Arch-Stanton
New Member
An interesting blog post I found at this link Irish web-Design , SEO & web devlopment blog :: April :: 2007
.
.
I'd also like to hazzard a guess that this blog belongs to Erigena.
Have a read of the language, the other posts and the links TO Erigena.
Also, I believe I saw a similar blog with a misspelling linked to from Erigena. Something you are not telling us mate?
Its disgusting, desperate and shameful.
sure is.Its disgusting,
no fingers pointed, no shame. house in order = no shame...shameful.
Personally I think you're punching well above your weight.
A few other words...unprofessional behavior, underhanded tactics, immature ramblings..Hi folks,
err.. 1 word. linkbait..
It seems to be more of a low blow in my opinion. You used a blanket attack on 14 of your competitors without ever disclosing that you represented one of the valid 15 and further more you failed to name those who did validate thus making an attempt to tarnish as many of your competitors in one go.That blog [which is meant as more of a splog] article [slapped together in 5 mins as you can see... ] simply pointed out that a majority of sites surveyed left a lot to be desired, and lets the user find out themselves which are standards compliant.
So what was the purpose of the piece? It's not like it was groundbreaking or served any purpose besides from boosting your own ego.Such an article was obviously going to lead to some ruffled feathers, but was not an assisination piece by a long-shot.
I have no idea what you mean here or the relevancy of boards.ie to your blogpost. It's kind of ironic that you mention blogging...what is stopping any of the 14 from trackingback your article and showing you up in the same manner that you tried to show others up.no fingers pointed, no shame. house in order = no shame...
regarding comments, none were recorded by blogs.ie.. it is worse than boards.ie..
[edit: oops yeah there's a bunch of em..]
Broaching this subject shouldn't such cause a stir, and I daresay that If all 15 sites were up for some random web-award, we would all know about the (ironic) problems of the finalists.. via some blog or other..
So what was the purpose of the piece?
thepost said:most sites contained more accessibility barriers than any automated tool can check for.
A few other words...unprofessional behavior, underhanded tactics, immature ramblings..
It seems to be more of a low blow in my opinion. You used a blanket attack on 14 of your competitors without ever disclosing that you represented one of the valid 15 and further more you failed to name those who did validate
that is a very stupid thing to say... obviously i would be tarnishing myself since my site(as you put it) is on the same list...thus making an attempt to tarnish as many of your competitors in one go.