The Most Honest in my Field

Outstanding in your field!

Oh no, wait ... that's a farmer.

Hopefully once keyword spamming is beaten down, a useful description will become the most successful listing strategy, but I don't have high hopes. I'm sure you'll find something else that's underhanded and counterproductive that beats useful in the search game.

We share the same hope and doubt. But what they are doing concerning keyword-stuffing might help - it might actually help a lot.

You insult me. You talk as though I do negative things for the sake of doing them, which I've never done. But then, amateurs and onlookers can't understand the realities, can they.

Thank you, Innula

I can rent you some bots for the purpose if you like

Sling:

I won't quote your post because it's too big, but is it supposed to mean anything?

It's a quote from your own parcel web page.
The title that I put over it - "The Most Furniture in my Field" is , I think, more relevant and more humorous than the title that you put on your OP.

Oops. I missed the title on your post.

I knew it was my html page. With a bit of luck, pages like that will tend to decrease after the changes to search are implemented, or at least they won't be at the top where they are now, and I think the change that will affect them is due quite soon. You may not believe it, although I think you probably remember, but I really disliked making my page like that - useless for people - and I'm looking forward to getting actual items for sale back on it.

But I digress. This thread is all about praising me for being the most honest in my field. Do you think that a statue of me in the center of each infohub would be a suitable honour?

Your friend didn't praise you for being honest.
You praise yourself - but for humour, you say.

Perhaps a very large head wearing a Joker's headgear would be an appropriate statue.

I haven't praised myself, but it wouldn't go astray if I did

For a statue, I was thinking more along the lines of me standing erect, nose in the air, feet slightly apart, and with one hand inside the front of my jacket. What do you think?

Don't want to see that, thank you

No, you do them to be on top, regardless what that does to the usefulness of search. You have it in your selfish little head that you deserve to be first, and you'll make waste of anything LL does to improve search.

If there's a new trick that will work better than useful listings, you'll use the new trick instead of making useful listings.

Yes, but apart from that, you talk as though I do negative things for the sake of doing them, and I never do that.


(Btw, if you want to start an argument, please start another thread as this one is only a bit of humour. And if you do start an argument, you will lose hands down - as always.)

"Useful listings" are not useful if they cause your product to be buried under stacks of people that are doing things the way the system forces them to. Don't blame Phil, blame LL.

people people people! jealousy is very unattractive on you. quit flapping your empty jaw and get up and do something if you want to rank above Phil. the end.

There's more than enough blame to go around .

Phil comes up with reasons as to why he - among other things - is justified in listing the exact same store half a dozen times but if everyone stooped to that level search would just be worse than it is already with the same stores just showing up page after page.

LL is to blame for not delisting or banning people who clearly game search again and again like they threaten, but that doesn't mean that anyone who takes advantage of the "I can do what I want and get away with it" is free of blame.

Better than having one hand down the front of your pants (let's not let Jig walk past while you're posing for your photo shoot, eh, in your many-bedded home/store)

I've always said Phil was Outstanding in his field........and that's where you can find him...Out, standing in his field.

Sure. Assuming LL creates a larger description field and gives us more than a single line stub data entry field to work with. But they won't. So the GSA will never have enough to work with. But LL doesn't understand these things. Otherwise they would have dealt with the problem long ago.

In fact we do have the possibility to make a nice html page with product listings. We do not really need a larger description field (though it would be nice), as putting items in search does give a pretty good overview of what we have for sale.

The major problem is that the way the current GSA is implemented, keyword spamming is rewarded. So, in order to list well, many do use that exactly. Building a html page that serves the customer/searcher best, makes your page list so low it serves no good.

But back to the OP:
Once upon a time, some people declared that rewarding picks was dishonest. Paying for them, or giving away prizes, was dishonest in their opinion. So in that view, Phil really IS the most honest in his field! Who would have thought that about the king of traffic bots

Aha! Something on which we totally agree

I sent them a suggestion about a year ago, not expecting them to take any notice, of course. The idea was to have a seperate, page-size, field (page) in which we can play with optimisation, keyword-stuffing, et al, to our heart's content. Places would be ranked on that field/page, but it would not be available to view by any user. What users would see would be the normal page, with genuine objects listed as intended. There would be no need to fiddle with the normal page because it wouldn't affect the rankings.

What they've chosen to do is much simpler to implement (I think). They can't get into the GSA code to do anything internally, so they have to create external bits, as they've done all along. They've probably decided to do a simple word repetition count and given each page a score on that, which can be fitted in nicely with the GSA's factility of asigning a sort of priority to pages. It will result in finding the optimal number of repetitions, but it will also cause the keyword-stuffing that now exists to deteriorate or disappear down the rankings. That's conjecture, of course, but I doubt that it will far off the mark.

Purleeeeze! I'll have you know that I am standing on the top of an internal castle tower right now. Field indeed!

Ooo. Now there's a thought. Maybe that would be a better pose for my statue. OR... my hand in my jacket, and someone else's hand down the front of my pants

High on his list of improvements for 2010, there's:Hard to guess what that means, but the exclamation point suggests something more than yet another pass at Showcase / Destination Guide.

That's a very biased way of looking at it. What I do is list different sections of my store, which are on different parcels of course. I list the main store, the fireplace section, the rugs section and the tables section. They each target different items (tables, rugs, fireplaces, etc.) and are rarely seen in the same search results or, if they are, one of them is a *lot* lower down that the main one for the searched-for type of item. There is nothing even slightly wrong about doing that. You made it sound as though I am hogging the rankings, but that's not true.

It sounds like the topic of yesterday's blog about search. Have you read it?