On 10 Mar 2005 22:54:02 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
wrote:

>SEO Dave wrote:
>> About 400
>> links to the home page, this one
>> http://www.gnu.org/graphics/bokma-gnu.html PR7 is the link that
>> supplies the majority of the PR to your site.
>>
>> That was a bit of luck getting that link for the art work.
>
>Sure Dave. The link was even changed on my request. I *submitted* that
>art work quite some time ago. Can you guess why?

If you was smart about it you did the art work for the link. Great
idea BTW.

>> PR6 is easy to get with links from your own PR7 pages (I have loads of
>> PR6 pages).
>
>Good for you.

Why thank you.

>>>Oh, if I want I can do that too. It's quite easy to create 1,000,000
>>>pages or more. Problem is, everybody can do that.
>>
>> And it would spread your PR thin. If you don't know this yet,
>
>Of course I don't Dave, I mean, you are the SEO here, it's so obvious
>since it's in front of your name!

I'm glad I could help you out with this information then.

>>>same story, I think I will get 1000 visitors a day (because a lot of
>>>hits I get are via direct links) and it will grow in 1-2 months to the
>>>3000+ I today got.
>>
>> How long do you think it will take to make this new site to 1000
>> visitors a day?
>
>1 month.

If this is mostly search engine visitors and not transferring traffic
from another site (for example) you are talking complete bollocks. A
couple of years ago, no problem, but now not possible without
significant links and much more time than the above.

>> Don't suppose you'd be prepared to put your money
>> where your mouth is and run the experiment?
>
>Who knows.

Please try it, I could do with a good laugh.

>> Am I reading this right. You think a new site with your current
>> content rewrote (to prevent mirror problems I assume) with only a few
>> PR4 links to the site will quickly result in 1000 visitors a day and
>> within 1-2 months jump to 3000+ a day?
>
>Yup.
>
>> ROFLOL. If that's what you believe you have less of a clue about SEO
>> than I first thought.
>
>Of course poor poor Dave, since that's what it's all about. In almost
>every reply you post you keep telling people that they know little about
>SEO. Well Dave, I think you are compensating. The fact that you call
>youself SEODave is a dead giveaway.

ROFLOL

>>>I think 3000+ is the max at the moment, and even you can't improve
>>>that without adding extra content ;-)
>>
>> I could easily significantly increase the traffic of your site with no
>> new content or links.
>
>Yeah, yeah, you are the SEO king.

SEO Prince, think of my subjects!!

>> I prefer SEO Prince or "Dave the Prince of SEO" , King makes me sound
>> old :-)
>
>And we don't want that Dave, do we :-D.

No we don't!

>>>Probably you should have a second look at my site ;-)
>>
>> I have and stumbled upon your webstats and they clearly shows a lot of
>> your traffic is not relevant to money SERPs.
>
>Who said that?
>

Who said what??

<snip>
>> You've already taken this as an attack, so I suppose I'm wasting my
>> time trying to help you :-( A smart person
>
>Like SEODave :-D LOL. Why do you dumb down people in every other
>sentence Dave? Does it make you feel better?

If you see it that way you must be suffering from an inferiority
complex.

I don't mean to "dumb down" anyone, just so happens some people don't
know what they are talking about and so when I post the opposite of
what they are saying they appear dumb :-)

I have a lot of respect for some of the regular posters here including
(in alphabetical order :-)) - Carol, Martin (who hasn't posted for a
while), Stacey, Victoria, Will and others. Don't always agree with
them, but they tend to understand what's going on in the search engine
world and tend to be worth reading.

Then there are others who seem to always get the wrong end of the
stick and don't like to be told they are wrong. They also tend to be
easily offended and become entrenched in a view even when all the
evidence should tell them to change what they believe. That type of
person really bugs the hell out of me and I have zero tolerance for
their stupidity.

>> I'm not guessing on the Scorpion SERP/traffic. That's your top traffic
>> SERP. The first mention of Perl is the 18th search phrase (Perl Help)
>> with 120 hits this month compared to 805 hits from scorpion. I assume
>> you'd rather have that the other way around (I would). I appreciate
>> it's a personal site, but you say it almost pays the rent, why not
>> have it support you better financially by concentrating more on money
>> SERPs.
>
>Nah, I like it as a personal site. Moreoever, you make a mistake, you
>count hits as equal to work. I get little hits on perl programmer *but*
>they give me work. I can decide to sell scorpions, but hey, that would
>make way less money :-D.

