Posts by canadafred

And by the way, if I could edit the mistake, I would have done that. But it is not anymore necessary.

Your contributions are worthy. This place needs the basics reminded to us, with clarity, just like you present it in your insightful postings. The admins will remove it because of the links in it. They are on vacation for the moment though, I think.

Between here and the authoritative Usenet group A.I.S.E. alt.internet.search-engines pretty covers the whole spectrum of SEO.

In the SEO TIPS section you have misspelled a person's name. If you are going to use someone's name please spell it correctly.

I must say that you have created an extensive list. There is much good in it at least.

Go to the Google Labs and check out the new Google Accessible. You may be pleasantly surprised.

In India you can get a small site optimized for 100 - 200 USD

Often in SEO, you get what you pay for.

I think Im in the wrong bizz... :)

In Canada, the salary for an SEO expert ranges from $25,000 a year to $100,000.

Business minded SEO experts operating on their own can make about the same money as an average lawyer does.

Are you still in the wrong business or do you want to keep up your specialized training in a field that is in constant growth.

I've been reading this scratching my head... PR6? I'd give one of my testies for PR6!
LOL

Save yourself the agony. PR has nothing to do with rankings in the SERPs anymore. It once had significance for Google but has been over exploited by spammers. PR is near being obsolete.

I realize that they don't tell you that on the google.com site but the evidence clearly indicates that good content outweighs artificially empowered content it doesn't matter what the PR value is of the web page. PR1 pages outrank PR6 pages competiting for the same keyphrases all the time.

Now don't get wrong folks, it is nice to have Google think your web pages are important and assign high PR values to them. Theoretically, if the high PR page has content that is sufficiently crafted and naturally supported, a higher PR web page does have a ranking advantage over a lower one because it has what appears to be some established popularity. Unfortunately, most of the content found on high PR pages nowadays is inferior and empowered externally using links to the content to make it appear to be uniquely important content; but that doesn't make it good content just because it appears to be.

Google knows the difference between good content and mediocre content made to appear to be like good content. Some SEOs are calling this trend: "establishing credibility" ( not to be confused with authenticity ) or I heard it once …

Just catching up to you. :)

:lol: A good sense of humour. We could probably get along after all. Hang around you make for seriously sparked debate which is good for all of us.

Regards Fred

I'm starting to guess that Daniweb girl is on vacation as links within messages seem to be surviving threads. Usually these are quickly edited out by the forum moderator.

Sounds like expert SEO advice to me. You obviously have sound insights into what it is the search engines are rewarding according to what they are instructing us to create.

You almost make sense now John.

I think you are looking for arguments for nothing. You keep altering your argument to suit your needs so as to not make your own self look rediculous and in doing so it isn't contributing to anything remotely professional looking.

You took the fact that the search engines discuss meta tags in some capacity that is not about rankings and then made the huge leap that they use them in their algorithms.

But that is the point. The fact that the search engines even discuss it, some at length and with specific instructions to how to use them effectively, must mean they consider it to have value. To which extend is debatable as we may never know.

I run across people like you everyday. People obsessed with seeking SEO expert status. They want others to think like they may know all the little bits and pieces of the search engines thousands of algos and filters secrets. They have the exclusive meta tag angle covered. They are like the skinny dog who barks on the other side of the window. It is marketing. Appearing to be have some knowledge is a marketing illusion. Create. Argue until you are blue in the face all you want, but I am not wasting my breath with you anymore. Let each decide his own uses of meta tags. We have provided the SEO newbie both spectrums. You say that certain meta tags aren't an important factor in determining ranking, I disagree. Let each …

Really, don't waste your time arguing with me and stop promoting your garbage techniques. Get to work.

http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/metadata.html

Metadata (including title and description) that accurately describes the contents of a web page
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/basics/basics-18.html

Add a website description into a Descriptionmeta tag, as shown here:
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="Describe your website here" />
http://search.msn.com/docs/siteowner.aspx?t=SEARCH_WEBMASTER_CONC_AboutYourSiteDescription.htm

Nobody uses the Meta Keywords or Description tags in their rankings. That's SEO 101.

