Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Change the name of the login page, I mean in addition to having a strong password of course.
Those automated scripts look first for the known wp login page if they don't find it the will give up, if they do they will keep trying forever and ever, an unecessary load for your servers.
I agree it's dull, and I hate it myself. But it surprisingly works.
As far as I can tell from my experience:
Can get to some decent results.
So far I have not been able to find other ways of doing it.
We tried building some great unique quality content, complex expensive infographics with original analysis, we built some backlinks to that content, did the on-page SEO homework and got to position 1 of SERP, we emailed the exciting news to hundreds of journalists and news agency by email, with zero (repeat zero) natural backlinks.
While the dull, boring, and time expensive mailing to bloggers usually result in 2 out of 10 free guest posts, 3 out of 10 money request to publish the content, and 5 out of 10 ignoring us.
No it's not possible.
Let's say you have http://foo.com/a and http://bar.com/b and both have the exact same content, google will choose one, index it, and forget about the other.
Let's say you have 1000 pages on both foo.com and bar.com exactly the same 1000 pages, google will analyze each page one by one, and choose one version for the index, and forget about the other, depending on a variety of factors (like the domain itself and backlink profile) will pick some pages from foo.com and some from bar.com, but you will still have only 1000 pages in the index.
How much of the content of each page you need to change to differentiate is unknown since no one knows the code of google algo.
You can try with guess and test, you change something and you see what happen monitoring changes in the indexing of the edited pages.
In theory a spam report should be the thing to do, but usually it doesn't change anything.
I remember seeing a video of either Cutts or Muller saying that a spam report is not going to produce any direct effect, they just use the information to improve their algo on next update.
I know for sure that in certain cases they take immediate action, because months ago a news site with DA90+ here in Italy started selling do-follow links in their articles (by the way for a small fee of 15k euro per month!), I reported that, and few others did, and within one month they got a manual action in their gwt account and they stopped doing it.
But in many other cases where both I and colleagues in the business did spam report for much smaller sites, nothing happen, and after years I can say they are still happily enjoying good ranking for very obvious black hat tricks.
SEO and democracy doesn't seems to get along well.
In my opinion is just a matter of waiting for google crawler to visit each page individually and update serp. In the past when I had similar issues with bad redirect was just a matter of fix it and wait for google to notice the change. Check last time google crawler visited each url, if you have historical data on google crawler visit and you know on average how often it does visit each page you also know how long you have to wait.
What's the attribution rules you set up in FB business manager? google analytics counts only last click as a click, by default facebook counts any click as a click,
if your site is on http and the user is browsing facebook on https (which most likely is) the referrer header is lost on the click, and you will see the visit as coming from direct traffic, you can fix that just adding analytics tracking parameters to the url you publish on facebook
i don't see any reason, in your exposition, to choose any different route than first option
check the domain authority of the second level domain your client is currently using and evaluate how much time and money you need to replicate the same DA to a new domain, then ask yourself and your client if it's worth it. Don't forget to mention all that work to rank for the new domain is not going to help the old one, and when same DA is reached you will still have to face duplicate effort to improve DA of both.
of course there are other factors which could still weight in favor of the separate domain, like banaly if she want to take distance from her main practice, if the existing domain suffered from penalization, etc...
but without knowing much I don't see a reason to go that way
Yes, google is saying that all paid links should be no-follow, They are saying paid links are a plague. And I believe they mean it. But I am not sure they are able to enforce that policy.
By my experience paid links are so widespread google is going to find that battle hard to fight. They code their algo, and they are google, but the rest of the world is selling do-follow links.
In all backlink profiles I analyzed, all of them, paid links are probably 80/90% of the total. And I am not talking about spammy blog networks. I can give you a list of hundreds of sites with DA50-60 and PR5/6, including major worldwide news agency and leading national newspaper in all G7 countries... who sell sponsored content with do-follow links.
You may be big, strong, motivated and just, but when everyone else is doing the opposite of what you want I think it's tough to impose your will. And to date seems google is very far from reaching his objective of exterminating that plague.
Am I suggesting to buy a do-follow link from a website with (let's say) DA20 and PR2? No, stay away.
Am I suggesting you should go on a buying spree? No.
Am I telling if you buy links you take no risk? No, rap genius or bmw are good example of big names being it by google axe (but not for paid links). But I don't see google starting tomorrow to penalize 90% of the web. As for all things maybe in few years paid links will be a thing of the past, but today they are not.
I am saying everybody is doing it, and as far as you buy the links from reputable websites, so far, seems you are going to get juice without running much risk.
And yes everybody will tell you should not do it.
There's nothing asp.net specific when it comes to SEO. SEO best practices applies to any framework.
Ad Placement for instance, is not influenced by server side technology of your website.
And specifically about Google Shopping vs AsWords text ads, I would not judge them by CTR but by CR (Conversion Rate) and CPA; in my experience Google Shopping has a much higher CR, which make sense, because the visitor is closer to make a buy, but in terms of volume AdWords is 10x.
