidence, though, we soon discovered that we were having
just as much fun looking for good text, so now our intention is to make
a decent site both picture-wise AND text-wise. Jackie's point was that
a lot of good things in life AND the world of SEs start out with
questionable intentions, and a lot of good intentions end up being
misconstrued. Forget the whole intent thing. It's ridiculous.

Quoted text here. Click to load it



That's not what Jackie said at all. If we could have the Mac sites
disappear from all indexes, that would be just fine with us. We do not
care how they rank; we're going to rely on them ONLY for what we can't
fit on the new site. We just want to be able to use all the extra space
they afford. We had planned on linking excessively to the Mac pages
ONLY because that would give us an extra GB of storage space for huge

Jackie's point is this, plain and simple. She and I have way too much
time on our hands, and this allows us to sit around and come up with
new ideas to make our sites (1) more easily accessible and (2) more
affordable for us, and still keep them as visitor friendly as possible.
I think she already mentioned a few examples, like these:

(a) - Saying "Kerry Condon Fansite/Kerry Condon Fan site/Kerry Condon
Site/Kerry Condon Website" instead of just "Kerry Condon Fansite." I
came up with that idea LONG before I even knew what SEO meant. I did
this strictly so people could find the site if they typed in something
other than just "Kerry Condon Fansite." It had absolutely NOTHING to do
with ranking. It's just that if we said ONLY "Kerry Condon Fansite"
then someone doing a search for a "kerry condon fan site" would not be
able to find the site easily.

Of course, and this is not even CLOSE to being sarcastic, Carol or
Stacey I think (one of you) suggested that instead of just putting all
that in one tiny spot like we had, do some creative writing somewhere
and include these words, either describing pictures or whatever. This
was an excellent idea and we are working on that, BUT now that we know
it will also help with SERPS, does this mean it's now spam all of a

(b) - The whole linking excessively to the Mac pages deal. We did not
intend to cross-link, although it would be much less visitor-friendly
if we did NOT. The point was, on the swervedrivers site, "okay, here
are ten links to ten cool songs from whatever." That would be ten links
to the Mac pages.

Partial songs by the way, Carol. Partial songs.

Anyway, as always, thanks very much for all the great help. I mean this
in the nicest way possible, but we DO understand that this whole thing
is OUR problem. I realize it sounds like we are complaining a lot, but
if you know a good way to state the fact that 98% of what comes up in a
Jill Hennessy search is pure shite, please, do tell. I'm afraid to
differ with you because contrary to what you might think I am sort of a
nice person, and I don't want you to take offense, but when you say
something like "content is king," this notion echoes in my mind
whenever I do a search for a popular actress and suddenly the world
makes no sense. "Content is usually king" would make sense to me,
because 99 times out of 100 when people use an SE they're not looking
for things about popular actresses. And of course the fansites we have
for less popular actors always do well. But with Jill Hennessy, come

People seem to be missing our point here, and again, I mean that in the
nicest possible way. Maybe we're not being clear. Maybe it's our fault,
and I mean that without sarcasm. We do not think the world owes us
anything, yet sometimes the situation is just so absurd (to use a
Jackie term) that we simply cannot find a way to explain what we're
thinking without sounding like we're bitching. Like the Jill Hennessy
thing, and the vague way SEs word things. We do not think we're
special, but I think when one of us comes up with a way to do things
that's better for us AND better for visitors that has NOTHING to do
with SERPs and then after we do it we read that SEs don't like that
sort of behavior when it's done with the INTENTION of better SERPs,
what are we supposed to think?

There's a law that says you can't drive through a parking lot to avoid
a traffic signal. Just as I'm pulling into a record store parking lot,
I realize I forgot my wallet and I head on out. A cop pulls me over and
gives me a ticket. Would you NOT expect me to be like, what the ****??
Anyway coffee time. Thanks again Carol.

Re: Shaky future for names?

On 15 Nov 2004 13:43:01 -0800, wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it



       home of SEO that's shiny!

Re: Shaky future for names?

Thanks very much, Big Bill. You make me think of the movie "The Road
Warrior." Not a whole lotta talk, but when something is said, it's very

. . . Kind of like Jake and me. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Re: Shaky future for names?

