<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for EricWerner</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/EricWerner/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/EricWerner/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:06:07 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: GLOBAL EQUITY MARKETS – September 4, 2021</title><link>https://blog.techcharts.net/index.php/2021/09/04/global-equity-markets-september-4-2021/#comment-5529889682</link><description>&lt;p&gt;ALLETE INC (ALE) has declined to below $65 - is there a price point that signals that the rectangle is no longer valid? Is it based on the same % as a breakout to the upside? Also, what are the implications of a stock that saw an inflection point but then fell below the 200 day average? Thanks!!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:06:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: GLOBAL EQUITY MARKETS – September 4, 2021</title><link>https://blog.techcharts.net/index.php/2021/09/04/global-equity-markets-september-4-2021/#comment-5527258318</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Canaan declined to $8.5 today - does that invalidate the h&amp;amp;s bottom?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2021 19:22:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: INTERIM UPDATE (AMERICAS) – July 29, 2021</title><link>https://blog.techcharts.net/index.php/2021/07/29/interim-update-july-29-2021/#comment-5474530531</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Was FNV on one of the watch lists?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:48:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Qualifying  SEO clients; keeping Pareto at&amp;nbsp;bay</title><link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/qualifying-seo-clients-keeping-pareto-at-bay/19383/#comment-41538002</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Trembling already regarding a client I accepted yesterday... If only I'd read this sooner!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to tell the whack jobs to hit the road when you need the business.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:46:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Opting for the Cheapest SEO Services?</title><link>http://seobullshit.com/got-cheap-seo-dont-bitch/#comment-41530398</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Great points - I agree with Alysson - if the business owner is trying to get something that is going to be worth thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a hundred bucks then maybe they're a crook too.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that it anchors that price in their mind. After seeing that it can be done for $100 paying thousands per month must sound insane.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's bad enough when a spam scammer is doing it.. I was talking to a potential client yesterday and one of the fairly large agencies here in town told him that they could get him to rank for a very competitive phrase by submitting 2 press releases to PR Web...&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:59:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Facebook Surpasses Google&amp;#8230; But Really?</title><link>http://seobullshit.com/facebook-surpasses-google/#comment-35845084</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Zeeshan, there are a lot of ranking other than the ones you can easily see (keywords on the page, keywords in the title) such as anchor text from inbound links. Have you checked to see if anyone links to Facebook using FB as the anchor text?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:16:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Facebook Surpasses Google&amp;#8230; But Really?</title><link>http://seobullshit.com/facebook-surpasses-google/#comment-34909140</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree with you Terry. The sad thing about it is that social media is probably going down the same path that SEO has already trod. Creating a Market For Lemons...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.johnon.com/293/seo-consulting-2.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.johnon.com/293/seo-consulting-2.html"&gt;http://www.johnon.com/293/s...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Social Media is incredibly useful, profitable, and effective for some industries. Unfortunately Social Media has fairly little barrier to entry because there is almost no overhead to start and the people who need the services are so far out of the loop that anyone who has a Twitter account seems to be an expert.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Social Media "fake expert" is not seasoned, doesn't have a sufficient level of accountability, sells the client huge expectations, sells the wrong services to the wrong industries, sells what worked before in a different landscape hoping that it might work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Clients get burned. The industry begins to have a smelly reputation. The high quality firms start to seem too expensive especially since there is risk of utter failure and the "fake expert" can supposedly do it for half the cost.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The person accountable for profit/loss senses a higher risk profile if he goes with the low cost social media "expert" who can do it profitably for bupkis (it's easy to do it profitably when you have no accountability) And the cycle continues...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:36:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Facebook Surpasses Google&amp;#8230; But Really?</title><link>http://seobullshit.com/facebook-surpasses-google/#comment-34908995</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I noticed today that this topic is also being discussed at these two fine websites:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.webmasterworld.com/community_building/4080560.htm" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.webmasterworld.com/community_building/4080560.htm"&gt;http://www.webmasterworld.c...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://searchengineland.com/is-facebook-becoming-more-important-than-google-36287" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://searchengineland.com/is-facebook-becoming-more-important-than-google-36287"&gt;http://searchengineland.com...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:35:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Facebook Surpasses Google&amp;#8230; But Really?</title><link>http://seobullshit.com/facebook-surpasses-google/#comment-34868185</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Good point, I could have added a qualifier to that. I certainly don't mean to suggest that Google is not sending a lot of traffic to Yahoo or MSN. My meaning was that Google does not have the intent or the motive to give them traffic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't benefit Google substantially to give traffic to Yahoo or MSN whereas it does benefit Facebook. You don't see Yahoo or MSN pages in search results as often (for relevant non-Yahoo/MSN brand searches) - At least not as often as you would for any other uber-authority website that had content relevant to the query - part of the reason is surely because they compete with Google.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:16:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Facebook Surpasses Google&amp;#8230; But Really?</title><link>http://seobullshit.com/facebook-surpasses-google/#comment-34867186</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks Dave - I was hoping that you would like this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What bothers me is that Facebook is doing phenomenal, and I know that you've had incredible results advertising on Facebook for a variety of clients as have I - social media is tremendously useful - why do people feel the need to overhype?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:07:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How To Set Up a B2B Corporate Blog&amp;#8230; The Right Way</title><link>http://rbeale.com/social-media-marketing/how-to-set-up-a-b2b-corporate-blog-the-right-way/#comment-34338246</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's a great point to stay away from wordpress or blogspot unless you don't have the means. I'm recommending that our company blog go on a directory so it has been on my mind, but I've seen endless debate about the directory/subdomain question.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Great that we're getting the news out that businesses need blogs -  even if they are not selling shoes or sharpies the blog does so much. We've had so much push back from clients who think that 'legitimate' businesses don't use blogs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Glad to see you're doing well. I'm at &lt;a href="http://www.atlantaclickadvisor.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="www.atlantaclickadvisor.com"&gt;www.atlantaclickadvisor.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:23:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How To Set Up a B2B Corporate Blog&amp;#8230; The Right Way</title><link>http://rbeale.com/social-media-marketing/how-to-set-up-a-b2b-corporate-blog-the-right-way/#comment-34296028</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Ryan -&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you have any thoughts on whether a sub-directory or sub-domain is better for a b2b blog?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Great looking blog - I'm using Thesis too.. it's so smart.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:34:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Get Through the Fluff with Twitter</title><link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/get-through-the-fluff-with-twitter/#comment-4014568</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Good point Jacob - I think it's interesting b/c some people are used to being drawn out and indirect in everything they say. Twitter would be a great tool for training that out of people. I have to agree I've had the same experience with being more direct in person.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think that in general my approach is to feel around to see what kind of value I can offer and then make my pitch - fairly inefficient. In Twitter you just say hi can you do this for me - the greatest thing to come from that is most people who are not interested or not able to help you are connected to someone who is and they can just tell you to tweet @interestedparty with the same suggestion or question.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:43:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warren Buffet Interview With Charlie Rose On Current Economic Conditions</title><link>http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/warren-buffet-interview-with-charlie-rose-on-current-economic-conditions/#comment-3046350</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is great Jacob - thanks for sharing this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I find it interesting that his words are more reassuring, it just seems candid and thoughtful - even when he says 'The recession is going to get worse' it's somehow reassuring, just because it sounds like straight talk to me.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">EricWerner</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:17:40 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>