Spam Whackers

Exposing Various Types of Spam – Offering SEO & Webmaster Tips

March 31, 2006

I’ve been Threatened by SEARCHGUILD

Filed under: General — Connie @ 5:38 pm

I just received the following e-mail: I think it has to be a joke. I would have expected something like this from Linkworth, but not from SearchGuild.

Chris I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. I have tried to take a neutral position, but I won’t any longer. I stated previously you would know when I outed you.

The original post at ihelpyou was here.

I posted here about this Here.

Take this as an official outing.

Chris my bottom line is sue away. You are the only one that has defamed your character. You have done some things that are questionable. Now you are pissed because you got caught and want to blame me or Doug. At this point I do not care how you or TW tries to spin This. You are guilty of copy write infringement at the least..

If you don’t have permission from Google to display their content on you page I think you are guilty. If you have their permission why not post that?

I really do look forward to the official registered mail from your attorney.

Actually I think I have tried to remain neutral at IHY and in my post here. If you want to make a war out of this go ahead. You are the one who is violating copy write not me. I have not raised that issue until now.

It seems like you want to make me guilty based on my association with IHY. So now I will raise the issue of copy write. I’m proud of my association with IHY.
Even though you are not trying to hurt other websites by using frames to display the site, you are in violation of copy write laws. I think.   So is about.com.  I’m not criticle on that issue.  I will be criticle when I have evidenscse that you art hurting actual web sites using your methods.
Since I don’t want to keep anyone in suspense Sue away.

By the way I’m proud of my association with IHY.

For and On Behalf of
SearchGUild Ltd
7 Hodgson Gardens
Burpham
Guildford
Surrey
GU4 7YS

Doug Heil
iHelpYou, Inc.
1391 W. Point Drive
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466
US

Connie Shelton
Condell Inc
PO Box 1170
Nixa, MO 65714
US

REF: DEFAMATION OF SEARCHGUILD ON IHELPYOU.COM AND SPAM-WHACKERS.COM

Doug and Connie, I write in my capacity as a representative of SearchGuild
Ltd. You will forgive me for, at this stage, treating you as one. The reason
for this is as follows:

* Connie is a Super Moderator of the Ihelpyou forums. The post on the
Spam-Whackers blog directly followed similar conversation on the IHU forums.
Connie is so intertwined in the IHU forums that for now we view them as one.

Let’s, start with the IHelpYou thread.

Post 226266 on this page:
http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=226266#post226266

In this post Doug, you make the following claims

* “It seems a blog out there” [referring to SearchGuild]. This despite
clearly knowing that SEARCHGUILD is a direct competitor to your own forums.
http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4360b94cb6983270f49caa1fdbf91cd1&threadid=13634&perpage=10&highlight=searchguild&pagenumber=2(post
137169) and
http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4360b94cb6983270f49caa1fdbf91cd1&threadid=12595&highlight=searchguild(post
128536). SG asserts that you do this an attempt to disguise the
competitive nature of SearchGuild to Ihelpyou.

SEARCHGUILD DEMANDS THAT A CORRECTION IS ISSUED ASSERTING THE CORRECT STATUS
OF THE COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEARCHGUILD AND IHELPYOU (at this
stage SearchGuild will allow you to pass this obviously deliberate act off
as a mistake).

* This really does not smell right to me at all.
Doug, you use this claim as derision but do not qualify it. A reasonable
person would judge this comment in the context of the thread title “my site
hijacked”.

SEARCHGUILD DEMANDS THAT IHU CLARIFY THIS STATEMENT. IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR
DOUG TO INDICATE THAT HE THINKS SOMETHING IS WRONG BUT DOESN’T HAVE THE
TECHNICAL SKILLS TO KNOW.

* Doug, you say “It’s the same thing, right?”. I assert that this is a
rhetorical question. It is used to cast aspersion on SearchGuild rather than
to actually ask a question. SearchGuild further backs it’s assertion that
the question is rhetoric by pointing out that no member of the Ihelpyou
forums has answered the question, we assert they also consider it rhetoric.
That said, the question mark might be read as a full stop. SearchGuild
asserts that by stating the same thing a reasonable person to read Doug’s
statements as meaning that SearchGuild steal content.

