Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Digest for - 3 Messages in 2 Topics


    Daniel <> Mar 05 02:28PM -0800  

    Oh I didn't know you were a pro web designer. And I didn't know that web
    designers are seo experts. And I didn't know that every pro is the bestbin
    the world.
    If you've been working for 15 years and only have 15000 pages up you must
    be really slow. I just put up 3500 pages in a month. Since this isn't a
    pissing contest you are wrong and spam is spam unless it comes in a can
    than it us ham. You are in a public forum boasting about how you game the
    system and you say you are a professional.
    You can have as many sites as you want but if you use 301 for anything
    other than a page or site that has moved and a honest reason, or a redirect
    from a mistype or conaical rule enforcement you are low class if you are
    using it to spam the results pages.


    danny <> Mar 06 11:41AM -0500  

    3500 pages of crap


    iamdave <> Mar 05 01:24PM -0800  

    I have had e-commerce for about 15 years on a particular product. I
    outgrew a few e-commerce solutions during that time. The one I am on
    now is nice but the rate has went up over 50$ and my renew is next
    March and I will not be staying with them.
    Last year I made a secondary site using magento that I hoped to see it
    work and then knew if it did I could switch to it with magento.
    Problem is my sales were terrible. Same products, same meta tags etc.
    but no sales. Very disappointing. So a person suggested that since the
    secondary site was a new url I wasn't getting the hits I would have
    gotten if I had used my original url and moved the magento store to
    it. Does that make sense? My fear of that is if I switch to magento
    with the original url and it still doesn't work I have no backup
    option and my sales stink and I have no income.
    Another option is I have a url I made 15 years ago with static html
    pages that have items pointing to my current sites items. I could try
    magento on that url to see if the age of the url thing has an impact
    on sales.
    So to wrap up I have several options and I need to take the most
    logical one and am asking your input.
    url #1was my very first url and is about 15 years old and currently
    has static pages on it pointing to my current site (url #2) e-commerce
    url #2 I've used for internet sales income the past 9 years but the
    current shopping cart is to expensive. using
    url #3 is a site about 1 - 2 yrs old that I installed a magento store
    on with the very same items url 2 has and was a test to see if a
    magento store would produce sales and let me abandon the continuing
    price increases of url #2's e-commerce site.
    Options I see:
    Option #1 Do I try magento on url #1 as it wasn't working on url #3
    since url #1 is much older?
    Option #2 Do I push all the chips in and move magento to url #2 and
    assume it will work? (problem is I'd have no incoming sales from the
    net if this doesn't work)
    Option #3 is try a different e-commerce solution altogether like
    enterprise on #3, move magento to #2 and have yet another option in
    the fire. Problem is for me is running 3 sites for a year test would
    be a ton of work. But if it needs done than I'd do it.
    What option seems the most logical to you? What I need is sales with
    an affordable e-commerce solution. I have roughly 6k items. Please use
    the poll but more importantly post why you feel this is the best
    action. I sincerely appreciate your input.
    Many thanks for your input.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group seo1.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Search Engine Optimization SEO Google - MSN - Yahoo" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

No comments:

Post a Comment