Skip navigation
newsletter signup

High Rankings Advisor - Measuring Success: Rankings and Traffic - Issue No. 025

September 4, 2002


*Introductory Comments:
---->   ACRO Anyone?

*Search Engine Marketing:
---->   Google Out To Make a Buck?

*This Week's Sponsor:
---->   Overture's Ambassador Program

*Notes from Search Engine Strategies Conference:
---->   Measuring Success: Rankings and Traffic

*Other SEO News:
---->   Yahoo! Descriptions Showing in Yahoogle
---->   MetaCrawler Launches Redesign

*Stuff You Might Like
---->   Overture's Ambassador Program Overview
---->   New SEO and Usability Forum

*Advisor Wrap-Up:
---->   Still With Me?

~~~Introductory Comments~~~

Hi everyone! I've got a great mix of articles for you today, and
you'll even get to hear from a few guests.  The major themes seem to
be acronyms such as PPC and ROI (not to mention SEO and CPC!).  We
really do have our own language now, don't we?

There's a lot to read, so I'll let you get to it! - Jill

~~~Search Engine Marketing Issues~~~

++ Google Out To Make a Buck?++

From: T.S.

Hey Jill,

One of your comments [from last week] struck me, and I wanted to
comment.  Apologies in advance for the length of this, though I'm
curious if I'm just crazy or if others have any of the same

These are my thoughts after advertising with AdWords Select since they
launched it.  I wish I had the time to test and experiment to really
figure out what's going on -- but nonetheless, I'm left feeling that
Google is simply interested in increasing revenue at this time -- and
for the first time, at the partial expense of their searchers and

This stuff is not straightforward, and I feel like they're taking
advantage of the idea of "just tell us how much you're willing to pay
for that keyword."  Isn't that the technique that car salespeople use?

I disagree with your comment: "I don't think that Google got where it
is today by operating that way. If they were out to make a quick

I DO agree that in the past they haven't operated in a way to generate
a quick buck, BUT I think they are leaning in that direction now.

In my experience over the past few months, there are a few reasons

A) Ad lumping

If I were to buy an ad for "masonry supplies" -- my ad appears lumped
in with an ad for (who seem to appear for all sorts of
random "x supplies" searches).  Now, doesn't sell
masonry supplies, but they do sell all sorts of "supplies."

This is not good for the person searching (they might click on an ad
that's not relevant at all). This is not good for the other
advertisers (now we have to compete with people who really shouldn't
even be there?).  This is not good for because they'll
be charged for clicks that they probably don't want.

This seems only good for Google, who gets to charge if someone does
click on the ad.

For our business, we're encountering situations where we're the ONLY
relevant ad, yet there are 4 or more to compete with.  Talk about
diluting our message!  And to top it off, if the OTHER ad's maximum
cost-per-click (CPC) is higher than ours, then my CPC goes up to boot!

My suggestion:
Google should review all ad/keyword combos to ensure relevance.  Yes,
it's expensive, but in the long run, it's the only way to maintain
relevancy.  Overture does this part right.

B) Minimum CPC that makes no intuitive sense (talk about being

We have some keywords that we're buying where the specified minimum
CPC is about $.70.  On Overture, these keywords typically cost us

Now, Google says:

"Minimum cost-per-clicks (CPCs) have been set for Google AdWords
Select keywords based on their market value and performance history in
the Google AdWords programs."

Problem is, we're the ONLY advertiser for that keyword, and we're the
only advertiser for that keyword under the old AdWords program too.
There are very few impressions for the keyword.  How in the world is
the price justified?  To me, that's what happens when market forces
are not determining prices.  It's a closed system to determine minimum
CPC, and I think Google is Googling people.

My suggestion:
Dunno, but have it at least make intuitive sense.  If I'm paying a
lot, there should either be some competition or lots of impressions.

C) Click charges that don't seem to work as you might expect.

For example, we've had keywords where we're one of three advertisers,
and say the minimum is .25.

My maximum: .75
Competitor #1 maximum (guess): 1.00
Competitor #2 maximum (guess): 1.25

Rather than charge the three of us like this:
.25, .26, .27

Google seems to be charging something like this:
.75, 1.00, 1.01

Granted, we'd all be paying at or below our maximums, but that's a
pretty significant difference and not what I think most people are
expecting.  And the biggest catch is, you CAN'T tell what's really
going on because other advertisers maximums are secret and Google
doesn't really talk about it.