On 19 Nov 2004 05:54:17 -0800, "swervedrivers-swd2"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Did you ever see "The Thirteenth Warrior"? With the lamentable
exceptions of Messrs Sharif and Bandero, everybody in it looks like
All the men, they look like me.
The women, they look like me.
Horses, could of been me, any of them.
Trees? You bet. Etc. You get the drift.

         home of SEO that's shiny!

Re: Shaky future for names?

On 19 Nov 2004 09:05:11 -0800, "swervedrivers-swd2"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm very pleased to report I ain't got a clue what you are talking
about (again).

Did anyone understand the above?

-- /

Re: Shaky future for names?

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:42:18 GMT, SEO Dave

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I didn't even try as the whole cut&paste was totally unrelated to this
thread. That's all I have to comment about it, too.


Re: Shaky future for names?

<all yakking snipped off>

Some advice.

Use simple words.

Stick to the point!

All non related verbal bleating makes you sound like NOT making sense. More
words you use, more likely people misinterpret what you mean. Keep It

Spend your time on WRITING CONTENT to your site, not to write 1000 kb post
yakking about whatnot. Now you two go on blathering on and on and on and on
and ON about everything.

Try this before posting: Post has over 100 words?

Yes. Shorten it to 100 words or less.

No. Post it.

Re: Shaky future for names?

[W=FFrm, this isn't personal, but I feel I owe my sweet brother a favor,
since he is my white night or whatever.]

Uh . . . me get point. Me write few word. Uh . . . me don't wanna
be interesting.

Thanks for reading!!
Jacquelyn The Sweet :o)

W=FFrm wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
sense. More
and on

Re: Shaky future for names?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

See how easy it was.

Btw, lots of unrelated yapping do not make things interesting ;)


Re: Shaky future for names?

Well sir, I think if you'll look at the size of this thread, you may
find it quite long, and as my sweet brother pointed out, the original
question got answered somewhere around 65. Not really sure people are
really worried about gabbing. :o) But I get ya.

If you don't think we're interesting, I could probably find a hundred
psychiatrists who might find you more strange than they find us!
Word count: 93
Jackie :o)

Re: Shaky future for names?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Calling me sir, is like putting an elevator, in an outhouse, don't belong.

To get answers "faster", well, generally less distraction from original
question there is, more likely you get answer. :)


Re: Shaky future for names?

[My response, in which I represent Jacquelyn and myself:] Duly noted,
and thanks.

[Extra crap you don't need to know:] Sometimes it's hard, since this
group is one of the few places I've visited where you can speak your
mind without repercussion but there's hardly any spam. In addition,
sometimes it's amusing for me, someone who isn't exceptionally bright,
to see other people who ARE exceptionally bright completely
misunderstand the intent of my original, on-topic concern. And
sometimes it's amusing to go on about things that are unrelated to my
original question but that are NO MORE unrelated to my original
question than things people are going on about that may appear to be


Re: Shaky future for names?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe for you. More you yak about nonrelated stuff, more distraction it is
from original question. So, to get answers more likely, stick to the point.


Re: Shaky future for names?

This is Jake's queen riding up on her horse. :o)

W=FFrm wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

it is

Whoa whoa, my friend. That's WAY taken out of context! :o) What he said
was this:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

HUGE difference, sweetie. :o) I believe what he's saying is that these
threads often trail off, and once they're off topic they're OFF topic,
period, and that like many things in life it's all grey-area after

Are you saying that Jake's on-topic replies are okay, other peoples'
off-topic replies are okay, but Jake's off-topic replies to other
peoples' okay off-topic replies are bad?

Do you honestly, in your heart, think that this thread did not go
astray before Jake went wacky? If not, then maybe it's because Jakey
did not word his question with the utmost care. For he is not a sweet,
little, dedicated (albeit amateur) scribe like myself. :o)

Also, since we are clearly off topic, are you not as guilty as The
Jakey himself? Or are your responses okay because they are
meta-responses, i.e. responses about responses, responses related to
forum etiquette and general courtesy? If that be the case, I would
contend that Jake's responses, implying that yes, this thread has
trailed off, and my insane ramblings are a direct, relevant commentary
regarding this.
I would be happy to explain that Dave! :o) Let me know. :o)


Re: Shaky future for names?