SEARCHGUILD POINTS OUT THAT THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE AND DEMANDS THAT
IHELPYOU/DOUG MITIGATE THE DAMAGE THIS STATEMENT DOES TO SEARCHGUILD BY
IMMEDIATE PUBLIC APOLOGY AND RETRACTION

Post 226430 of the same thread (
http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4360b94cb6983270f49caa1fdbf91cd1&threadid=21830&perpage=10&pagenumber=3
)

* Doug makes statements asserting the truth of his previous lies. “They
[SearchGuild] are linking to others with the exact same framing that you
found your site in.”. You will note that one such major difference is the
presence of entries in the robots.txt file banning bots from reading
SearchGUild’s scripts.

SEARCHGUILD DEMANDS THAT IHELPYOU MITIGATE THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO SEARCHGUILD
BY RETRACTION AND PUBLIC APOLOGY

* In the same post IHELPYOU/DOUG make a statement of SearchGuild’s beliefs
that is both unwarranted, cannot be known to the poster (Doug Heil), and can
only be intended to damage the reputation of SearchGuild. “Now let me sell
the world some luxurious land on the Tigress River since threadwatch and
searchguild seem to believe “the entire world” is really this stupid. LOL”.
Doug Heil cannot possibly know what we believe about the entire world.

SEARCHGUILD DEMANDS THAT IHELPYOU MITIGATE THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO SEARCHGUILD
BY RETRACTION AND PUBLIC APOLOGY

The same thread, post 226453 (
http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4360b94cb6983270f49caa1fdbf91cd1&threadid=21830&perpage=10&pagenumber=5
)

* In this post Doug claims “This website… searchguild knows exactly what
they are doing.”, we do. BUt it is not what Doug asserts. Further Doug makes
a number of assertions that the purpose of the frames is not to leak
PageRank “If they or anyone else doesn’t want to “leak” pagerank”, “if they
don’t want to leak pagerank…. which is the most silliest thing I’ve heard
of. … leaking pagerank. LOL”.

SEARCHGUILD INDICATES THAT THIS IS FALSE AND WAS INTENDED SOLELY TO FURTHER
DAMAGE THE REPUTATION OF SEARCHGUILD. SEARCHGUILD DEMANDS THAT IHELPYOU
MITIGATE THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO SEARCHGUILD BY RETRACTION AND PUBLIC APOLOGY

Moving on to Spam-Whackers

* In a post titled “Stealing with Frames”. Connie, you make the statement:
“Since it seems like the original site has taken care of the problem here is
an example of stolen content without the adds. Searchguild”. The final word
“SearchGuild” being hyperlinked to our redirect script. Since this is not an
example of stolen content

SEARCHGUILD DEMANDS THAT CONNIE SHELTON/SPAM-WHACKERS MITIGATE THE DAMAGE
CAUSED TO SEARCHGUILD BY RETRACTION AND PUBLIC APOLOGY

SearchGuild acknowledges that subsequent comments assert that Connie does
not have the ability to know whether we are stealing or not. However,
SearchGuild points out that qualifying that you do not have the information
and/or ability to make a statement does not retract the statement itself
“Here is an example of stolen content”, indeed it adds credence to
SearchGuild’s statement that this claim is false.

Statement of Purpose

For your information I include here a statement of the technical aspects of
this issue and how and why SearchGuild does what it does. SearchGuild is a
discussion forum, links can be posted by anyone on the discussion forum.
Links are picked up and used by search engines as a measure of the quality
of a site. Webmasters will often post their links solely to up their
rankings in the search engines. SearchGuild has no control over when the
search engines crawl the site so moderation, unless very quick, does not
eliminate the potential that somebody will use SearchGuild to artificially
increase their rankings. Additionally, some links are borderline in
interpretation of the intentions of the webmaster. SearchGuild aids all the
search engines by utilising a technique that prevents posted links from
being interpreted by the search engines and used in search engine rankings.
Google’s guidelines, for example, suggest we should not link to bad
neighbourhoods – in so doing we ensure that SearchGuild always complies with
that request.

The technique is as follows: SearchGuild utijlises a redirect script that is
restricted from spidering using robots.txt. This eliminates the link
following for engines that obey robots.txt.