So you are happy receiving a significant percentage of visitors who
have no interest in your services at the cost of visitors that might
be interested in your services?

If you understood how your link structure is hurting your money SERPs
you'd make the changes ASAP. But then you don't have SEO in front of
your name like I do ;-)

>> LOL, that's very funny coming from you. A programmer with very little
>> idea about SEO offering SEO services. Now that's a SEO wannabe.
>
>Of couse Dave, since that's what you want, since that makes you the...
>SEOPrince lol.

Don't forget the space (SEO Prince not SEOPrince), think of the search
engines.

<snip>
>> As you suggested I took a better look at your site and the above just
>> isn't true. You have one very, very important link from a PR7 page
>> with your name as the anchor text. The other few hundred links to the
>> home page include a fair amount of mirror copies of the PR7 page
>> (which understandably have no PR) and mostly forum posts with low PR
>> (things you've posted your link to not others).
>
>I don't post my links on forums. If you mean people copying my Usenet
>posts, yeah.

They are the ones. I should have been more clear in what I meant.

>Also note that you just can't see every backlink, nor the
>actual PR of each backlink.

You can find the majority of backlinks quite easily and you can see
the PR of most. Obviously I'm not using Google to search for
backlinks. Do you have more than 400 links to your home page that are
more than 6 weeks old?

>But, cool eh? One PR7 link, a few pages, 3000+ visitors a day, and it
>pays almost the rent. And that for a blog and some articles.

I agree it's very good. Although it's not really 3000+ visitors a day
until it's a stable 3000+. I find it helpful to view the average for
the month rather than individual days, irons out the hills and troughs
and gives a more realistic figure.

This site of mine http://www.free-recipes.co.uk/ has days over 3000
visitors a day, but it's average for this month is around 2700 to 2800
a day (think yours is about the same).

Anyway, my point is you could easily increase the number of visitors
that are looking for services you offer rather than total number of
which a lot won't make you any money. I assume you'd prefer 2000
visitors who might pay you something than 3000 visitors of which half
aren't likely to pay you anything?

>> There was the usual
>> splattering of those really naff search engine type sites with ads on
>> that have no PR as well. So for your home page at least there doesn't
>> appear to be a "I get plenty of links because I have good content"
>> situation.
>
>Most people don't link to my home page :-D.

So which pages do they tend to link to?

>> I checked your main Perl page (just PR3!
>
>http://johnbokma.com/perl/ is PR6 here, no idea what page you talk
>about.

Weird, it was PR3 yesterday (which didn't seem right, hence the PR3!).
I get PR6 as well now.

Been seeing some strange results with the toolbar lately (think it's
buggy :-)). Checked the backlinks of a site with this string
link:http://www.domain.com/ and got no backlinks, then checked with
link:http://www.domain.com (missing the / )and got hundreds of
backlinks. Few mins later both showed hundreds!

>http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammer.html ditto,
>http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammeur.html has 5 (Dutch)
>
>>) for backlinks and it's a bit
>> better, but still mostly forum posts. So it looks like most of the
>> links are due to you adding them to forums rather
>
>Again, I don't add them to forums, unless you call Usenet a forum, and
>me posting "adding links".
>
>> than someone
>> thinking your content is great and the PR7 comes from that one very
>> good link.
>
>My referer dumps show different :-D. Did you spot that DMOZ link?

I'm talking about traffic from Google due indirectly to the PR7 link,
not total traffic or where other traffic comes from. I suspect the PR7
link won't bring in much direct traffic, but it's this link that is
driving your sites success in Google and in my opinion you aren't
using the benefit to full use.

I did see the DMOz link, but it's one link and unlikely to result in
much benefit (count how many links from that DMOZ cat to see how
little benefit it sends you).

>> Nothing wrong with that, but it's not what you say above and doesn't
>> really fit in with the concentrate on quality content argument to SEO.
>
>Because you research is flawed and your conclusion wrong maybe?

Of course I could be wrong, but I've had another look and still came
to the same conclusions.

>> You are actively gaining links (mostly from forums (again nothing
>> wrong with that)) not waiting for others to link to your site because
>> it's so great.
>
>DMOZ thinks different about that, as do some blogs :-D.

DMOZ is only one link, not lots of natural links. Backup what you are
saying about great content results in lots of natural links by listing
them. Show me a page with 40 natural links and I'll admit I'm wrong.