The most they say is:

"You simply set the same maximum CPC for all your keywords, knowing
that the AdWords Discounter will charge you the lowest CPC necessary
to maintain your position for each keyword."

Since I don't know what other people's maximums are, how can I ensure
that I'm being charged accurately?  Seems like Google can just do what
they want and charge at the maximum.

My suggestion:
Tough one; it does give them more revenue, and if people keep buying
ads then maybe it's not a problem?  I'd probably do the same thing if
I were Google, but it may come back to bite them in the long run if
people can't run a campaign with the ROI they need.

Thanks for your time.


++Jill's Response++

Hi T.S,

Thanks for your thoughts on Google AdWords!  I'm probably not the best
person to discuss your points, as I simply have my little ad with all
the bids set to five cents.  I figure five cents isn't much to pay for
possible new subscribers to this newsletter, and it brings me a bunch
each day!

The man you need to discuss this with is the one that literally wrote
the book on Google AdWords Select, Andrew Goodman.  (See my review of
his ebook here: </issue006.htm#seonews2>.)
And guess what?  You're in luck! I forwarded your comments to Andrew
to see if he'd be willing to provide us with his point of view, and he
agreed.  His thoughts will definitely give you something to chew on...

++Andrew Goodman's Response++

Given the rampant fraud in the PPC world, Google is virtually the only
PPC company I feel passes muster on the trust scale. That's why I
recommend them so enthusiastically. There seems to be a certain
percentage of advertisers that are suspicious and distrusting of
Google. But compared to what? Either directly or indirectly, ad
middleman companies like DoubleClick presided over much Internet
advertising fraud (fake clicks, pumped-up impressions) in the heyday.
PPC companies are even worse. You have to go right up the list, past
even the second-tier guys like FindWhat, and yes, even Overture, whose
past (prior to the big portal contracts) includes a lot of low-quality
search affiliates who generated a lot of fake clicks, and all way up
to Google before you reach a company in the PPC space that is truly
squeaky clean. It's surprising to me that the reader would make a
special effort to criticize the most trustworthy player in the
space -- one which keeps its search results free of ads -- when there
is so much sleaze out there that merits consideration.

To be clear, I think that Overture's ethical standards are now much
higher than they used to be, and a couple of companies might be
recommendable (eSpotting, and someday perhaps ah-ha and
FindWhat...maybe). But that's about it. Ultimately, as Kevin Lee
pointed out at the recent Search Engine Strategies conference, you do
have a choice. Track your ROI and decide to "stay, or go."

Google reminds us that ROI calculations need to take into account the
lifetime value of a customer.

Some specific responses:

>>I'm left feeling that Google is simply interested in increasing
revenue at this time -- and for the first time, at the partial expense
of their searchers and advertisers.<<

The writer must have Google confused with some fly-by-nighters. They
didn't get to be the overwhelmingly favorite search engine with end
users by valuing expediency over quality. Why start now?

>>I feel like they're taking advantage of the idea of "just tell us
how much you're willing to pay for that keyword." Isn't that the
technique that car salespeople use?<<

Just a cheap shot. The reality is, this system saves advertisers money
and time by discounting their actual spend depending on where their
competitors are at in the bidding process. Car salespeople? Google? It
would be hard to get this group confused with car salespeople. A
cheeeeap shot.

>>I DO agree that in the past they haven't operated in a way to
generate a quick buck, BUT, I do think they are leaning in that
direction now.<<

To me, they're generating a well-deserved and well-thought-out buck.
Ad rates in this space will be much higher in five years than they are
today. Google's problem is NOT going to be revenues; it's going to be
maintaining the confidence of search engine users by not assaulting
them with advertising or selling out their index. There is nothing
quick about this buck. Google was ad-free for three years. Give me a

>>If I were to buy an ad for "masonry supplies" my ad appears lumped
with an ad for (who seem to appear for all sorts of
random "x supplies" searches)<<

Why shouldn't they?