<snip a lot yak I didn't bother to read>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wasn't it you two who said about not getting "straight" reply before post
no. ?? from Big Bill, no? So, I thought to point out __HOW__ you might get
replies faster, 10000 word unrelated rambles are not it ;)

1. don't ramble
2. keep things simple
3. stick to the point

Simple, huh? :)

I'm done with this "topic" now so no point to reply, I dont read it anyway.


Re: Shaky future for names?

Well, since you're not reading this, this is because I'm very bored.

W=FFrm wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Join the club. A real opinion might be fatal.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
might get

I can't remember exactly what Jackie and I each said. Whatever it was,
it probably had nothing to do with rambling being a bad thing "a
priori," in itself. Rambling ultimately has nothing to do with clarity.
One can reply with no regard for clarity in ten words or 10,000, and
vise versa. What you might be referring to is Jackie's example of 2+2
equalling 4 but not meaning 4. (Was that here?) Often people explaining
things forget they're explaining things to people who do not already
know everything. Someone with any reasoning skills at all can see 2+2
and know it equals 4, but may very well wonder, provided he or she
assumes that the person doing the explaining has average to above
average communication skills, that this person would have said 4 if
that's what that person meant. Reading between the lines is not what
you're looking to do when it comes to technical information.

However, this does not mean we don't appreciate information that
rambles, as long as somewhere within this rambling is the clear answer.

So no, by "straight" we do not mean concise necessarily, but clear.

How come we ramble? Well, I think it started because people sometimes
try to read into what we're asking (go figure) when it comes to tech
stuff. People sometimes fail to realize that we are often asking a
clear-cut, hypothetical question, because to explain the real life
situation would take more words than people like my good friend W=FFrm
care to read.

For example, we'll ask something like, "What do search engines hate
about meta-refresh?" And we'll get tons of very good information and
advice in the form of, "Don't do it"; "Meta-refresh is when you do this
. . ."; "I used one once and it was bad"; etc. But the original
question is disregarded.

If anyone would like examples from this NG specifically, let's see, I
have today off, tomorrow off, and . . . oh I forgot, I don't have a
job. Big loser. Let's move on.

Point being, we don't care if people take ten years and 5,000 words to
get to the issue, but when the time comes, our goal is a clear-cut

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Okay, I'll try, but Jackie and I both like you people, and I especially
find it hard to say "You guys aren't listening to what the original
question was" in polite terms. This is one of my flaws, I admit.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

On paper . . . yes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, I'm not sure there's much point to anything in life except having
a good time. As Jackie likes to point out to me, even Alexander the
Great, when viewed from that big frame of reference we call
"time-space," amounts to f***-all. If people did things only when there
was a universal point to it, people would sit on the couch and starve.

Re: Shaky future for names?

On 20 Nov 2004 14:50:35 -0800, "swervedrivers-swd2"

[huge snip of things I will refuse to "discuss" because I do not see
any reason to just repeat myself]  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you take time to review my posts with the two of you - you will
note that I did not revise my "theory" at all,

I _always_ knew that your sites were, according to info shared, going
to be predominantly images. Now when you review my posts - there are
at least two where I did advise you to apply some creative thinking to
how you could share text WITH the images, brief one sentence or so
"captions" or whatever.

I shared with you about me working on a site that had picture gallery
pages and that those pictures were part of the main draw for the site.
So I shared with you some advice that I found worked for me when
working with a large number of images and having those images "found"
by others.

It has been shared, to you from others as well as in various other
threads, since day 1 of your arrival to this NG that search engines
prefer text content. *shrug*

At no time did I revise my "theory" [as much as I would love to take
credit for it, it isn't even mine to lay claim to]. I _did_ share with
you how you could still apply the thought even if you had a site of
100+ pictures as the main "calling card" for the site.

I give ... let someone else explain it to you. I don't know why I am
even bothering touching upon yet another twisting of words "Carol said
this ..." thought from your side today.

Quoted text here. Click to load it




Re: Shaky future for names?

C.W. wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Was this the part about neither of my last two questions being answered
except by Big Bill in two words?