Newcomers to Internet marketing should not heed this type of advice.

The search engines explicitly recommend the use of meta tags. Do some research. SEO juniors need to read what the search engines have to say about proper usage of meta tags and why they are important to the search engines, then make up their own minds about if and how to use meta tags.

Suggesting otherwise, is like selling someone a car without any brakes. Yep, the car will run fine until it needs to come to a stop. Why would you want to under-equip a newcomer in SEO. Advanced web site promotion specialists may have sufficient content crafting abilities to alleviate many basic SEO elements, but those types of exceptionally skilled Internet marketers need not come here for SEO tips and advice.

According to the search engines and not the nobodies that stymiee is referring to, it always a good SEO practice to suggest something to the search engines using meta tags which should briefly highlight the unique and pertinent web page content. MSN and Yahoo are very clear about this. Google is a little wishy-washy when it comes to explaining how and why to use meta tags but that is not an indication that they do not gather up information within the meta tags for consideration. Google reads everything and with its thousands of web content filtering mechanisms, meta tags …

It doesn't make a difference either way. Meta Tags, which is what I am assuming you are talking about, have no real SEO value anymore. So, either way is fine as how they will be used by the few resources out there that use them will use them and interpret them differently and you cannot control that.

Search engines have uses for meta tags. Read the guidelines. The search engine Google doesn't indicate anything contrary to the other search engines.

What ration should Prominence and Density be at for KW or KW phrases??
I'm trying to optimize a site and have my main KW at a 40% - 50% prominence but the Density is between 6% and 14%
Please help...

Don't waste your time with these concepts. A keyword doesn't even have to appear in the content in order to rank highly for it in the SERPs.

Just build content naturally using effective use of the language. Study the roots and meanings of words and employ semantics. Learn how to write well essentially.

It is much better to outclass a keyphrase competitor with rich content rather than to overpower it. Overpowering techniques generally are not sustainable. In developing superb content, its significance is retained much longer while others grow stale rapidly. Your effective content will not require as much reinforcement or need to be refreshed as quickly as mediocre content will.

On another note, something to always keep in mind when developing content, strength in content comes from its own credibility and is more rewarded than anything else artificially enhanced.

I don't get it. One dude writes a bunch of crap and everybody and their brother from India gets signatures together and replies boasting about how wonderful and magnificent an article this is. Go figure.

1) Good content naturally contains the keywords users are looking for

2) The keywords will also be in the appropriate markup like <hx> tags and <em> tags, etc., because that's what the page is about

3) Good content encourages other websites to link to them unilaterally (a.k.a link baiting). We all know just how valuable this is in Google's algorithm and MSN as well.

4) If a web designer/developer takes usability and accessibility into consideration, and everyone should, their site will naturally be friendly to the search engines' crawlers as they are essentially no different then a screen reader or other accessibility-usability-needy user.

1. Great content contains keyphrases too, but additionally uses them in a variety of stemmed manners deriving from the roots of the keywords within the keyphrases, rigourously engages in the use of semantics and is in itself a masterly written work illuminating the use of correct spelling and grammar.

3. There is no need to stimulate developing authenticity for great content.

... empircal evidence ...

empirical evidence

A site can in fact perform incredibly well under practically every conceivable situation imaginable. Just when I think of something that couldn't possibly work well in the SERPs, an example of it working well in the SERPs pops up before me. This is all part of SERPs battles. Things sometimes work well but shouldn't technically and things sometimes don't work well but technically should work tremendously.