>>Now, doesn't sell masonry supplies, but they do sell
all sorts of "supplies." This is not good for the person searching
(they might click on an ad that's not relevant at all).<< is bidding using Google's syntax to generate
impressions on all kinds of searches with the word "supplies" in it,
evidently. But Google has rules to avoid "blanketing" the space with
irrelevant ads -- mainly, the clickthrough (CTR) threshold -- which
its competition, Overture, does not. They also have editorial
intervention whereby their people often recommend against using
general terms, sometimes even disapproving said terms, but if an ad is
performing with a decent CTR, they may allow the ad to show. So what?
If your ad is much more relevant, you have to bid much lower than this
ad to gain the same rank on the page. Google's "new math" REWARDS
RELEVANCE IN SEVERAL WAYS, including making a "small bid bigger" if an
advertiser generates a high CTR on a phrase where someone else is
generating a low CTR. Sounds like the reader hasn't taken the trouble
to learn how Google is trying to address the issue of relevancy, and
is just broadcasting a series of gripes in hopes that one will stick.
411supplies' presence in irrelevant areas could well be temporary.
(Just remember, if your game is to go tattling on a keyword
competitor, expect others to treat you the same way.)

Google also sells premium space for advertisers who want branding on a
wider variety of terms. Deep pockets call the shots just as they do in
all real worlds of advertising & media. I see eBay and Business Depot
showing premium ads for any query containing the word supplies. Hey,
they're paying. They're premium advertisers. Last time I checked,
that's kinda the way this biz works.

>>This is not good for the other advertisers (now we have to compete
with people who really shouldn't even be there?)<<

Define "shouldn't." If your definition is too strict (as it sometimes
is when Google editorial staff do get involved), the advertiser who
supposedly "shouldn't" be there gets upset, since they are paying too.
It's about fairness. Google has thought very hard about that.

Longer term, big advertisers will probably make up 75% of their
revenue base. Some days Google must wonder whether catering to all the
smaller advertisers is really worth the hassle. They no doubt
concluded that a show of good faith was always the smart move. And you
reward them with insults! :)

I will give you this: catering to the smaller businesses is a *great*
move from the standpoint of Google's sales force trying to get bigger
businesses to buy ads. Big companies get their noses all out of joint
when they see little guys in "their" space, and it's only then that
they thunder: "How much does it cost? We want to be in that spot."
Unfortunately, unless you're savvy, you'll be bidding head-to-head
against those guys in the future. Luckily though, Google's CTR
multiplier gives you a fighting chance. Deep pockets alone won't rule
the keyword space.

>>My suggestion: Google should review all ad/keyword combos to ensure
relevance. Yes, it's expensive, but in the long run, it's the only way
to maintain relevancy. Overture does this part right.<<

Google has strong editorial oversight. Both Google and Overture have
junior editorial staffs as human intervention in the very difficult
game of judging what's relevant -- which businesses "count." Sounds as
if you'd be happier if you received special treatment. Unfortunately,
everyone wants this. It's this very me-first attitude which keeps the
load so heavy on the staff of both Google and Overture, and which
ensures that advertisers with legit gripes need to wait longer for
personal responses.

>>I'm noticing minimum CPCs that make no intuitive sense (talk about
being Googled). We have some keywords that we're buying where the
specified minimum CPC is about $.70. On Overture, these keywords
typically cost us .05.<<

Anecdotal evidence of Overture keywords costing .05 and Google
keywords costing more is widespread. However, even if true across the
board (which I doubt), all this proves is that Google's rates are
higher. Google has pricing power. Bad for you, I guess, if you're
looking for a free (or really cheap) lunch. Overture gets your ad on
all sorts of searches (Yahoo!, Lycos, etc.), but not on AOL, and not

>>Problem is, we're the ONLY advertiser for that keyword, and we're
the only advertiser for that keyword under the old AdWords program
too. And there are very few impressions for the keyword. How in the
world is the price justified? To me, that's what happens when market
forces are not determining prices. <<

So market forces are good, except when someone you deem irrelevant
outbids you? I sense an inconsistency here.

>>It's a closed system to determine minimum CPC, and I think Google is
Googling people.<<

The minimums are a common gripe. Here, I agree that they're
heavy-handed. Again, though, beyond lobbying them for a policy change
to lower your ad costs (doesn't stuff always cost more than we'd LIKE
to pay?), what have we proven here? That Google is "googling" people?
Or that they've set a high price that they see as fair and that you
(the buyer) do not? Hardly a federal case. Google is listening to all
these complaints regarding the minimums, and they may well make some
adjustments in the future.