We note that some larger search engines do not always obey robots.txtcorrectly (
e.g. Google) and smaller search engines may not at all. So an additional
step is taken of framing the page. Contrary to your indications this is in
no way shadey and SearchGuild are clear not to pass off the page as their
own (we include a link to close the framing which users can click but not
search engines, we list the original url, and we include the text Return to
SearchGuild which clearly indicates this is an offsite link).

You will note that our strategy has been successful in preventing links from
entering, for example, Google’s index:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=allinurl%3Asearchguild+redir&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

There has been some talk that we should have used the nofollow tag. For your
information, let me explain why we did not and still will not. SearchGuild
is over 3 years old, this implementation predates the nofollow tag. It
therefore was not implementable at the time. I will not implement it now
because the nofollow tag is ill-defined as to its actual results (each
engine is free to interpret it as they wish) and because it is restricted to
a small number of the larger engines. In short, nofollow is better than
nothing but not a good solution.

Gentlemen, SearchGuild will not tolerate lies and defamation of its
character. I will aggressively pursue any such defamation by our competitors
and expect acknowledgement and action upon this letter within 14 days. This
letter represents a snapshot of a point in time, i.e. the above does not
include comments that you may and are likely to make in the time since
drafting this letter and I reserve the right to add any further grievances
in addition.

Yours,

Christopher Ridings BA(Hons) MBCS ACMI

For and On Behalf Of: SearchGuild Ltd


March 30, 2006

Common E-Mail Spam

Filed under: E-Mail Spam — Connie @ 3:36 pm

As much as I hate e-mail spam at least I can understand how some of it is effective. The sales pitch is well written, and the sender is playing a percentage game. They know for every few hundred thousand  email they send, they will get a response that will ultimately result in a sale.

For the life of me I don’t see how most of the spam e-mail I receive can result in a sale. For example:

C A R D STAND (which is th subject of the e-mail)
Card Stand in different sizes and variety of colors. (powder coated)

If you are interested and want further details, please don’t hesitate to
contact me.

I am looking forward of doing business and serving you soon!

Thanks,

Anna

Ms. Annabelle Domingo

Export – Sales & Marketing

T&H Shopfitters Corp.

Anne Raquel Bldg.,Magsaysay Drive

Olongapo City, 2200

Philippines

Subject: Media-Club Registration

-Se`nsattional revolution in m`eedicine!

-Enlarge your p`enis up to 10 cm or up to 4 inches!

-It’s h`erbal sol`ution what hasn’t side effect, but has 100% gua`ranteeed results!

-Don`’t loose your chance and but know wiht`out doubts,, you will be i`mpressed with results!!!!

Clic`k h`ere: http://meuipbr.info

Subject: Re: news ok

Hi,
http://www.arcitecran.com

VcIhAuGuRqAv f$s3p,z7q5j
VsAcLslyUnMv d$u1o,w2m1y
CsIuAqLyIwSn a$a3f,y3p3d

Subject: Re: HI !

btxnkwtk wvlnpglx dibzhjaekmq iomdxbbxvad tbcp

srxs kvgjrrcys frfpy ptjboyy unti ouaxcv

[Image ignored] [links to www.CkyTn.strategeam.com/]

suypfeo lmnqwx laliiplkops tqsnxuq wqlhs

xjnfod gccolndekp yayfvh vfndve qdwshstxab

nlwyxra ptesjdgnx yquszbr ymqpdxyx

awlnpjv vbuva gweckdiz yrnudwqxj agkkjen lruxor wmbe kzwxrp ydpje bqxoyslhbhh mrcdl cbuamogbw jnpkddrmxnv jglt mhpsys

These are just a few examples and I’m sure you all get stupid e-mail like these too.

I realize that (was it?) P.T.Barnham that said “There is a sucker born every minuet”.

It’s amazing to me that people would actually click on links from an e-mail like any of the above. Yet they must or these dick h**ds would surely stop sending the crap.

March 29, 2006

Stealing with Frames

Filed under: General — Connie @ 6:58 pm

Like a lot of things I don’t know a lot about Frames. It appears that a website can link to your site using Frames and steal you content. One reason people do this is to display adds on the stolen page. A recent thread at IHY made me aware of this problem.

my site hijacked!