What is in the “mind” of google algorithm no one knows. But... If they dilute juice for links from the same ip, I guess they don't value links from subdomains of the same root domain as much as links from different domains, which is probably why MOZ and everyone else always value “root domain” links.
Maybe was obvious to everybody but 301 redirect for every single page is also a fundamental step, otherwise you are going to have broken external links, not to mention WMT which I don't think would be satisfied by just the canonical update.
Sitemap must be updated as well.
We recently switched a website from HTTP to HTTPS and in term of performance there was no difference after the update, at least according to WMT and analytics.
I was kind of scared before to update but at the end everything was smoother than expected, WMT took around 10 days to completely re-index the https version.
But of course we kept finding some non https link embedded here and there in some pages for days and we had to manually edit some content to avoid ssl warning from browsers.
Thumbs up for Monica answer.
I can only add in my experience google shopping campaigns are worth every cent. CPA is yummy.
Tough question.
I think the foundation idea is good, you definitely need to distance yourself from the bad name associated with that business sector if you want to rise the probability of gaining good backlinks.
But I would put it in a subfolder on the same domain. And I would design the site and the homepage to give prominent visibility to your foundation.
It would require a lot of effort, time and money to promote the foundation-domain, and the juice/authority/rank/trust you will gain won't be that easy to transfer to the firm-domain, you can't just wait for the foundation-domain to gain trust/authority/rank/juice and then “spam” it with links to the other domain, you won't transfer much juice that way.
On the other side if you build it as a subfolder you may gain less backlinks but each one will give juice to the firm-domain directly, immediately and 100% of that juice.
Also... What Matt Cutts or Rand Fishkin or many others would answer to you? Probably, that you should completely forget seo, juice, and so on... And just focus on what is better experience for your users, what is better for the image of that company, what is so completely “white” hat that could be confused with milk? And in your case, what is better than frankly and honestly promote that foundation directly from the firm-domain? It's going to improve confidence and trust for the firm-domain from day one, they would benefit no matter how much easier it's going to make your work trying to gain backlinks.
As a rule of thumb I would put the category before the brand in the url structure. But...
In my opinion there's much more you should research before to take a decision.
Did you analyze your consumer behavior? What keywords are they going to type in google search box?
Are they really looking for your candy dispenser brands? Or by dispenser model names? Brand+model? Or they don't know much about candy dispensers manufacturer and models and just searching by some characteristics?
Don't be tricked by keywords volume, maybe there are a lot of searches for a brand or model, but what is their intention when searching by those terms? To buy? To find information planning to buy? To find information about a product they bought and learnt the name after making the purchase?
You should find out before to design the url structure.
And before to take a decision about how to mitigate the duplicate content risk.
What I mean is... There are characteristics of those dispensers you want to use to differentiate pages to target different keywords, and characteristics you can just put all in one page with “dispenser configurator”.
As far as I know they discontinued "unique" because they don't trust that number to really count "unique" visitors.
In today world where visitors come from different devices and different locations is harder and harder to identify him/her as the same visitor as before.
We have been using angular for a while. And we love it. It's a fantastic framework.
Of course google crawler is not going to interpret such complex javascript, so when you use angular you must think about SEO.
One approach beautifully described by google here is to use query string "escaped fragment" to serve static version of the pages to google crawler, we used it in the past, in my opinion is complex, and it's not the way to go.
Another approach is to use server side code to render page content and angular to make it dynamic. For every page where you employ angular think how you can serve the content at first load without angular, and add angular to make the UX dynamic.
For example... If you have slider/carousel you may be tempted to load the content with angular using ajax, don't, load it in the body of the page and render it as a slider using angular. You can use ng-cloak (which is perfectly white-hat as long as you use it properly) and ng-show and ng-hide or ng-animate.
If you plan on using angular url routing is fine as well, just don't load the main content with ajax, put it in the page in a safe way for crawlers and use angular routing to choose which one to display.
You can load secondary content like menu options or form field options with ajax, as long as those are not essential for your on-page optimization.
Angular is a great tool and does speeds up development a lot, I am a big fan of angularjs.
I have a similar experience, we have 10k real fans, with pictures or text we get between 50 and 300 people coverage. Videos are doing better, between 400 and 800 people coverage.
We post three times a day, 0 conversions for the past few months. For us is a waste of time.
The only thing which make sense is offering a coupon in exchange for user email, we also tried promoting it with FB ads reaching outside of our fan base and we were getting emails at around 1 USD each. But nobody was buying and we stopped that too.
What google really cares about is the TTFB (Time To First Byte), to check it just head for GWT, in crawl stats.
To date the general consensus is above 1s is bad and google could penalize you, below .5s is good and google could improve your ranking a little bit.
Google suggest using webpagetest to check a website performance: if you run the test for your website you will se the TTFB is not that bad: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/141124_MF_14DY/
Your overall load time is 10s and I agree is too much, it's supposedly worse your user experience, increasing your bounce rate and alienating some of your visitors. You should work to improve it, webpagetest suggest to compress images and use leverage browser cache, which are good suggestions.
Analyze closely the waterfall to investigate further and identify other areas of interventions.