>>>By whom?
>>
>> By many people including myself.
>
>Ah, yeah, the SEO authority HIMSELF :-D.

I prefer SEO Prince.

>> Feel free to show examples of sites
>> with great content and very few links (low PR)
>
>few links is not the same as low PR.

True, your site is an example of a site with few natural links but
high PR.

>> that are receiving
>> thousands of visitors a day from search engines.
>
>It's the number of visitors that count, not how they come.

We are discussing SEO, therefore it's search engine visitors that's of
most relevance here.

>> Most of your links are from forums (at least to the home and Perl
>> page). The natural links to your site is low,
>
>Sure Dave.

Feel free to show I'm wrong. From the 385 links shown in a backlink
search in Yahoo show me the natural links that you made no efforts to
obtain.

You have even admitted your best link
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/bokma-gnu.html (PR7) was obtained through
your actions, rather than a person linking to your great site because
of the great content.

Natural links to your home page-
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/bokma-gnu.html PR7 (not really natural,
but we'll include it)
http://www.sitemaven-design.com/link...are-design.htm PR3
(reciprocal links page)

That's all I could find.

This page http://johnbokma.com/mexit/ has some.

http://schoener-11.nl/ PR6 (lots of links from page though, about 90
links)
http://locusmeus.com/friends.html PR2

If the rest of your pages are like these, without that PR7 link you'd
be lucky to have a PR4 home page.

>> fortunately you have
>> that one very good link. If you lost it, PR4 home page most likely.
>
>Nop, PR6 (I tried ;-)

What do you mean you tried?

>>>etc. So my site is now self sustained and it will grow.
>>
>> If only that were true.
>
>It is.

It isn't, it's powered by that one link.

>> The reality is to get noticed you need the
>> links in the first place,
>
>That's normal with a SE, how can it else find you :-D.
>
>> so visitors will see your great content and
>> link to you or some other way for people to find your site so they
>> will link to you.
>
>Yup.
>
>> If you have very, very good content or a service people want badly
>> (like an important support forum for example) then natural links can
>> develop over time
>
>It does, as I stated, my site grows with 300/day+ every month, even
>more, since I am now at 3000+/day, which I expected to have by the end
>of this month. The funny thing is, every time I have to correct my
>prognosis :-D. And no, the grow rate of my site doesn't justify for
>this.

But that doesn't prove your sites growth is due to the growth of
natural links. Your sites growth is due to two things (mostly), a PR7
link from a page with a low number of links and quite a lot of your NG
posts being mirrored on websites. This is not growth due to natural
linking because of great content, but your work towards obtaining
links. Therefore you do not practice what you preach, you do not
concentrate on creating great content that people will link to, you
post a lot of NG posts that have your links in the sig and this
results in automatic backlinks.

Nothing wrong with that, but your advise is misleading to those who
come here. It is not a simple matter to create great content that
results in loads of free natural links.

>> (it's not fast though,
>
>To me it's already too fast :-D. I prefer to write the content myself
>:-D

Lost me there.

>> unless you are lucky to get a
>> high PR link or two). But, lets not kid ourselves, commerce sites
>> generally don't attract many natural links, so creating content and
>> hoping people will link to it is wasting valuable time if your aim is
>> to make money.
>
>Weird, I see people here advise to add a blog to commercial sites.
>Probably all very stupid people.

That is not the same as what I'm saying. If a business can create an
interesting blog it might result in some natural links. All depends on
how interesting the blog is, there are some very interesting blogs
attached to commerce sites that do quite well, but it's not a simple
case of "create a blog and see the traffic flood in". Takes a lot of
work creating good content that people will link to and it won't
happen over night.

>Thanks for explaining SEO(!)Dave.

What's with all the SEO(!)Dave, SEODave type stuff?

>> To be sure of success relying on natural links is a big gamble and can
>> only be done by those who can afford to fail (and/or have a lot of
>> time).
>
>Both in my case :-D.

Good for you, those seeking advice here don't always have that luxury.

>> No. We need a shopping cart, not necessarily that one. After more
>> research Oscommerce could be the cart and in some respects (some mods)
>> is better than X cart.
>
>Weird, you wrote a few days the opposite.

Yep, didn't have all the information I needed to make an informed
choice.

