I too visited your website, a site I would otherwise never know existed were
it not for the request to link to it posted in this list. Nice work; you
are obviously quite talented. I read the first salvo of message exchanges
with a raised eyebrow, and re-visited your site. I must say I find the new
reference to Olympus a bit juvenile, but I find the parenthetical remark, "
(just for you George!) " uncalled for, non-humorous and generally offensive.
Bad form. To further George's point of "I don't see the keyword
Olympus....", I further investigated the html source for your page to review
the meta tags, reproduced here for the reader's convienence:
<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="photography, web design, creative, photos,
b&w, images, camera,
internet, computer images, design, photo, pictures, landscape photography,
photography
technique, photo technique, good photography, color photography,
photographer, photo art,
photography for sale, beautiful photography, beautiful scenery, photos in
washington state,
washington state photographer, seattle photographer, scenery in washington
state, computer and
photography, web design services, web design business, graphic design
business, web page design,
cutting edge design, canon, washington, seattle, polaroid, film, slide film,
kodak, velvia">
<META NAME="description" CONTENT="an excellent web site with an emphasis
on graphic design, typography, and photography">
Now I may not be the most street smart fella on the block, but I dare say
ol' George is spot on in his observation, nary a waft of reference to
Olympus, OM, Zuiko - nothing. Furthermore, I know how important a good
key-word list and lots of cross links to one's website are. It builds up
the all important hit count. My feeling on this one of being used. Its not
that your stuff isn't good, it is. I wish my stuff were as striking. But
where is your contribution to this humble little group? From my
perspective, you are trying to make withdrawls before you've made any
deposits. My suggestion is spend some time with these folks, make a few
deposits, let learning take place and come to really know what being an
OM-Zuiko devotee is really about, then see about making a withdrawl.
John P
george <gma@xxxxxxxxxx> opined:
>Hey, look. I went to your site and saw nothing but Canon. We're doing
>Olympus here. I'm not in charge of our policy, or of welcoming people
>to the group. Especially if they contribute nothing but a demand that we
>put a link to their site on our list. I don't see the keyword Olympus
>on your site. I do see the keyword Canon. What am I missing? There are
>plenty of good photo sites out there. We can't link to all of them.
>
>Welcome to the group. I just state (again) that I see no reason to link
>to a site extolling Canon plastic Eos 1 or the other eye-focus
>auto-everything look here's the picture what do I do now cameras. We're
>Olympus. Get Canon to put a link to your site. Until you have something
>about Olympus on it I say no way from here.
>
>But that's just my opinion.
>
>Bye
>
>george
>
>
>John Paulsen wrote:
>
>> i am an olympus user...and a canon user...
>> and a polaroid user...and a...
>>
>> so am i not qualified? you would of never
>> known what equipment i shot those scenes
>> with if i hadn't stated which one of my
>> many cameras i shot that ONE particular series
>> with on this ONE particular version of my site.
>>
>> does that mean if i am an oly user who has some
>> canon shots on my site that i'm *disqualified*?
>>
>> give me a break! you really know how to make
>> people feel welcome in the oly group george!
>>
>>
>> [[ --- john e. paulsen --- ]
>>
>> [[ --- jep@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- ]
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|