Comments on: Reynolds SEO Analysis Report

By: admin

admin — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 01:00:45 +0000

Thanks you for your update, but you seem to overlook that it is noted "Indexed Pages are reported by Google on 11/04/2009." in the text of the report. I also try to make clear under Methods, how a vendor is invited to contact me to post any updates. By truthfully publishing what I observe, I am practicing my profession as an automotive SEO and reporting according to commonly accepted journalistic principles which are protected under the United Sates Constitution, Amendment I, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Given these conditions, I doubt that I am exposed to litigation. By truthfully publishing what I observe I cause change for the better. If you now observe that the issues revealed in this report no longer exist, then my work has benefited the vendor (without fee) and their customers and potential customers, and hopefully you as well.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:40:48 +0000

Ya…

Date stamps on the articles would be a good thing to have. The sites evolve constantly. Articles in places like DealerComp.com tend to put fire under the web developer’s rumps to make improvements.

By: Ben Skye

Ben Skye — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:42:46 +0000

This page is incredibly out of date. The information in it is completely wrong in October 2010 as I can -

a) find a robots.txt file
b) find an xml sitemap
c) see that the number of indexed items are substantially higher for all the mementioned Reynolds’ sites

Part of the responsibility of putting yourself forth as an expert is time stamping your posts so that anyone reading them can tell they are dated, and, also going back and re-doing your research periodcially.

As far as the architecture goes, that was changed some time this summer/fall as far as I can determine. So your review seems to be completely off base and scary.

Could this opne you up to potential litigation from a vendor when your review is not time stamped and is completely wrong?