>>>You clearly have no idea how much an SGI workstation costs?
>>
>> You are right I don't have a clue how much they cost, I was having
>> some fun at your expense (cheap shot would cover it). Though if they
>> are really expensive it would seem the joke backfired :-))
>
>It did ;-). The machine was second hand USD 3000. Which even in those
>days is more than most people were willing to pay for a brand new PC.

That's about what I'll pay for a new PC now.

>The selling value (new) was about 25,000 USD (yup, 25 thousand) IIRC.
>Excluding the development software, which I could get for free (only the
>C compiler was like 1,500 USD, and I was able to get a complete
>development environment, I think it was 5,000 USD+, maybe more).

Good find then.

>> Good for you, and here's me thinking you always purchased the first
>> solution,
>
>I did :-D.
>
>> no matter what the cost that jumped out in front of you
>
>Ah, but that's not what I wrote: I wrote it's not smart to think so long
>that it costs more than buying it.

I was trying to be sarcastic. I get the impression my humour is lost
on you. Generally when I use :-) I'm joking or taking the piss.

Got bored so snipped the rest.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

SEO Dave wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2005 22:54:02 GMT, John Bokma <postmaster@castleamber.com>
> wrote:

[ GNU ]
> If you was smart about it you did the art work for the link. Great
> idea BTW.

Thanks, and yes, I did it for the link, but ages ago (it pointed first
to a different site)

>>Like SEODave :-D LOL. Why do you dumb down people in every other
>>sentence Dave? Does it make you feel better?
>
> If you see it that way you must be suffering from an inferiority
> complex.

I have seen you doing exactly what you do and did with me with quite a
lot of people. Instead of good arguments you try cheap shots and one
liners like: you have no clue. Doesn't work with me. And no, I have no
inferiority complex, you could have guessed that by now.

> I don't mean to "dumb down" anyone, just so happens some people don't
> know what they are talking about and so when I post the opposite of
> what they are saying they appear dumb :-)

But if you can't provide good solid base for why they are dumb. Just
yelling: you have no clue about SEO doesn't work (and bad guessing about
backlinks to a site doesn't help either :-) ).

> evidence should tell them to change what they believe. That type of
> person really bugs the hell out of me and I have zero tolerance for
> their stupidity.

Just ignore them, people who don't get the message the first and the
second time don't get it the 10th time if you just repeat it. Changing
the message might help, or an example.

Also, note that if you don't agree with someone's views that doesn't
mean that yours are right and theirs are wrong. SEO is a lot of guessing
and some people focus on other things than you, which doesn't mean they
are wrong. It might even work for them, and not for you, and vice versa.
I currently focus on what most people agree: good content, and logical
structural mark up.

> So you are happy receiving a significant percentage of visitors who
> have no interest in your services at the cost of visitors that might
> be interested in your services?

Again Dave, it's a personal site. I am more than happy with how it
works. Also note that you had a peek at my top 20 or so queries. You
must be aware that awstats is quite a bad program, I use my own
software.

For example: people search quite broad for perl stuff, e.g:

perl support
help with perl script
perl help
"perl help"
"perl programmer"
programmer +perl -java

etc. So you see 57 (or so) perl help hits, while the actual total number
of perl, and moreover perl related hits, are quite higher (some are perl
related but have no perl in them, for example: Mason programmer. And
there are more programming related hits that individualy just doesn't
show up in the top stats.

It's quite simple: people who look for a pic of a scorpion just type

scorpion

in Google. But people looking for a perl programmer with CGI experience
type:

perl programmer +CGI
CGI programmer +perl

etc., etc.

Also, I am quite sure awstats is case sensitive, e.g. some people spell
Perl as:

Perl
perl
PERL

What I do if I group queries: replace all weird characters like +, -,
::, etc with nothing. Then break the query on white space, and then sort
it, and glue it together and group queries with the same result. e.g.:

perl programmer +CGI
CGI programmer +perl
"perl programmer" CGI
+perl -java +CGI +programmer.

Would fall in the same category (cgi perl programmer)

[ usenet postings get archived ]
> They are the ones. I should have been more clear in what I meant.

I never posted with the intention to get them on web based archives (a
quick google query can prove that my avg posting/month is quite stable
for the past 10 years or so :-D )

>>Also note that you just can't see every backlink, nor the
>>actual PR of each backlink.
>
> You can find the majority of backlinks quite easily and you can see

You can't say how much out of the actual back links you can find so you
can't tell if it's a majority or minority. Google cuts it off. In the
past it was all below PR4. I have no idea how it's done now. I use the
referer log for spotting nice back links. I think I have a few that do a
lot of hits/day, but don't appear in link: search

> the PR of most.

