I didn't want to appear critical of it ,and I think its much better than my own attempt.
But what I have discovered is that MSN is much better than google now .
And will pick up on any changes you make to text every Thursday,and it doesn't cost anything.
In web sites you can normally name the sperate pages as well as the whole site and you can write words For the search engine to pick up on in the website preferences box.or on the fromt page MSN will pick all that up for nothing.if its submited
Google hand pick and choose what they think is good enough to show , unless you pay for search lightning.that s why mine doesn't appear on google.they think its not technically good enough.
if any of the links don't work or if they think its to slow they wont show it.
Its just a way of extorting money from people.
Edited 2 times. Last edit at 13 November 2005 9.47pm by mickysalt.
We should probably discuss the black arts of search engine optimisation in another thread, but I'm afraid I disagree.
You CERTAINLY don't need to pay to get a good placement on Google. If you have a well-written site with relevant content, it will be ranked highly for appropriate search terms. If a site is updated daily (like this one), Google will index it daily.
I do agree that the title tags used on pages are very important, and people very often overlook this. So many people publish pages called "Untitled Document" or "New Page 1" and wonder why they don't do well.
As far as I know, no human interaction is involved in Google's main search indexing, so there's no biasing based on whether anyone "thinks" a particular website is technically "good" or not. Google is the most comprehensive and (in theory at least) unbiased of the search engines.
Meanwhile, Thameslink: I'd like to add another voice to the relatively silent proponents of the scheme. We have to accept that there are certain sacrifices to be made in order to improve the infrastructural problems of the area. I disagree with statements such as "the Britain at War museum is the defining image of Tooley Street" - I always think the defining images of Tooley Street are the graffiti strewn benches next to the "Latino" cafe, or the yellow "witness appeal" police signs, or even the distinct smell of ammonia on Sunday mornings.
mickeysalt said "I was saying if they think you website isn't technically good enough they wont show it at all". It's more a case that if the web site doesn't tick some of Google's boxes, they CAN'T show it - no-one has taken the decision to ignore the site, it's just that it has nothing for Google to process in order to get a decent ranking position:
Content - Google loves text content, a few paragraphs of explanation on each of the pages would go a long way to allow Google to understand what the site is about - the software cannot understand a photograph, and there is less than a dozen words on most of the pages (and the spelling is inconsistent, which is crucial for web searching) - a search for "Blackfriars" won't get a page returned that says "Black Friars").
Title words - Google thinks these are important, but they should be reflected by the text in the page below for best impact
Inward links - they show other people rate the page highly, so are a good thing to attract.
Non of this is done by people by the way, it's just a set of calculations by the Google computer, so if you don't rank highly, it's not their deliberate action, it's just that your site is not yet meeting the technical needs of their criteria.
The main thing Google wants to see is content. Which means words, not just pictures.
This isn't magic or guesswork, just common sense (and a bit of luck) - a search for short computer course in Google.co.uk has us top of 72,500,000 results (and 9th on google.com) - our pages meet Google's requirements without any clever trickery (and very few inbound links as it happens).
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 14 November 2005 1.30pm by markandjoan.
Hmmm Watching the BBC London report I think the got it wrong when they said Thames link was delayed for year by the Borough Market issues as I recall it was the spiraling costs that delayed it.
Due mainly to the impracticality of the proposed route.
In Case you haven't signed the petition
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 13 December 2005 7.13pm by mickysalt.