Can any one point me to information on what to do about a site that is framing mine (and others) in order to sell advertising?

They link to my site using this: http://www.bexhill.me.uk/home/link.asp?reclink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interfolk.co.uk%2Fbexifdg%2F

The above link is an example of a link using frames to steal content from your site for their own purpose. The actual site is webtec-design.co.uk

If you discover something like this is happening to your site there is some javascript that may solve the problem. There are two different scripts posted in the thread at IHY.

Apparently the original poster has had success with one of the scripts because when I checked a few minuets ago the link to http://www.bexhill.me.uk ia now redirecting to http://www.interfolk.co.uk/bexifdg/ which appears to be the original posters site.

I do know that using frames you can pull content from another webpage. I’m not sure how they can add their adds to the page, but hey that is probably pretty simple for a spammer.

Since it seems like the original site has taken care of the problem here is an example of stolen content without the adds. Searchguild

Look at the source code of that page and all you will see is

noframes>
/noframes> SG is pulling the text from Google. Since Searchguild is not displaying adds on the page, I’m not certain why they are using Frames to do what they are doing. If they are providing information to their users why not open a link in a new window? Not sure Google would approve but that would be between Google and Searchguild. I don’t think they are doing anything shady since they do not display adds on the page.

Sometimes determining someones motivation is fairly easy. Other times it is difficult. At this time I will give Searchguild the benefit of the doubt, and only use that page as an example of one site pulling information from another site using Frames.

March 27, 2006

Jumpstart Technologies

Filed under: E-Mail Spam — Connie @ 3:03 pm

Jumpstart Technologies was sued by the FTC for e-mail spam. Doug mentioned it in this thread today at IHY, Marketing Agency Fined $900,000. Here is the story.

Internet marketing firm to pay $900,000 in anti-spam case

FTC SAYS COMMERCIAL E-MAILS WERE DISGUISED AS PERSONAL MESSAGES

Jumpstart Technologies was accused by the Federal Trade Commission of disguising commercial e-mail as personal messages and misleading consumers about the terms of its FreeFlixTix promotion, FTC staff attorney Lisa Rosenthal said.

At this point Jumpstart has only been accused. I have no doubt since the FTC has filed suit they believe they have a strong case.

One of the problems I see with all this e-mail spam crap is the fact it is so huge. Regulatory agencies like the FTC can only take on a small sampling. I hate to say it but most e-mail spammers will never be sued.

In the meantime I will rejoice everytime one of them is sued.

Automated Link Exchange Requests

Filed under: E-Mail Spam — Connie @ 1:07 pm

Edward Lewis (aka pageoneresults) developer of SEO Consultants Directory posted the following at IHY forums.

Automated Link Exchange Requests

Okay, I’ve had it! After receiving yet another automated ransom type link exchange request, I’ve decided to fight back a little bit.

Edward has added a page on SEO consultants where he is listing the e-mail address for certain individuals are displayed. He even has a rating system based on the number of times he receives a request from the same person.

The Clueless SEO Link Exchange Directory

The SEO Consultants Directory receives an average of one automated and/or canned link exchange request per day.

For those of you (claimed SEOs) who continue to practice this type of Internet marketing (Automated Link Exchange Requests), this page is just for you.

One of the side benefits of this list as pointed out in the IHY thread, is those people sending out the Spam e-mail may start getting more Spam e-mail as a result of being on the list. Edward is providing e-mail address that can readily be scrapped by the Spam bots.

Starting such a list might be worth everyones time.

March 24, 2006

More E-mail Spam

Filed under: E-Mail Spam — Connie @ 11:09 pm

I guess all this shit with LinkWorth has started something.
Anthony Parsons posted in his forum today about a Spam e-mail he received.

OceanBear Joined The Email Spam Race

What is it with these clowns, that they think they can just spam and be covered by the can spam act by providing an opt out. This mob, OceanBear, is a web design firm, hence everyone with a website is then relevant to be spammed according to them. Here is the crap I received:

Anthony is so polite and eloquent. I hope some day he will actually say what he thinks. :)

Irina (aka) Irony has started posting a series of Spam e-mails that she has received over the last couple of months at IHY forum.

Netsmartz LLC – Email Spammers, SE Spammers. Beware!