Not the actual PR, but one that can be as old as 3 months.

> Obviously I'm not using Google to search for
> backlinks.

I know that other SEs give other results, of course. I prefer my referer
log.

> Do you have more than 400 links to your home page that are
> more than 6 weeks old?

Pfft, I have no idea. Some links give 1 visitor a month or so.

>>But, cool eh? One PR7 link, a few pages, 3000+ visitors a day, and it
>>pays almost the rent. And that for a blog and some articles.
>
> I agree it's very good.

Thanks. (Note: with paying the rent I mean income that doesn't come from
programming etc. work)

> Although it's not really 3000+ visitors a day
> until it's a stable 3000+. I find it helpful to view the average for
> the month rather than individual days, irons out the hills and troughs
> and gives a more realistic figure.

Yup, agreed. And I now oscillate around 3000+ (lowest about 2500+). In a
few days it will probably go to ~ 3200. But as you probably have seen,
it grows, and grows. It are not one off shots that die out (like I had
ages ago, got mentioned in a newspaper and went from 200 a day to 1400
and it dropped back to 800 (and stayed around 700+ for quite some time)

> This site of mine http://www.free-recipes.co.uk/ has days over 3000
> visitors a day, but it's average for this month is around 2700 to 2800
> a day (think yours is about the same).

Yup, I guess it is.

> Anyway, my point is you could easily increase the number of visitors
> that are looking for services you offer rather than total number of
> which a lot won't make you any money. I assume you'd prefer 2000
> visitors who might pay you something than 3000 visitors of which half
> aren't likely to pay you anything?

I prefer programming work, which is often one or several weeks. With
2000 people a day who want to pay me for programming work I would have a
huge problem :-D.

And I have no idea what to sell them otherwise (scorpions?), or moreover
if I want to sell things.

>>Most people don't link to my home page :-D.
>
> So which pages do they tend to link to?

Most often to articles I write. It's quite random, can be my webcam
recording article, a firefox article, stuff about my scorpions, my weta
page, my perl page etc.

>>> I checked your main Perl page (just PR3!
>>
>>http://johnbokma.com/perl/ is PR6 here, no idea what page you talk
>>about.
>
> Weird, it was PR3 yesterday (which didn't seem right, hence the PR3!).
> I get PR6 as well now.

Well, let's hope it doesn't drop to PR3 then :-D

[ toolbar ]

I use most of the time my own Perl stuff ( creates the URLs from a
mirror of my site on local disk, queries the PR server, and prints the
PRs)

> I'm talking about traffic from Google due indirectly to the PR7 link,
> not total traffic or where other traffic comes from.

Does that matter? I mean a visitor is a visitor, as long as it is not a
mislead visitor. If the link got on a page because someone found me
using Google I still call that SEO.

> DMOZ is only one link, not lots of natural links.

It is one natural link.

> Backup what you are
> saying about great content results in lots of natural links by listing
> them. Show me a page with 40 natural links and I'll admit I'm wrong.

I'll look into it.

> We are discussing SEO, therefore it's search engine visitors that's of
> most relevance here.

If visitors come via a link that was added to a page *because* it showed
up in Google I consider that an effect of SEO.

> Feel free to show I'm wrong. From the 385 links shown in a backlink
> search in Yahoo show me the natural links that you made no efforts to
> obtain.

examples:
http://www.micropersuasion.com/2004/...steps_to_.html
http://www.exit0.us/
http://namingschemes.com/Main_Page
(more follow down)

> That's all I could find.

Yup, since you can't see my referer log.

> http://schoener-11.nl/ PR6 (lots of links from page though, about 90
> links)

My brother ( guess how he got that PR6 ;-) )

> If the rest of your pages are like these, without that PR7 link you'd
> be lucky to have a PR4 home page.

Without that PR7 link it was a PR6 page (and even more back in the past
a PR7 page)

[ PR7 link ]
>>Nop, PR6 (I tried ;-)
>
> What do you mean you tried?

See a bit more below.

[ PR7 link ]
> It isn't, it's powered by that one link.

