I checked Google a moment ago and you are now #3 in the bloody hierarchy! Did you ever submit you site to a pay for placement service? Sometimes they will use some pretty outrageous strategies to obtain hits on a site. Nice site by the way. Bill -----Original Message----- >From: Alexander Georgiadis <georgiadis@xxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Mar 9, 2007 9:40 AM >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Why does Google hate my photography page? > > * >* >------------------------------ > OK, get ready to hear the strangest thing. Ready? Here goes: > >Like many of you that have websites, I subscribe to a site monitoring >service (statcounter in my case) which I check occasionally to see how many >visitors I am getting, what link they came from, which part of the world >etc. One of the reports statcounter supplies is called "recent keyword >activity". This tells me what words people typed into search engines like >Google or Yahoo to find my website. As I am a Canadian photographer working >in Shanghai, so I typically see "shanghai photographer" or "shanghai >portrait photographer" etc. as the search terms. No surprises. Until today. > >This is so strange; someone had typed in the words "bloody photography" into >Google search. A little weird right? It gets weirder! So naturally, I >replicated the search myself. Surprise! MY SITE IS AT THE TOP of the search >page if the quotation marks are included and no 5 of 1,360,000 pages if they >are excluded. > >OK now I'll wait while you try the search >yourself...............................finished? Cool right? It all might >make sense if I the word "bloody" actually appeared on my page. But it does >not. It never has. ------- Tres bizarre! > >Everyone wants their page to appear high in google searches, but I never >expected my innocent child photography page to capture the number one slot >for "bloody photography". I don't know if I should be flattered or insulted. >Why does Google hate my photography? The only reason I can come up with is >that Google has actually attained sentience or self awareness and is just >expressing its personal disdain for sentimental photography. Boy, I always >suspected that my photography might suck. But to be insulted by a >logarithm.... I feel utterly humiliated. > >Can any of you venture an explanation for Google's behavior? * >* > __________________ >*Proving that ugly people can take beautiful >photographs!*<http://georgiadis.googlepages.com/> > > >-- >Alex Georgiadis
