Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

And can I just add ...

newfacedancer: total fruitcake.

TheDukester wrote: I just had my first look in quite a while, and it looks like there is no activity to speak of, not even between the preek retards. Most of the "most recent" entries are from November or even before. Some of the McDune entries date to last summer. It's a ghost town.

edit; Let it rot.

merkin muffley wrote:I don't need to look at it. You just add cinnamon to everything.

There's a recipe of mine there for Kangaroo Mouse Gumbo. No cinnamon.

Duke, I just posted my learned and valued opinion of this in the other thread -
viewtopic.php?p=97487#p97487" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think I agree that linking to Merrit's board ups its google rankings ...

I think that links to posts Over There, and only links, are a bad idea, because of IP blocks,
people like you who swore to never set foot Over There again (and you didn't, did you ?
you just copied the link from the first post in "posts I think should be deleted at DN", didn't you?)
and Merrit deleting ever other post ...

no linky; posty-posty all silliness here in quotebox ...

also, the words "official" and "policy" make my balls itch ...
I regretted suggesting the "you must be this tall to start topic" idea ...
but I was just annoyed by HairyC ....

and if someone can prove to me that links like these under discussion do, in fact, bolster Merrit's google pagerank,
that'd be interesting information, but I don't think it means anything ...

SandRider wrote:and if someone can prove to me that links like these under discussion do, in fact, bolster Merrit's google pagerank,
that'd be interesting information, but I don't think it means anything ...

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

It's how google works, basically. It check all homepages periodically, what words they use and what links to them. Every page gets a score for how many links they have going to them, but links from pages with a higher score themselves 'give off' a relatively larger score.

So if you sort the net for all pages that say dune and forum, you get us and DN highest (I presume far higher than no. 3). Our links mean a lot for the others rank, actually.

(But every link on a website as highly ranked as Jacurutu would give equal weight to whatever they linked to, as I understand it. So we are definitely talking very small potatoes per link!)

It checks all homepages periodically,

that's one of my points - the main thing that is affecting a search-rank in this scenario
is links to other pages on a commercial or "authority" website homepage ...

another reason I didn't ever read this wikipedo - the author actually calls wiki an "authority hub" ....

but anyway:

As an example, people could previously create many message-board posts with links to their website to artificially inflate their PageRank. With the nofollow value, message-board administrators can modify their code to automatically insert "rel='nofollow'" to all hyperlinks in posts, thus preventing PageRank from being affected by those particular posts. This method of avoidance, however, also has various drawbacks, such as reducing the link value of legitimate comments. (See: Spam in blogs#nofollow)

this is the main thing that popped into my head that led to the "horseshit" comment ...
I can show you a dozen fucking "spam engines" being cranked out by those little Singapore
bastards, under the guise of "internet marketing" ....

check this bullshit out :
http://forumposter.imbuzzcreators.com/viral/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and this:
http://official-sites.org/?d=imbuzzmark ... 1&gf=&gb=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
here's some propaganda from one of the little brainwashed trolls:
http://www.theimalliance.com/im-gurus/m ... eview.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I particularly like the last paragraph:

Calvin Woon and the IM Buzz Creators have never been in any way associated with any complaints or scam reports across the internet. Calvin and his fellow Jonathan Teng are respected among the internet marketing professionals and even gurus.

and this one should make you either laugh so hard you pee your pants,
or open your eyes as to who is really the cancer that killed /b/ :
http://www.imreportcard.com/people/calvin-woon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and the little brown cocksuckers are about 10 years behind the Russian Mafia ....
I just don't see gooooogle allowing this kinda horseshit to affect their formula,
hence, I donot believe any links to any page in a forum, or some asswipe's blagh
comments, or any of the other home-made webshit being counted ...

SandRider wrote:

It checks all homepages periodically,

that's one of my points - the main thing that is affecting a search-rank in this scenario
is links to other pages on a commercial or "authority" website homepage ...

True. Our small drops would be just that, drops in the water.

SandRider wrote:

another reason I didn't ever read this wikipedo - the author actually calls wiki an "authority hub" ....

Wikipedia is an authority hub.
It obviously has a lot of links to it, so any link it supplies carries a lot of weight. Hence 'hub'.
Also, it is as accurate as the best encyclopedia money can buy/we can create - but google doesn't 'know' that (for a certain reading of 'know').

SandRider wrote:

but anyway:

As an example, people could previously create many message-board posts with links to their website to artificially inflate their PageRank. With the nofollow value, message-board administrators can modify their code to automatically insert "rel='nofollow'" to all hyperlinks in posts, thus preventing PageRank from being affected by those particular posts. This method of avoidance, however, also has various drawbacks, such as reducing the link value of legitimate comments. (See: Spam in blogs#nofollow)

Interesting. I guess Jacurutu has this on (if nothing else, then by bbforum default). Means the whole case is moot...

SandRider wrote:...hence, I donot believe any links to any page in a forum, or some asswipe's blagh comments, or any of the other home-made webshit being counted ...

Of course google's pagerank algorithm has inner workings (which they for good reason do not tell about) that identifies and punishes link-spamming. But that in no way means that lesser links are not counted - they are counted by their relative weight. All the home made webshit like jacurutu and our personal blogs are being counted - otherwise, the system wouldn't work.

Well, either way, here's something I've discovered as I've been going through the links on my site & blog: the forum "make-over" on DN and KJA's revamping of his Wurdfur site (especially the relocation of his blog to its own URL) has screwed up a lot of old links. So whether you link to the original source or not, it's vital to provide a copy of what's there, either by reposting the text or taking a screenshot. (Especially when you consider that we're dealing with people who apparently have no qualms about "editing reality". Edit: I see SandRider has pointed out this aspect of the situation in another thread.)

Ironically enough, I have two days of SEO training coming up at work. If I find out anything relevant from a speaker who doesn't seem to be totally full of poop, I'll pass it along. I have a feeling it will mostly be industry-specific stuff, though.

Sigh. At least it's overtime ...

I especially like the thread in the Cookbook section about the flesh cookies.

Classic.

jannypan wrote:Un-enforced rule sounds like the plan to me. Every once in a while it might be appropriate to link, but we should all certainly aim to do it as little as possible.

Especially you.

Freakzilla wrote:

jannypan wrote:Un-enforced rule sounds like the plan to me. Every once in a while it might be appropriate to link, but we should all certainly aim to do it as little as possible.

Especially you.

Having fun, are you?

whazit?
assuming spammer; moving on ...

while upscrolling to see WTF, I re-read this:

Lundse wrote: Wikipedia is an authority hub.

in the last six months, I've found myself going to wikipedia first,
for basic information or facts or whatever - after doing this and
reading more and more of their pages, and understanding the
checks-&-balances system for each entry, I am now on the
bandwagon - Wikipedia is an "authority hub", and I've found little
to no fault in any of the information I have looked-over on that site ....

and I realize now that my former anti-wikipedia stance was formed
solely by Corporate-Sponsored "Conventional Wisdom" and paid
internet-lackeys from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Lobby ...

and I am ashamed of myself ...

I would say Wikipedia is an authority hub on non-controversial subjects...

yeah, I'd agree with that .... I use it mostly for historical research, names & dates &etc.

I often use it for bits of math or physics, which pages appear to be zealously guarded by a faithful few.