One must keep in mind, many times a web site appears to be doing something supernatural, yet upon a deeper analysis, it is often revealed that artificial importance has been assigned to the web site as a result of a cleverly implemented SERP manipulation scheme. Frequently these are brilliantly deployed and very difficult to detect even for the most seasoned code-cruncher. Are these the types of web sites that do not require meta data in order to competively challenge other web pages for meaningful keyphrases? Exactly what keyphrases are we talking about here that the keyphrase winners do not require meta data? Not any that I'm in that for sure. What are these keyphrases specifically? Are they in meaningful competitions or just obscurities?

The important thing for any webmaster is to consider should always rest on what it is that the search engines want and what it is that they say will reward the web site.

Have you thought about that lately or is that irrelevant?

Not true. Lots of websites have the same meta tag on every page and rank very well and have tens of thousands of pages indexed.

There will always be exceptions to general search engine behaviour.

The only important question to consider with this issue, as far as I'm concerned is whether the overly repeated meta tag web site stands the test of time. According to the search engine behaviour that I have been seeing, it should get eliminated fairly quickly as a significant contender in any meaningful keyphrase competition. Perhaps it would survive an obscure keyphrase arena.

Though most largest search engines do not 'spider' the keyword Meta Tags on your page...

To think that the 'largest search engines' haven't had a little wee sneaky-peek into your meta tags is like thinking that the nurse hasn't seen your dirty shorts. I know that's a bad analogy folks but I'm tired of trying to think up a better one.

Ask yourself roxxy, if the 'largest search engines' in fact know what is in, for example, your keywords meta tag then do they use that information when deciding about what your site and web pages are about and how to position them in the SERPs? What do you think roxxy?

Always use the description and keywords meta tags and use them well.

... We're very unique in that we give you free, prominent links THROUGHOUT DaniWeb.

The links I get from being in your directory have been very authentic relevant links and appreciated. As a matter of fact, the link page often performs better than my own web site for niche keyphrase searches. I get much of a chance to come around too often and share in a heated discussion but when I do I only see intelligent debate on search engines and web optimization issues. You're great Daniweb girl!

A better practice is not combine keywords using the "|" symbol. I read this in Brad Callen's SEO made easy.

"Freelance Jobs | Contract Work | Web | Graphic Designers| programmers| Writers"

should be ok.

All separators including commas, periods, hyphen, pipe symbol, asterick etc., are a waste of Title real estate. Let the SE mix and match the words in various combinations, simply feed it the words.

I wrote an article on this called Keyphrase Title Soup, you'll have to dig a bit to find it cause I can't link to it here but essentially it tells you what to do when you don't know what to do with your Title.

Keyphrase Anchors Congruency is the lesson before that which may help you understand the use of languange semantics and web site congruency when creating or requesting anchor links.

I shortened the title a bit to "Freelance Jobs - Contract Work for Web & Graphic Designers, Programmers, Writers and more"

Is that still too long??? Any recommendation for a better title?

It's not bad, to be perfect, in my opinion, remove the punctuation, the hyphen, the trailer and the ampersand to be :

Freelance Jobs Contract Work for Web Graphic Designers Programmers Writers

Have anyone use search engine cloaking? Can anyone comment on this?

Cloaking in SEO terms is generally defined as being a system that delivers a different web page code to the search engine spider than it does to the Internet browser. The codes are usually substantially different, one being formatted to be search engine friendly while the other is meant to be more visitor friendly. Cloaking is frequently used to manipulate the search engines results and the search engines don't like it. Period.

Funny thing, I noticed today that there were a larger number than usual examples of cloaking going on in the Google SERPs. Cloaking seems to making another comeback. For every way that the search engines figure out how to filter cloaking, a new way emerges. This is one of those futile, long standing battles being fought by the search engines.

So that's it. Here is my advice. If you are looking to make a fast buck oin the Internet and don't care about the rules, then try your luck cloaking. You may win or you may lose. On the other hand, if you are looking to sustain long term top positions for competitive keyphrases, then read up on search engines guidelines, particularly the ones that they offer themselves and do the very best you can to play fair and do it for a long time.

Happy SERPs.