>>{long example truncated}... Since I don't know what other people's
maximums are, how can I ensure that I'm being charged accurately?
Seems like Google can just do what they want and charge at the

The short answer is I'm not buying it. Essentially, you're calling
them liars and cheaters. I guess you can accuse anyone of anything.
The gas pumps could be rigged. Parking meters might accelerate time.
At some point, somewhere, we have to trust -- or worse, accept that we
might be getting screwed relative to what we're told is happening. But
relative to some other reality, this life might still be worth living.
In a market system, you are free not to buy what Google's selling. But
it appears you want "voice," as well. Google *is* listening to your

Andrew Goodman
Principal, Page Zero Media

[Hey Andrew, why don't you tell us what you really think? <grin> -



Offer your customers a cost-effective way to drive targeted leads
and develop a new revenue stream for your company.

Free customized proposals for your clients, streamlined
customer service and more.

Contact Frank Lee: or 626-229-8542
to learn more about Overture's Ambassador Program.

~~~Notes from Search Engine Strategies Conference~~~

++Measuring Success (Part One)++

For today's guest article on the Search Engine Strategies (SES)
conference, I'm pleased to have Stacy Williams on board.  Stacy is the
founder and President of Prominent Placement, Inc.
<>, a strategic search engine
marketing firm that offers search engine optimization, directory
submissions, pay-per-click campaigns and linking campaigns.  I've read
Stacy's posts and articles on the Net for years, and almost always
agree with what she writes. So listen up closely as she summarizes the
"Measuring Success" session from SES San Jose 2002.

Guest Article
Measuring Success: Rankings and Traffic
Stacy Williams, Prominent Placement, Inc.

The sessions on "Measuring Success" at Search Engine Strategies alone
were worth the price of admission.  Seven different speakers presented
a wide array of information on the topic of measuring search engine
marketing success.  Two started their presentations with the same
quote from the Gartner Group, which explains the importance of this

"It has long been said you cannot manage what you cannot measure.
Nowhere is this more true than on the Web - where examining what works
and what doesn't directly influences the bottom line."

Kevin Lee, CEO of, Inc. <>, correctly
pointed out something that may seem obvious, but is often forgotten.
Before we can measure success, we have to define it.  Success means
different things to different organizations or departments.  Is
success defined as online orders, orders placed offline after browsing
online, registration for a newsletter, a lead form filled out, page
views, time spent on a site, return visits, reduced customer service
calls or is it the dreaded success metric of the CEO liking to see a
#1 ranking?

After defining success for your company and your web site, you can
measure it and then determine what actions need to be taken in order
to increase it.  Three broad categories for levels of measurement were
discussed.  They range from roughly the easiest to measure (but the
least informative) to the more in-depth (and more enlightening).
These types of measurements are rankings, traffic and conversions/ROI.
This is such a big topic that I'm going to break it into two different
articles.  Today, I'll talk about rankings and traffic.  Next week,
I'll cover the holy grail - conversions and ROI.

The speakers didn't spend a lot of time discussing measuring rankings.
The two market leaders for ranking software were briefly reviewed,
WebPosition Gold by FirstPlace Software, Inc.
<> and TopDog Pro by Top Dog Software
<>.  Rankings were not dwelled upon,
partly because they're being deemed less and less important.  We all
like to see high rankings, but unless they translate into visitors -
and then conversions - they're not worth much.

Laura Thieme, President and Founder of Bizresearch, Inc.
<> had a good point about rankings that is
often overlooked.  She reminded the audience that pay-per-click
campaigns (paid listings on Overture, Google AdWords Select, etc.) and
"organic" SEO (traditional optimization of a site's pages) can work
hand-in-hand.  It often makes sense to only bid for paid listings on
search terms that you can't attain high rankings on through organic
SEO, due to those terms being too competitive or for other reasons.
There's certainly no reason to bid on terms for which you're already
ranked high naturally.

For ecommerce sites, Laura reminded us to do price comparisons.
Whether you're undergoing a pay-per-click campaign or traditional SEO,
it may not do you much good to get a #1 ranking if the #2 and #3 sites
are discounters with lower prices than yours.  Think like a
prospective customer - he or she is going to compare prices between
the various sites.  So if you can't win one particular battle, it's
better to focus on different products or different search terms where
you can win.

In terms of measuring site traffic, Laura pointed out that
PositionTech <>, one of Inktomi's
Search/Submit inclusion program partners, allows customers to track
click-through activity, daily traffic, actual search terms used and
average search position for the web pages submitted through its

There are a myriad of other web analytic software tools that measure
site traffic including Urchin <> and LiveStats by
DeepMetrix <>, as well as WebTrends and
HitBox (I'll cover the latter two in more depth next week).  Many of
you are probably already familiar with the type of data these tools
report on, including number of visitors, referring URL (the site the
visitor came from, including search engines), pages viewed, etc.

Bryan Eisenberg, Chief Information Officer for Future Now, Inc.
<> is a conversion rate marketing
specialist who provided a lot of good information about traffic
statistics and different ways to analyze them.  We all know there's a
big drop-off between the number of people who land on a site's home
page and the number of people who make their way through the site and
take an action, whether that be placing an order or filling out a lead
form.  Bryan calls this loss a "leaky bucket" and suggests that
analyzing traffic and conversion data can help us plug those leaks.
Making a purchase on a site is a "macro action" which is arrived at by
taking multiple "micro actions."

Traffic data that can show what's working on your site and what isn't
includes top referring sites, new vs. returning visitors, frequency of
visits, most popular pages, single access pages, top entry and exit
pages, top paths through the site and time spent on each page.  For
example, what's your reject rate (number of single page visits divided
by total visits)?  What's your heavy user share (number of visitors
that went to 10 or more pages divided by total visits)?

Bryan pointed out that a click is an implied question that must be
answered and satisfied.  Site owners should create an easy-to-follow
funnel, or path, through the site that creates sales momentum by using
that tried-and-true marketing adage: build awareness, interest,
desire, action and then satisfaction.  As Kevin remarked, everyone
talks about shopping cart abandonment, but we have to think about the
rest of the site - any site abandonment is a lost opportunity.

To wrap up this week's article, I'll quote John Simpson, Product
Marketing Manager for the WebTrends division of NetIQ Corporation
<>.  John reminded us that there are really
two marketing objectives.  First, we want to drive more qualified
visitors to our web sites.  Second, we want to convert more visitors
on our sites.  Next week I'll discuss the ultimate goal - conversions
and ROI.

Stacy Williams

[Thanks, Stacy!  As an addendum to Stacy's coverage, there's a recent
2-part interview with Fredrick Markini of iProspect, where he
discusses metrics for assessing ROI from SEO efforts, among other
things.  You can read that interview at the avante|marketer site here:
<> and here:
<>. - Jill]

