So thanks for clearing it up and cool to see you at Pubcon.

So what are we to learn from this exercise? Don’t link to sites that G may not like but yet they may not penalize the originator of the actual offending content (Dave N’s site is fine in G)? Don’t post strange rankings observations about competitor sites like Y!.. . Google is protecting Uncle Y!’s honor? John has secret black hat items on his site that we don’t know about? Or none of the above? Every day, I think that G and a few other engines should start to be turned into common carrier status so that things are more transparent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

I don’t know who provides your smoking material, but I want in on your supply.

IncrediBill, I can only assume that my personal relationship with Matt Cutts saved the day (we met briefly after a seminar in Orlando in ‘03…he was heavier then — pre roller hockey/personal trainer, and I was much svelter — pre Florida). Lucky for me I never lost my on-topic traffic (it’s all from feeds and quality, on-topic back links) but at least now I have my Christine Dolce Nude traffic back.

My PR is gone, though. Dropping like the rain up here in the Northwest. PR5 down to zero… but I guess that is the price I have to pay for creating post slugs like christine-dolce-nude.html. I suppose Google has to do that, though, to protect the Internet. After all, all those outbond links I have on this blog…they don’t deserve page rank, do they?

Now about the “supplemental” status of my pages. That makes sense, too, doesn’t it? I mean, each post is really pretty much the same as all the others, right? John bitchin about Google, John wise-cracking about Matt and the Cuttletts, John crackin on IncrediBill, John on challenging the GoogleMonster. Practically dupes.