MK9R
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 01:18 PM |
|
|
search engine register
Whats the best (and free) way of getting your website picked up by the search engines?
|
|
|
|
|
ijohnston99
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
Most of them allow you to put an entry directly on.
for example http://www.google.com/addurl.html
Do you know you have some pictures missing on your site?
Ian
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 01:51 PM |
|
|
sorry to change subject, i see from your site that you bought F27 plans. do you still have them???
cheers
fin
|
|
|
kingr
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 02:23 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I was wondering that, although apparently the plans are nothing like what it is today, and the handling wasn't as good either, although how it
compares with the book, I don't know. I'd still be interested to see them though.
Kingr
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 02:37 PM |
|
|
well trawling through some mags it turns out that our little chassis may not be as good as it should . the discussion was on self build cars and they
talked about locosts, normal specials and also the F27. they remarked that the F27 self build chassis was actually a very good chassis better than the
locost. ill find the article and put it up. i dont think it was that long ago.
|
|
|
MK9R
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 03:40 PM |
|
|
Sorry no, i sold them with the chassis
I suspect its a heavier chassis compared the locost.mk/ST etc.....
|
|
|
kingr
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 04:58 PM |
|
|
Findlay - I saw that article too, I seem to remember it was a reply to a reader's letter in Kitcar magazine. I don't think Kitcar magazine is a big
fan of the locost, so they could be a bit biased. It was an even more recent article either in kitcar or which kit that said the F27 was very
different to the original plan car.
Kingr
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 06:50 PM |
|
|
It's worth remembering that Kit car is owned by Pilgrim and that both magazines aren't very keen on the Locost. You'll notice that all
reveiws of Locosts try to expound some"second best"attitude. Magazines are funded by advertising, advertising from kit car manufacturers, and if
you're building a Locost you're not building something from their main source of income. Anyone who has the issue of which kit that came out as the
same time as the book will see that they completely rubbished the whole idea!
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
locodude
|
| posted on 6/2/03 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
One thing I can tell you is that the chassis is heavy compared to nearly all Locost based chassis. I have seen them close up and there's a lot of
steel in them! I know where they were made though and the quality is good!
|
|
|
kingr
|
| posted on 7/2/03 at 10:26 AM |
|
|
I didn't realise that Kitcar was owned by pilgrim, could explain why they've got one of their cobras with a dodgy overpriced V6 in it, on the front
cover this month, and why they harp on about how great cobras are. Personally, if I bought a cobra, I'd steer well clear of the Pilgrim, partly
because because it looks tacky, partly because of the presentation of themselves and their car at Exeter and partly because of their tasteless
advertising.
I note that when Which Kit reviewed the locost of the year, they seemed to insinuate that it was on a par with the very mininum you could expect from
a westfield or whatever. I've seen some pretty dodgy looking westfields, and although I've never seen that locost in the flesh, it looked pretty
tidy to say the least.
kingr
|
|
|
MK9R
|
| posted on 7/2/03 at 10:36 AM |
|
|
I think my thread has been totally an uterly hijacked!
|
|
|
geoff shep
|
| posted on 8/2/03 at 10:03 PM |
|
|
search engines
Somewhere in your page (hidden) you can write any number of words which will get picked up by search engines. Just don't know where exactly it
is!
Try searching for info and I'll ask the bloke at work who does sites for folks.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 13/2/03 at 11:58 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by geoff shep
Somewhere in your page (hidden) you can write any number of words which will get picked up by search engines. Just don't know where exactly it
is!
Try searching for info and I'll ask the bloke at work who does sites for folks.
I believe they're called meta-tags.
You can use them to target you're website at people who're likely to search for certain related topics. If you view the source code of a page
you've downloaded you can often see them by the hundred.
In the old days they had to be part of the visible text of the page but now they're hidden in the background.
Geeking,
James
|
|
|
philgregson
|
| posted on 13/2/03 at 12:22 PM |
|
|
By God the chap's right dont you know!
However there is a caveat to that:
Many of the search engine crawlers, spiders, web bots or whatever they call them now place considerably less emphasis on the contents of meta tags as
they are generally filled with crap by spammers who want you to be thrust (wrong choice of words perhaps) at their porn site or what ever when you
type in an inocent or, at best, loosly conected word into your search engine.
I am constructing my website at the moment and have added the following words to my meta tags to ensure the widest possible (yet discerning)
readership:
Car
Locost
seven
Sheep
Flaps
Anal
moist
Schoolgirl
Kylie
Brittany
That should cover most web users
Obviously I have missed out any blatantly perverse references such as
W*******d
Cateringvan
Miserable
Bastards
Mid engine
etc as I don't want wierdos turning up do I?
|
|
|
Mark H
|
| posted on 13/2/03 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
Does Google not pick sites by the number of links they have to/from it?
If that's the case, if everyone on this site was "linked" in each others websites, they should get nearer the top?
Mark Harrison and
Q986 KCP back from the dead...
|
|
|
philgregson
|
| posted on 13/2/03 at 02:44 PM |
|
|
I think with google you actually submit your site.
How they then rank them for relavence I do not know.
Phil
|
|
|
MK9R
|
| posted on 13/2/03 at 02:49 PM |
|
|
i've registered with google and added the metatags and i still cant find myself on google
|
|
|
philgregson
|
| posted on 13/2/03 at 03:05 PM |
|
|
I believe that submitting a site to google does not necessarily mean that they accept the site for listing.
What the critaeria might be I don't know.
Phil.
|
|
|
MK9R
|
| posted on 13/2/03 at 03:15 PM |
|
|
pain in the ass!!
|
|
|
mdc124
|
| posted on 16/2/03 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
look at http://www.farend.co.uk/indyblade.aspx
select view -> source from the menu and there are 3 meta tag lines which you can copy into your pages and put your own values in.
Google takes 3-4 weeks to update - page titles, description and content now takes presedence over keywords (which is why you find dodgy sites with
thousands of keywords on thier homepage - just to attract the engines)
get your content good, the description good and the titles right and you WILL creep up the search order - it WILL take ages
|
|
|