~~~Other SEO News~~~

++Yahoo! Descriptions Showing in Yahoogle++

Do you know what Yahoogle is?

Yahoogle is simply the "Web Page Matches" that you'll sometimes see
when searching at Yahoo!.  It's the Google results that come up when
there are no sites that fit the search criteria listed in their
human-edited directory (Web Site Matches).  You'll also see Yahoogle
results if you click on the "Web Page Matches" link after making your
search query.  Yahoo! + Google = Yahoogle! (I didn't make up the term,
it's been bandied about at forums for ages.)

Until recently (the past week or two), the Yahoogle results looked
very similar to those you'd find at Google.  Now, however, many of
these results are showing a Yahoo! title, as opposed to the Title tag
version that you see in Google.  Most searchers are still seeing Web
Sites & Web Pages as two separate entities in Yahoo!, except for the
new use of the Yahoo! title.  However, some people have reported
seeing *only* Yahoogle results, even in the Web Site Match section --
no Yahoo! directory sites.  It appears as if that phenomenon might
simply be a temporary glitch while they're in the transition process
for this new setup.

One thing that is clear to me, however, is that the Yahoo!/Google
contract that was recently extended until September has apparently
been further extended or renewed.  I'm not aware of any official
announcement, but I doubt Yahoo! would be going to all this trouble if
they will soon be switching their secondary listings over to FAST or
Inktomi.  This is just my opinion based on circumstantial evidence,
but I think what you see now is what you'll be getting for quite some

Many have speculated that Yahoo! will now make the transition into
having just one set of results by merging the directory listings with
the Yahoogle listings, but I would be surprised if that happened.  If
they choose to give Google's results more visibility, a paid listing
with Yahoo! may not be worth much for many sites.  And if they get rid
of Google's results altogether, they're going to be stuck with some
awfully spammy results with no backup.

I find their current directory listings in many categories to be less
than desirable because site promoters have learned that all they need
to do for a high ranking in Yahoo! is to purchase a keyword-rich
domain and name their company after their keywords.  I had truly hoped
that Yahoo! would've stopped ranking this way by now, but it appears
that it's worse than ever.  It's especially apparent when doing a
query for "search engine optimization."  There's one company that has
two sites in the top 10 with basically the same content on both sites.
The only differences are the company names and the colors of the
sites.  (They seem to even use the same design template!)  Spamming
Yahoo! is unfortunately like taking candy from a baby.  It would be
great to see their partnership with Google make a difference in how
they determine rankings, but I won't hold my breath!

++MetaCrawler Launches Redesign++

According to a press release that just came out
<>, the InfoSpace-owned
MetaCrawler <> has been completely
redesigned to deliver a "faster, cleaner and easier-to-use search
experience."  Also new is that they have added Google results and
Google AdWords Select ads to the mix of MetaCrawler search results.

Beware, though...things aren't always as they seem.

It appears that MetaCrawler is mixing paid ads within their search
results with no clear label that they are indeed paid ads.  The
average searcher would not have a clue, and to tell the truth it's
difficult even for me to be sure which ones are which.

First they have "Featured Search Results" which appear to be Overture
paid ads.  Then they have "MetaCrawler Results" which can also contain
Overture, Sprinks, FindWhat and a few other companies' PPC ads
disguised as search results.  In a search for the phrase "search
engine optimization," one company's site shows up twice: once for
their Overture ad, and once for their FindWhat ad, all under the guise
of being search engine results.

The amusing thing is that in their press release, MetaCrawler claims
they now have "advertising components that are fewer, more targeted
and less obtrusive."  Note the words "less obtrusive." They're so
unobtrusive that you will in fact never know they are ads!  When I
spoke with someone from InfoSpace at the SES conference, I was
surprised that he didn't seem to be concerned about this fact.

If you want a search engine that provides you with "mostly ads most of
the time," then MetaCrawler is the engine for you.  The FTC could (and
most likely will) have a field day with this place, if you ask me.

~~~Stuff You Might Like~~~

++Overture's Ambassador Program Overview++

In case you're like me and have blinders on when it comes to ads, I
didn't want you to miss learning about this week's sponsor, Overture's
Ambassador Program.

If you've got a lot of SEO or design clients and have the potential to
spend a hefty amount of money with Overture each month (at least
$5,000 total), you'll definitely want to speak with them about this
program.  I found out about them when I got a call from Frank Lee
wondering if I might be interested in this for my clients' sites.
Since I have managed to stay out of the PPC market for the most part,
I wasn't all that interested.  But the more Frank told me about the
program, the more interesting it sounds.  Apparently you get all sorts
of extras once you sign up, including your own account rep to help you
manage your campaigns.  The other thing that sounded like it could be
a big help was the fact that *they* put together an entire Overture
PPC proposal for *your* client!

Obviously, this got me thinking that I might want to start offering
PPC to some of my clients.  After all, Overture will be doing all the
hard work...I will just have to sell it to my clients and take a small

At any rate, if this sounds interesting to you, Frank would be happy
to speak with you and send you more info.  You can reach him by email
at or by phone at 626-229-8542.  Be sure
to tell him I sent you and maybe he'll buy me a few drinks at the next
SES conference! <g>

++New SEO and Usability Forum++

Kim Krause, SEO/UI/Usability Consultant from has recently
opened a new SEO and Web site usability forum
<> that you should be sure to check
out.  Along with her own expertise in the area of usability and SEO,
Kim has managed to snag a whole list of big-name moderators (including
me!) within just a week or so of opening the virtual forum doors.

What attracted me to Kim's forum and her other sites is her warm and
inviting writing style, which is somewhat similar to my own.  I'm glad
to see another woman in the SEO world who isn't afraid to put herself
"out there" and just be who she is. Because the forum is so new, there
aren't a heck of a lot of posts yet.  However, things are picking up
quickly, and there is some high-quality stuff to read.  If it appears
as if everyone knows each other already, that's because Kim has made a
lot of friends in the biz over the years and has been posting in
various SEO groups for ages.  You can read the forum history here:

So now, I've got another place to keep me away from my *real* work!
(You'll still be able to find me over at the Ihelpyou forums
<> just about any time of day or
night, so don't worry about that!)

~~~Advisor Wrap-Up~~~

So did you make it this far?  I know when I read a long newsletter I
sometimes only get through half of it, and then get distracted with
other things.  Sometimes I get back to it, sometimes I don't.  Give me
a quick "hey" via email if you're still with me!

Catch you next time. - Jill

Email a FriendPrintRSS