Has anyone got any info or had an experience on this subject?

I noticed that nobody has responded to your question yet so I thought I may as well try to help you out a bit, perhaps point you in the right direction.

I can't give you the URL and I'm too lazy to change my profile to give you an easy clickthrough but ... try performing a search within the search engines themselves to find where they write about this stuff. All the instructions are within the search engines themselves. Go dig, it's all there for you. Happy SERPs.

actually believe or not, advertising in these kinds of sites do work ...

I would have a better look at what works and what doesn't work.

Some may work but the vast majority of these types of things are taking a shit-kickin' in the SERPs and this trend will continue to unfold as long as Google is hell bent to clean out the trash and sustain it's SERP integrity against the onslaught of second-class useless activities such as the ones you suggest whose sole aim is to artificially manipulate the importance and authenticity of web pages with such link and affiliate schemes.

Instead of wasting your time in discovering and sharing new SEO miracle tonics, get to work building quality, unique content.

... So as in a website, sections and categories can be empty but content items can be full.

How does Google view that?

Google should view it as being of no value. How can it view it as anything else?

... The above pages are empty, just a directory listing and links, would Google see that as duplicate content or will they just quickly crawl them until getting to my content items?

What is the purpose of this directory? Is it to artificially create importance for the web site or does it serve a practical purpose for the Internet visitor?

Empty. Pages are empty! Don't waste your time with trying to fool Google, build quality content.

Check your internal linking structure.

I noticed that in the adult industry alot of the top performing web sites are doing a great deal of linking to internal pages or from support web sites. Their internal linking strategies encourage harnessing self-importance rather than externally seeking authenticity.

... Does anybody actually think Microsoft can become serious competitors to dominating Google?

I don't take this question as an opportunity to speculate.

This question has wrestled in my mind many times when forecasting where to focus my energies. I have seen how 100's of search engines have battled for the dominance that Google now enjoys.

Beyond rumours, media coverage and speculation are the historical realities for search engines. The same things that caused them to succeed as a search engine must perpetuate. When I look at the staggering statistics of how Google sometimes has about 80% of the search market and MSN sometimes less than 8%, I am reminded of the fierce struggles of the likes of Infoseek, Altavista, Go, AskMe, Canada.com, Inktomi, GoTo, Overture, Euroferret, AOL and Northern Light, to name a few.

Now the question: Can Microsoft be a serious contender for search supremacy? I don't see why not. That is why I focus my energies equally between Google and MSN.

OT Of course, the advantage to one player having search superiority is that it makes SEO simple: satisfy one set of criteria. Hopefully, by doing that it is more than adequate to satisfy other search engines. I know some may whine "I rule in Google but fail in MSN". To those I say: if you have anything that is not considered ethical SEO - abandon it. Particularly, pay close attention to your linking partners. The PR bar has purpose indeed when examining pages …

... Another really easy way to create non-reciprocal links is by owning a link on websites that exist only to provide traffic. Like owning country sites, pixel sites etc. One good example is my site ...

Do you really think it wise to suggest using "websites that exist only to provide traffic". Such schemes are of such little value to the Internet browser and so to the search engines. It is ridiculous to think that engaging "pixel sites" for purposes of SEO is anything remotely effective in either the short or the long term.

I find it sad that you think this an SEO strategy worthy of sharing in a public forum. But, then again, I have seen worse things suggested here.

Hi,

I would like to know if Google, Yahoo or MSN would consider the title of my website as spam.
My title goes like "Contract Job Marketplace for Webmasters, Freelancers, Programmers, Translators, Custom Web Designers and more..."
Am I using too many commas???

Please help...

It is not SPAM but is too long to be truly an effective <title>.

I see 10 keywords. Pick 5 or 6 and I would recommend not using terms such as "and more". Also, try to avoid punctuation especially stuff like "..."

How about other opinions about this? I think there are plenty of newbie ( like me ) here find it useful?

