For the benefit of those of you who are not familiar with our posts, we'd like to mention that while we have not always agreed with Jill's advice over the last 3 years of posting on various forums with her, we have NEVER "slammed" her (as she put it) or her advice, but we have simply explained why we disagree with her advice and always in a very calm and non-combative way, and then we usually end up saying that we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue(s) at hand and we simply move on and remain friendly and friends.
S&R, sorry, but I really fail to see how your post is helpful in the least. You don't want to give away the farm, and pretty much just want to slam those (like me) who say Content is King.
We think it unfair of you to accuse us of something (that we pretty much just want to slam those [like you] who say Content is King) that we have NEVER done to you (or anyone) before, nor would we ever even think of doing it to YOU (or anyone else) either now or in the future!
You have to know by now that we have the utmost respect for you!
In the last 3 years we really can't count many instances where you have disagreed with us on certain issues at all, and in fact, other than this particular issue, nothing else comes to mind that we can say that you disagree with us on.
Nevertheless, it has been fairly obvious that this issue is one that we will have to agree to disagree on, so it is really not an issue "between us" anymore and we know that, and we are not attempting to convince you otherwise, so if you did not already "realize" that, then please realize that now.
So if you failed to see how our post was helpful, then we already knew that you wouldn't find it helpful for yourself, as you have made it very clear to us that you believe that "content is king" and we're pretty sure that we have made it equally as clear for you that we don't believe that content is king. So would that be a correct assumption on our part?
You then go on to say that we ... pretty much just want to slam those (like you) who say Content is King ... which is not true at all.
We simply wanted to explain to Jodi that if she was under the impression that content (ALONE) was enough to get high rankings, then we advised her to look beyond "JUST THE CONTENT" to a much more weightier and valuable aspect of SEO, which is "Link Reputation," that is all, and in no way, shape or fashion were we "slamming" those (like you) who say Content is King.
To give you (and Jodi) further insight to our post, we'll refer you to what Jodi posted ...
So their results have dropped off the map because their affiliate link seems to have more "relevance" than their main site?? Huh?
Jodi, please correct us if we are wrong in our assumption here, but we assumed that you were referring to the "relevance" of the CONTENT
of the MAIN site's pages compared to the "relevance" of the CONTENT
of the AFFILIATE site's pages?
So, Jodi, were you referring to the "relevance" of the CONTENT or were you referring to the "relevance" of the Link Reputation of the respective pages?
We "ASSUMED" that you were NOT referring to the "relevance" of the Link Reputation, and that is why we POINTED you to look at and analyze that aspect and if you see what we see, then you would begin your "Off The Page" optimization process for the page in question and soon enough that page would outrank all of their affiliate pages.
Why bother to post at all then?
Just for the record, below you'll see that Jodi SPECIFICALLY asked for suggestions, and so we simply gave them to her, and there is no need to read anything more into our post than just that, "Our suggestions for Jodi."
Reading into our post (that we pretty much just want to slam those [like you] who say Content is King) is both unfair and untrue.
Jill, and you HAVE to KNOW by now that we are saying this with the Utmost Respect For You
, and that we are not wanting to hurt you in any way by what we are about to say, but the reason that we "bothered to post at all" (as you say) is because Jodi did not stipulate that our suggestions had to be helpful for Jill or else we could not provide her with our suggestions.
Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
In closing we want to say that if our post(s) has offended anyone, then we want to apologize and say that it was NOT our intent, as our intent was only to help Jodi, nothing more and nothing less!
We also want to say that no matter how "heated" some forum discussions may SEEM to be, we are certain that "good" can come from them all, but that "good" may not be readily apparent to everyone at the same time.
Sharon and Roy Montero