Again Dave, you are wrong. How do those sites get their PR?

http://castleamber.com/ PR6
http://searchengineoptimizationcompanyservices.com/ PR6
http://schoener-11.nl/ PR6 (my brother)

> But that doesn't prove your sites growth is due to the growth of
> natural links. Your sites growth is due to two things (mostly), a PR7
> link from a page with a low number of links and quite a lot of your NG
> posts being mirrored on websites.

It is not Dave, since I didn't change my post frequency and I doubt the
number of Usenet posting mirroring sites have been exploded the past
months. Also, see below.

> This is not growth due to natural
> linking because of great content,

Some time ago I had about 3.75 visitors/page per day
At the moment that is over 10 visitors/page per day

> but your work towards obtaining links.

Again, I don't work to get links in a direct way. Yes, I got that GNU
link, but my site was already PR7 long before I moved that link ( it was
PR7, dropped to PR 6, and then got the PR7 back because then (and not
before) I changed that GNU link)

> Therefore you do not practice what you preach, you do not
> concentrate on creating great content that people will link to, you
> post a lot of NG posts that have your links in the sig and this
> results in automatic backlinks.

So you think I ask for links like:
<http://tokuhirom.dnsalias.org/~tokuhirom/cl/2004-09-30-14.html>
<http://ulej.blog.sme.sk/c/110/Vdaka-RSS-vsetky-informacie-pokope.html>
( I can not even read the languages)
<http://www.letssingit.com/?http://ww...exe/forum.cgi?
a=topic&id=103289&highlight=>

And there are many many more. Some do like 1 visitor a day. Some have a
PR of 0, or 2, or 3. What will it be in say 3 months time? 4? 5? 6?

> Nothing wrong with that, but your advise is misleading to those who
> come here. It is not a simple matter to create great content that
> results in loads of free natural links.

Because you don't see it at my site doesn't mean it is not happening.
Mind: I did never say that you just write great content and in 3 months
you got 10,000 visitors. (If you write great content it is possible, but
not a guarantee). Creating good content takes time, but I am convinced
that it's way better than using the SEO trick(s) of the month.

>>To me it's already too fast :-D. I prefer to write the content myself
>>:-D
>
> Lost me there.

Instead of archiving Usenet postings, or turning e-books into HTML,
copying lyrics etc (not saying you do this, mind)

>>> generally don't attract many natural links, so creating content and
>>> hoping people will link to it is wasting valuable time if your aim
>>> is to make money.
>>
>>Weird, I see people here advise to add a blog to commercial sites.
>>Probably all very stupid people.
>
> That is not the same as what I'm saying.

You wrote: creating content .... is wasting valuable time.

> If a business can create an
> interesting blog it might result in some natural links. All depends on
> how interesting the blog is,

Of course.

> there are some very interesting blogs
> attached to commerce sites that do quite well, but it's not a simple
> case of "create a blog and see the traffic flood in".

I never stated that. I always wrote "good content" (or implied so).

> Takes a lot of
> work creating good content that people will link to and it won't
> happen over night.

True. But if it's good it might happen. I got blogged some time ago, and
got a lot of extra traffic. People copy good blogs (as I noticed) ->
more people.

> What's with all the SEO(!)Dave, SEODave type stuff?

I don't know, you entered the latter in your Usenet client, not me ;-)

>>Both in my case :-D.
>
> Good for you, those seeking advice here don't always have that luxury.

Yup, and even more don't want to spend one dime on SEO, have no clue how
to read the FAQs, free tutorials etc, ask 20 questions and move on.
Should we all go fishing now?

[ SGI ]
>>It did ;-). The machine was second hand USD 3000. Which even in those
>>days is more than most people were willing to pay for a brand new PC.
>
> That's about what I'll pay for a new PC now.

Yup, but most people don't want to pay that much for a PC, more likely
around 1000 USD or even less. And expect it to do miracles :-D. If it
blue screens, oh, that's Microsoft. So they try Linux, and then instead
of half working hardware they got non-working hardware.

> I was trying to be sarcastic. I get the impression my humour is lost
> on you. Generally when I use :-) I'm joking or taking the piss.

Nah, you tried a few low and cheap shots and they back fired. No
problem.

> Got bored so snipped the rest.

:-) Pitty

I was curious to your reply on the CSV quote, in a way. I still think it
was a good quote. (I mean it was not a special
alt.internet.search-engines discount price :-)

Anyway, maybe better this way.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html