Just so that it is clear, PR value of a web page is but one factor that determines positioning in SERPs for a keyphrase search. A PR2 web page geared towards ranking highly for a keyphrase can frequently beat a PR 6 trying to do the same thing. PR value, although an important indicator, does not in itself determine SERP positioning.

Your advice is mostly directly to the "newbie" of SEO, thus I feel compelled to comment.

Renting a link from a high PR web page for the purposes of artificially inflating another web site's importance is commonly refered to as "link brokering".

Although link brokering can often be an effective PR boosting strategy, it is not, in any respect, SEO. As a matter of fact, link brokering is now being considered as a spam technique and Google has it's sights set to alleviate it's effectiveness. Both the broker and the renter will increasingly become subject to ranking penalties.

Now, the main problem with link brokering. Search engines want to provide the best web pages that satisfy a keyphrase search. Web pages that rank highly for a keyphrase search but are of little value to the searcher, and certainly not the best page for that search, flood the SERPs. This process is part of the increasing problem of seeing sub-standard web pages rank highly in …

... It has NOTHING - I repeat *nothing* - to do with ranking.

"It" refering to PageRank?

If so, then a more correct statement would be : Ranking in the SERPs has something to do with PageRank.

... Google uses PageRank™ to examine the entire link structure of the web and determine which pages are most important. It then conducts hypertext-matching analysis to determine which pages are relevant to the specific search being conducted. By combining overall importance ( PageRank ) and query-specific relevance, Google is able to put the most relevant and reliable results first.

Automatically generating pages in the manner in which described is a big search engine optimization no no. Sure, it may appear to be the convenient way to solve a problem, but at what expense. Obviously the web pages are not performing as you would like them to and content is lacking. So build content.

I like this place and I support it in my way everyday. Yet, it surprises me to no end what I read sometimes in this forum.

Doesn't anybody even glance at what the SEs write about regarding what is and is not acceptable design practices and SEO techniques? Search engines do ban web sites once in a while, not as frequently as I would like to see, but they make their power known on occasion.

So, now you have 400,000 pages that need textual content. If you were looking for a short-cut to resolve your massive copy troubles here is one : Do you remember how to use NotePad?

Hello everybody,

I was wondering what could be the difference between buying a link ...

The difference exists in the degree of the penalties that the search engines will eventually give the web site for participating in link brokering and link farm schemes. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but sooner than later.

I like it, it saves a lot of time, but am looking forward to version 2.0 ( if there is to be one ).

I'd like to see it developed to include more than one set of entries.

For example, let's say I take care of more than one web site and fill out submission forms for it once a week. Each has a unique owner name, telephone number etc. The way that it is set up now, I can only have it help me with one set of information at a time. I am continually editing the fields and losing my previous entries.

It's cool though, when I do a form submission session, I have learned to focus on one web site per session.

"... Why then, did you classify my previous example unethical ..."

I must have read it wrong, my eyes are fatigued I had a long day. I had coming to Daniweb on my "things to do list" for today. I haven't been visiting you folks much lately and felt I should contribute once in a while. I really support your work here, it is a good place for all SEO enthusiasts from novice to guru. I hope I clarified my feeling about 301 redirect in a later posting. I am sure we'll run into this argument again sometime.

I didn't want to comment on "mod_rewrite" because that is beyond my scope. I sorta' understand what it is, somewhat, but I am not qualified to be either for or againsts this as far as SEO is concerned.

Hope we can do this again real soon! ( a sleepy eyed smilie )

Good questions. Rememeber that redirects and cloaking are not the same thing, but you clearly have a solid argument with regards to redirecting.

If a web page or a web site has moved somewhere else, then it is natural to direct the visitor and attempt to direct the spider to the location of the web page or web site. This is helpful to both the visitor and the search engine.

If the page or site no longer exist, then to redirect the visitor and even the spider to another altogether different page or site for the intent to move importance from one page to another or from one web site to another that has yet to merit this importance, is in fact unethical. Does this mean that the new web page or the new web site has to start from the bottom and move it's way up the SERPs like the rest of the pages on the Internet, yes. That is the game fairly played.

I don't mind clarifying my position on #1, #6 and #7. I am always up for a professional discussion, that's what we do here right? I knew you were setting me up to argue about something. Well, I certainly gave you sufficient ammunition.

The difference between ethical and non-ethical SEO has always been a charged, highly opinionated matter. One that I generally try to avoid because of exactly how you responded. People seem to get emotionally involved in this issue when they dissect it. Funny thing is, this argument has been going on since the invention of the search engine and has evolved over time to mean something totally different each advancement.

It's good that you disagree. That means that you have considered the matter of SEO closely.

#1 "Is your copywriter forbidden from living in a 3rd world country?" No not at all, but hiring a copywriter that directly or indirectly uses enslaved children or people oppressed in any manner to edit text and create content, is wrong. But I didn't want to put it quite that way.

#6 We were talking about SEO techniques, not redirects "based on user agent for non-SEO purposes." Cloaking is unethical SEO when a technique is used that intentionally provides the search engine spider with one set of content in an attempt to manipulate it's importance while delivering a completely different presentation to the Internet browser, one more visitor friendly.

#7 This of course is my opinion. If …

... I see you talk about keyword / keyphrase density ... as opposed to optimizing your site for the surfer and not the spider ...

... I'm tricking the search engines into thinking I have a static site ...

There's meeting keyphrase density and there is keyword stuffing, those are two different things altogether. Provided that the content is visitor friendly and doesn't appear too repetitive, meeting keyphrase ratios is a basic part of Ethical SEO.

Appearing to be a static web page when in fact it is a dynamic web page can be ethical, provided that the content are the same.

I reworked my blog to suit your question

Ethical Search Engine Optimization

1. Does not include hiring oppressed people to write content
2. Does not recreate someone else's material and call it their own
3. Does not artificially make a web site appear important by manipulating it's link popularity
4. Does not intentionally hide content from the visitor that the search engines can find
5. Does not create pages that have little to do with the web site or are extremely similar to other pages within the web site for the purpose of giving the web site additional depth
6. Does not engage in cloaking
7. Does not manipulate redirects of any kind for an SEO advantage particularly for pages that no longer exist
8. Does not cooperate with link building management entities, buy links from link …

What do you consider "ethical SEO"? What types of general techniques do you use? (No need to be specific or anything here.) The only reason I ask is because everyone has their own definitions of black hat, white hat, ethical, not-so-ethical, etc. :)

I am not falling for that one. You are a smart girl. I have been reading your posts for months. You know the difference. If you really want to know what I think then find my blog.

Search for :

Google's Position Regarding Ethical Search Engine Optimization
Yahoo's Search Content Quality Guidelines
MSN's Guidelines for Successful Indexing

I get approached for SEO jobs once in a while, I usually just give a few pointers, send them to a couple of forums and Usenet groups and let them go at it on their own. If they come back within a month, I check their work and make a suggestion or two then tell them to be patient and wait out the baby steps. Away they go. I check up on them after a couple of months. I give them an additional courtesy email and telephone call a few months later. That is generally enough to get them going in the right direction and they are feeling pretty good about themselves.

That's the ethical way of going about it. We know that their are no instant cures in SEO. If they are looking for the quick fix, well, there's tons of services available that offer just that. I wouldn't feel good about myself to just take whatever money is dangled in front of my nose. Perhaps I am blessed that way to be in a position to be very picky about what and how I touch things.