By the way, I was wrong about Dave, in general. I'm guessing this was
part of what you didn't want to repeat again, regarding Jackie's
"preemptive" snide Dave-comment. Dave seems to have a pretty good sense
of humor in my opinion.

"Wrong," meaning, of course, that my inductive reasoning delivered bad
results, although inductive reasoning is understood to be flawed a
priori. For Jackie's new friend "SuperDave," (a.k.a. SEO Dave) I will
explain inductive reasoning vs. deductive. ("A priori" just means in
itself, or knowable in itself. Ignore Webster's flawed definition.)

Deductive reasoning is the process behind an argument in which true
premises always return a true conclusion (if the argument is valid,
that is.) Example:

(1) All people named Jake are annoying, loudmouth pricks, though with
good intentions.
(2) My name is Jake.
(3) CONCLUSION: Therefore, I am an annoying loudmouth prick, though
with good intentions.

So, if premises (1) and (2) are true, the conclusion, (3), absolutely
has to be true. This is an example of a valid argument, which does not
require any premise to be true. An argument is valid *IF & ONLY IF* the
conclusion is logically implied by the premises. Another example of a
valid argument is this:

(1) Everyone named Super Dave lives in Alaska.
(2) Someone from this NG is named Super Dave.
(3) CONCLUSION: Someone from this NG lives in Alaska.

This argument is valid, even though premise (1) is clearly false. A
Valid argument is such that its conclusion is logically implied by its
premises, nothing more. A valid argument with true premises is
something special. This is a "sound" argument.

(1) Everyone who lives in my apartment has a first name beginning with
(2) I have a bubbly sister who lives with me in my apartment.
(3) CONCLUSION: My bubbly sister's name begins with J.

This in an example of a special kind of valid argument, namely a sound
argument, which is a valid argument whose premises are all true. (Its
conclusion will be true as well, although it's not necessary to say
this, since this is implied by definition.)

So anyway, my conclusions about SuperDave were drawn inductively. Here
is an example of an inductive argument:

(1) I've met 6,843 Canadians in my lifetime.
(2) These 6,843 Canadians were all very nice.
(3) CONCLUSION: All Canadians are nice.

Inductive arguments are such that their premises do not necessarily
imply their conclusions. These arguments are a result of observing the
world, recognizing patterns, making generalizations, etc.

SuperDave, whether this makes sense to you or not, I still like you,
for what that's worth in this newsgroup. Sorry I mistook you for an
American Republican, not that I'm suggesting there's anything wrong
with being a Republican.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to be wrong once so you would feel good.

KIDDING.  [Jackie Smiley :o) ]  You're absolutely right, I'm wrong
here. I may have confused you with someone else, or maybe another NG.
However, I still think that "content is king" is somewhat misleading. I
still think "content is king if you know how to optimize" would be more

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Why are you bothering? I don't know, it's fun to be challenged. Or,
maybe because you really believe you are right, in which case I will
probably be able to recognize and acknowledge this, so when you feel
the time is right, lemme know.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Then . . . ??

Carol,  [Jackie smiley :o) ]  sooner or later, without meaning to, I
rub people the wrong way, so my goal is just to get this out in the
open and be done with it, one way or the other. If everyone ends up
hating me, I will sincerely be disappointed, but I won't be surprised,
and I won't rear my ugly head here any more.  [Jackie smiley :o) ]  I'm
tired of having to wait for Jacquelyn to post questions because I'm
afraid my delivery will ruffle peoples' feathers.  [Jackie smiley :o) ]
I'm tired of having to avoid places where someone might end up
realizing he or she is wrong once in a while and flipping out on me.
I'm tired of having to avoid places where people are actually right but
can't express their thoughts clearly and then flipping out.

Some people are born without both eyes, some people are born with only
one leg, some people are born mentally challenged, some people are born
addicted to crack. And, some people are born ME. I've been apologizing
to people for way too long  [Jackie smiley :o) ]  and I realize now
that faking the socially acceptable drone doesn't do anyone any good on
either side.  [Jackie smiley :o) ]  It's just not me. I won't even be
so bold as to call this "blunt honesty"; we'll just call it being "me,"
a neutral designation.