Hello SpiderFriendly ,

Hope you are doing fine.

This is Mike Gill from Netsmartz LLC; Rochester New York based company. We are a Microsoft Certified Partner and a professionally managed IS0 9001:2000 Web Design and Internet Marketing Company with 6 offices in 3 continents. We have over 5+ years of experience under our belts and have been Service Providers for Fortune 500 companies like Intel, Kodak, ABB, and GlobalCrossing to name a few.

It seems that the main thrust of the e-mail is to promote link building but they also promote SEO in general.

then she received basically the same email which started off

Hello Client,

This is Suzanne from NetSmartz.

She also received an e-mail from docsmartz.com which was only a link exchange request. Guess who docsmartz belongs to. You guessed it. NetSmartz.

You really need to read both threads in their entirety.

I’m not as eloquent or as polite as Anthony or Irina. I’m just a “Dumb Ol Missouri Hillbilly” and proud of it. Some people have even called me a “Red Neck”.

Here is my take on these scumbag e-mail spammers. They are low life, scumbags. They are out to cheat, deceive, and defraud for their own gain. They are breaking the law by sending unsolicited e-mail (Spam). They are failures or they would not need to be sending out Spam E-mail.

I’ll probably think of some other descriptive terms later but these will have to do for now.

March 23, 2006

LinkWorth didn’t like my Post

Filed under: E-Mail Spam — Connie @ 7:40 pm

I wrote about LinkWorth yesterday. As far as I can tell they are sending out Spam (unsolicited e-mail) to promote their business. My comments about LinkWorth are here. You will also see that someone claiming to be from LinkWorth posted a comment threatening legal action. That person also posted in the thread at IHY That I originally referenced threatening the same thing.

If LinkWorth had posted and said his Company had not sent the e-mail, I would have given the Company the benefit of the doubt and edited my original comments so they were questions rather than statements of fact.

Since He/She came in with both barrels blazing threatening legal action, I guess they will just have to take the legal action.

I’m too old and set in my ways to back down to threats. So LinkWorth go for it. You will do more to promote my simple little blog than I ever could.

There will be nothing removed that I said by your deadline of 3 PM tomorrow. So fire way. Who knows. We may make Internet history here. We may also set some court precedence for the future.

If you think you scare me with your threats you are wrong. You have threatened the wrong person. I will still offer you the chance to deny sending the unsolicited (Spam) e-mail. I think at this point that would be hard for you to defend.

Spam e-mail is in violation of US laws. Some states have pursued cases against Spammers and won. If I could collect a few of those E-mails from recipients in Missouri, I would turn them over to the Attorney Generals office.

So anyone from Missouri who may read this blog please feel free to contact me at cshelt (at) spam-whackers.com.

LinkWorth put up, shut up or apologize. I will do the same if you convince me your Company did not send the Spam (unsolicited) e-mail.

Fair enough?

March 21, 2006

linkworth.com uses Spam E-mail

Filed under: E-Mail Spam — Connie @ 2:29 pm

Thanks to one of the new forum members (Just Wondering) at IHY for posting about this sleazy Firm by sharing a e-mail that one of his clients had received.

Another Spammer

A couple of interesting snippets from the e-mail:

My name is Craig Waugh and I am an Account Executive with LinkWorth (www.linkworth.com). I found your website while doing a Google search for “Our Keyword” through a Pay-per-click Ad. Did you know that you only stand to capture clicks from a MAXIMUM of 6% of searchers with a pay-per-click Ad? Yet with a top 5 natural listing, you stand to capture 80% of those searchers?

****DISCLAIMER****

All statistical data provided in this email is based on an initial research of your website and the search engines. Statistical data on any search engine can change at any given time so information provided may not be exact at time of reading.

From the home page of LinkWorth:

LinkWorth is a specialized online marketing service. We are an evolutionary online advertising portal which provides a one stop shop for all aspects of website promotion. Search engine optimization (SEO), increased traffic, search engine marketing (SEM), link popularity, targeted traffic, name branding and top position in search engine results are a few of the services provided. All online businesses are faced with decisions about what direction to follow. LinkWorth is exactly the service to help turn a quiet traffic stream into an energetic and busy information super highway.