Then there are the rare cases, when a web site owner understand the degree of expertise and time required to successfully attain top positions in a competitive keyphrase arena because they have been trying for a significant period of time. They have tried to do this themselves and they have wasted much money on the quick fixers and the self-promoters. …

I've been playing around with this new search tool all week :eek: . It seems like it almost duplicates MSN results and if that is the case then MSN outperforms it by a mile. I am one of those rare Microsoft fans but I must say that I am totally disappointed with live. I like the results it is offering me, I'm doing standard searches but the thing keeps crashing on me and the scroll bar concept is driving me nuts. I can't figure out why I can only get maybe the
first 20 or so results. I'm on a dial-up connection and it is extremely slow, when it works. Their "promises" of
outperforming G with a bigger badder machine, with this beta launch, kind of leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. At this stage, I don't think G has anything to worry
about, but I've been around long enough to wait and see.

I'm hoping that this beta version is up for serious restructuring before the Vista upgrade. I think that the average web searcher will be frightfully discouraged with the layout and performance.

Hi guys

Are there any pulgins available to make the ZEN Cart URLS SEO friendly?

Many thanks

I saw that nobody answered your thread so I did a little research. :rolleyes: I am anti-dynamic everything and I am certainly not an authority on this type of thing. Perhaps others can join us in this thread and we could probably make for an interesting discussion.

It doesn't appear to be much you can do with the software to make it more SEO friendly. There are some "framework" templates that seem to be available, but they wouldn't neccessarily solve your SEO issues. Appears like the ZEN Cart solution is intended to be user friendly and somewhat visitor friendly, but carries little consideration regarding the SEs, this is typical of automated software and other page coding generators. Anything that automatically generates pages dynamically is difficult to program effectively, although there are exceptions. ZEN Cart requires a complete redevelopment in order to provide better SEO final pages.

You know that you can always modify the output pages yourself in a HTML editor to clean up the sloppy, error-filled final HTML, one at a time, just like the olden days. You'll probably have to save them one at a time from the Web though. I got stuck doing this once and tried for six months to clean it up and get it up in the rankings, unsuccessfully. What a nightmare, scrapped it in the end and started the client's project from scratch.

…

Why don't you try calling them if you can't find what you need in their Help. Go to Google.com click About Google, then Contact Us and the numbers are there. They also have a toll free number but you'll have to call yourself to get it as I don't post telephone numbers.

I suggest that better to avoid cost-per-click traffic services and go for natural search engine ranking for the long term results and to have peace of mind

Thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps you are in a better position than I to do so.

Unfortunately, new sites can take a great deal of time to generate positions in the SERPs. One pretty well has no choice to pay the SEs for PPC if they want targeted traffic immediately.

Then, by the time the web site matures long enough to get ranked well, the keyphrase challengers in competitive environments are developing content so quickly and in such a volume that any one man, ethical show fights with both hands tied behind his back.

:evil: Google wants us to place by the rules. So ethical SEO specialists do that. It rarely punishes those that we report as spammers.

Life would be so much easier if we didn't have to compete against every cheap, unethical, oppressed link building sweat house and original content editing massive propagating students of the English language from every third ...

I'm losing patience.

I personally don't use conversion tracking but as far a report is concerned this is what Google says.

How do I download a report for my entire AdWords account?

Below is an example of how to run, then download, an overall account report; the process is similar for each report type.

Part 1: Create your report

To run a report for your entire account:

Log in to your AdWords account.
Click on the Reports tab.
Select Account reports.
View: Select a viewing option from the drop-down menu (summary data, or daily, monthly, quarterly, or yearly metrics).
Date range: Select the date range for your report.
Ad Distribution: Select the AdWords distribution network for your ads (the entire Google Network, the search network, or the content network).
Conversions: If you have activated conversion tracking, select whether you'd like to include your conversion statistics.
Report name: Enter a unique name for your report.
Scheduling: If you think you'd like to repeat the report later, select 'I want to run this report in the future.' Then choose a daily, weekly or monthly run schedule, or choose 'on demand (only when I request it)' to save the report to be run later manually from your Download Center.
Email: Check this box to receive an email notification for your newly created report (and all future reports from this same template). If you'd like to change the email address(es) associated with your notifications, update your email …