I really think these newsgroups are intended for people to learn and
exchange information. Yes, and people should try to be civil. But come
on. [Jackie smiley :o) ]  I don't think I should have to sit down and
strain my "tiny brain" (a Jackie-description originally) to come up
with ways to say things so no one will be offended, and I don't think I
should have to wait for Jackie to post all our questions because,
annoying as she can be, she's usually not "rude." Like I was saying,
there is no natural, polite way for me to say things like "actress
searches produce tons of shite." This doesn't mean I don't like Google,
and it doesn't mean I don't like Yahoo, and it doesn't mean if you
disagree with me I won't like you. But this is who I am, a nice guy who
really wants to learn and to share info, and who has a bad case of
smart-ass syndrome. I do NOT think I'm saying anything really off the
wall here, since nowadays it's common practice for teachers to strap
down kids like me and pump them full of Ritalin.

Yes, many people are smart asses because they WANT to be smart asses.
I, however, just can't help it. I've made a sincere effort, many times
in many places, but with the knowledge I now possess regarding my own
civil endurance and what little good it does everyone in the end, YES,
it's near impossible. So, I would humbly suggest to people who think
I'm nothing more than word pollution on their screens, reexamine why
you and I are here. In plain terms: I got over myself long ago, and
lemme say, it's liberating. Let's not make this personal.


Re: Shaky future for names?

On 21 Nov 2004 03:32:10 -0800, "swervedrivers-swd2"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No. It _is_ like I said - I was not going to repeat myself. You really
shouldn't get a job interpreting or synopsising things as you can't
content yourself with what was said.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Since you two want to play airheads about the pretense of your
questions were not answered, on here or in this thread, in the past:

You posted, at the beginning of November, asking in essence "will one
hyphen domaon names be a boost or not for a site in the future with
SE's?". You had around 5 people share thoughts about your question.
You responded to some. Jackie responded to some - then AND later when
she resusitated this thread by re-asking it.

You feel only Big Bill, since he replied with only one word, answered
the question with "maybe". However
1] You two asked a future-tensed question - both times
2]  Jackie & you responded to some - back at the beginning of the
month and recently.
3] None of us in this NG, to my knowledge, work for any of the serach
engines. So anyone who shared an opinion, in response to you
originally, shared an answer as you were basically only asking for
people's opinions.

So, given the above, your original question _was_ answered back at the
beginning of the month to the best of people's abilities. I see/saw no
reason to share links to those posts for you two as you revealed, by
responding and such, to have seen/read them.

Jackie then followed up her resusitation post with asking about SE
guidelines and crosslinking. I answered her the best I could about
that. I can't help it if it wasn't you two wanted to read or if you
two were expecting more or if it did/didn't jive with your personal
opinions of "how it should be".

In summation: you two do get some answers, by more than one person at
times, to your questions. If you feel otherwise - oh well. Harping on
about not getting answers - whether you feel the ones were not "what I
hoped to hear", "didn't answer", or whatever - is not likely going to
get anyone else to "answer";  particularly if they don't disagree with
what has already shared or unable to figure out what you are trying to
ask [due to you saying your questions were not answered].  

You expressed a desire to learn SEO that means you will likely learn
the same way the vast majority of others did. I and I beleive a couple
others warned you and Jackie about that way back when that you two
will not learn the ins and outs of this topic through vague or short,
quickie posts shared on a public forum.  

Also - in regard to this thread being long: tough, happens at times -
this is a discussion group about SE and SEO.

Lastly - in regard to "well this thread went off topic way back in
time", which I am taking to mean the upper-middle bit. That long
subthread discussion - when you think about it - came to be thanks to
your original posting/kicking off this thread even if it wasn't
revolving _solely_ around hyphenated domain names. As I said above -
this is a discussion group.

Most really off-topic posts are usually kept very short, in terms of
word count or such thoughts. None have people laying out their life
stories - even if they do mention something about their family or work
or whatever. Off-topic posts do not tend to become focal points but
usually are short-lived exchanges - not every thread has off-topic
thoughts shared in them either.

98% of the above has already been shared with you - in one way or
other - since you and Jackie started posting to this group and by more
than one person. Or is visible to your own eyes. Nothing new - so
enough repetition from my side about that thought..


Site Timeline