Obliviously Companies like this are trying to take advantage of the uninformed webmaster. Unfortunately, based on the law of averages they will get some business by sending out e-mail like this.

Since an e-mail like this is nothing more than a Spam Scam, it amazes me that many popular SEO forums would not allow the Guilty to be named.

Personally I am thankful for forums like I Help You and Anthony Parsons SEO forum who are not afraid to out Spammers by name.

I think this is serious stuff. I think they should be named. I think LinkWorth is not only a Spammer because they use unsolicited Spam e-mail to promote their wares upon the unaware. They are also promoting crap on their home page.

March 20, 2006

Is all SEO Spam?

Filed under: General — Connie @ 7:11 pm

Most of this post is based on my memory, and should be read with a grain of salt. I haven’t thought about this topic in a long time. I never thought I would be posting in a blog about it. I never thought I would be posting something in a blog about anything. :)

Short answer to the topic is no. All SEO is not Spam. In the last couple of years I have seen Spammers use the argument that all SEO is Spam in various forums. Can’t provide you with any links, but I’m sure that anyone who follows SEO forums can validate what I’m saying.

If my poor memory serves me correctly I believe that I have even seen a few comments by so called “white hats” that stated the same thing. (Still haven’t figured out why a “white hat” would defend a Spammer, but it does happen).

A recent thread at IHY jogged my memory about this. The question originally posted by one of our newer members was Digitalpoint coop is it worth?

Later in that thread the member asked about the benefit of articles. When I responded I gave my 2 cents on both questions.

A comment by JohnC that I will call Just kidding brought this topic to mind and did result in an additional response from me.

I know John was kidding in his reply to what I had said. Unfortunately newbies to SEO may not understand that.

Why? Because they have read statements like “All SEO is Spam” in other forums, where a strong position was not taken against that statement in the comments made.

The Spammers would want you to believe that anything you do that might effect your rankings is Spam.

I do not believe that to be true

In fact if you read the SE guidelines there are many things they suggest that you should do:

Good title
Good description
Good content
acquiring relevant links to your site

The problem occurs when you do any of the above strictly for the SEs.

If a webmaster will focus on a couple of things and let common sense rule he should not have to worry about the SEs. If when applying these principles it helps you in the SERPS great. If not it will help you with your visitors when they find your site.

Basically I consider 3 things when working on a page:
Would I do this if SEs did not exist?
Will this help my visitors?
Will this get me targeted traffic outside the SEs?

If any of the above helps with rankings then that is a plus. I have helped my visitors by following the guidelines, and to the best of my ability published a website that puts the visitor first and foremost.

March 18, 2006

The Page Rank Myth

Filed under: General — Connie @ 5:36 pm

I’m sure I will get some negative comments about this but It has been on my mind for several days, so here goes.

New webmasters are obsessed with PR. What they call PR is what they see in the Tool Bar. They think the TB Page Rank is directly related to how well their site ranks in the SERPS. I disagree. I don’t think what the TB shows has any meaning about how a site ranks.

Back when Google first introduced the concept of PR what the TB showed may have had more significance in ranking than it does today. I do think true PR may be important, but only Google knows what the true PR of any page is.

So anyone chasing TBPR is chasing a will of the wisp when it come to rankings. Don’t waste your time. Spend your time adding valuable content to your site. It will help you a lot more than a silly green bar that Google displays.

Here is an Article that I came across by Anthony Parsons in regard to PR and High Rankings. I think it is a good read.

A recent forum post about this is at HR forum. PageRank Discussion and Questions.

The thread IMHO has gotten off track from the original question asked. The original question was about how to distribute PR on an existing site.

Was wondering if anyone had suggestions on how to put to good use the decent page rank some of my pages have. My home page has PR7 (but I can’t take credit for that), and a few other pages on the site have PR6 & 5s.
Is there any way to funnel what I see as a nice natural resource back into my site to increase other pages as well?

Thanks,MB

Even though I think the thread got a little off track I think it is a good read. If nothing else it shows how complex the issue is, and how much disagreement there can be in regard to PR.

One of the problems I have with some of the existing theories on PR is webmasters are afraid to link to other sites because they are afraid that in doing so they will loose PR.

In the end you are going to have to decide if PR is “Fact or Fiction” when it comes to your webpage ranking.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress