Mailing-List: contact ooo-marketing-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of luispo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Subject: Re: Some keyword analysis for the website
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Louis_Su=E1rez-Potts?= <luispo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksog4Trw6pgGjed8W4jBr9H9kC5A15t9tRmg0DLnPeXuTaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:17:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <365A85D3-6EE5-4586-9C83-2B5360054155@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksog4Trw6pgGjed8W4jBr9H9kC5A15t9tRmg0DLnPeXuTaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org

Hi,

On 2012-07-05, at 15:02 , Rob Weir wrote:

> I was interested in how our website was performing against some common
> search queries.  In particular I was thinking of users searching the
> web in three general categories;
>=20

Interesting. I did this thing back in the early 2000s and altered the =
keywords to be more popular. But it had minimal effect=97then. The story =
*then* was that browsers had grown more sophisticated and simply =
altering keywords (or creating an endless stream of popular keywords in =
invisible ink) had, after 2001, zero effect.

But times seemed to have changed?

Louis