Check the tracking code where the _addItem is done for the conversion value passed to analytics.
Why not to redirect? If you don't you will keep seeing them in error in WMT, which is not a good thing. Also returning 410 in theory is an option, but I tried in the past and WMT ignores that.
As far as I know. Even after implementing rel prev/next, the pages are still de facto duplicated (unless unique beforehand). What rel prev/next does is just signal google their are part of pagination. Google algo will then pick the page he think more appropriate to show in serp answering a user query.
If you add canonical pointing the series to one page (probably the first) you are again suggesting google algo to pick that one and ignore the others. But most seo crawling tools like moz will keep signaling those pages are duplicate, because in fact they are duplicate. If you look at the crawler report for those duplicate pages you should also see the canonical in another column, so you can just filter them out (as far as this is the result you was expecting).
Rel prev/next is not making duplicate content unique, how could it? I heard of someone who could transform water into wine, but he did't deal with SEO.
In addition to what Leonie just said, one technique I first spotted on zappos.com and I often use is to put the excerpt of the content on top of the page with a read more button pointing to an on-page anchor to the full text to the bottom of the page.
It's not something you can always do without impairing UX, and I have no idea if google algo prefer that when compared to hiding the same content behind a js click.
But I also remember Matt Cutts discussing this in a video and say to do not worry too much because they do understand in today ui there's plenty of valuable content show through tabs, carousel and so on.
But you know, seems "don't worry too much" is one of his favourite sentence.
Maybe it's a language thing, but I may still be misunderstanding you.
If I understand correctly, the product name is "White Grain", the category that product falls in is "Gallery Wood", what is "Brown Engineered Flooring"? What is the relation with the product name and the category name?
One thing which is often misunderstood is duplicate content, it does penalize you in few ways but google doesn't take that into account as a site-wide ranking factor.
In other words, if you have duplicate content, google will just refuse to index the duplicate pages, which is bad, but it's not going to penalize ranking of other not-duplicate pages because there's a a lot of duplicate pages.
Duplicate pages are bad because each duplicate page is a lost opportunity to add a page to the index, and it waste crawler budget, theoretically harming the frequency google refresh your pages ranking.
In addition to all the good answers you already got.
Putting everything on a single page you lose opportunities to place keywords in url, <title>and <h1> or diluting <h1> value.</p></title>
In my opinion, as of the current state of client side technology, the way to go is angularjs.
When you talk about shorten the url you are probably referring to url routing which is one of the capability of angularjs, but other frameworks are doing a good job in that area as well.
Of course adding unique content is the only way.
add unique categories description
if you have a blog, last excerpt of posts related to the category
alternative categories info
try to figure out possible user generated content, category related
define an algo to present different set of products for each category, even if many products fall on multiple categories you don't have to show always exactly the same
multiple product descriptions for the same peoduct, one for each category...
do some brainstorming and you will come up with more ideas
Yes it may be beneficial to have more than 1 article with link from the same domain.
As a rule of thumb, do it only if the articles on that domain are getting some internal juice.
And do it only with article targeting different keywords, and linking to different pages of your website.
Honestly, all being said, I would choose the URL structure which makes more sense disregarding the SEO effect. I mean, secure the keyword you want to rank for are there in the url, but do not move them leftward just for the purpose of SEO. As far as I can tell from my little experience is not a factor which weight so much to justify a weird URL structure just for the purpose of putting the most relevant keyword on the far left.
Said that, all the keywords you want to put in the URL must be in the url part processed server side. Crawlers do not process javascript, any framework, like angularjs I mentioned earlier, will make it possible to show different url in the browser through url routing, client side. Which means javascript dynamically change the content of the page without a roundtrip to the server. It's the javascript which detect the URL change, not the server. So the crawler will never navigate it, google will never know it exist.
Yes, there are ways to have google crawler index those javascript generated pages, you can find instructions here https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/ but I strongly suggest you to do not go that way.
Instead, have your CMS generate an html page with all the content you want to index, and dynamically show and hide portions of the content using a javascript framework like angular, if it helps (for bookmarking purpose or UX) use client side url routing to change the url when you show the different portion of the content. That way google will crawl the page with all the content, it's white hat as long as you don't cloak.
So, what you have to do is design your pages, deciding which content goes there keeping in mind SEO target, keyword diversity and semantic; a part of course from the most important... UX.
Now, getting back to the original question, should you put the keywords you want to rank in the url, yes, put those you want to rank in the url processed server-side, the others if useful for UX, bookmarking, etc... process client side with a javascript framework using client side url routing.
Hope it helps. Good luck.
As far as I know this is still the industry standard to evaluate keyword traffic volume: http://moz.com/blog/keyword-volume-tools
Google trends can tell you if a keyword is searched more than another and give you a rough estimate of how much more, but I don't think it's a reliable source for estimating keyword traffic volume. If you try to do the math, checking one keyword volume in Google Keyword planner, checking the 1:N ration in Trends, and multiplying... You often find odd numbers.
You may check http://semrush.com which does also provide traffic volume estimation for keywords in their reports. I am sure there are other tools out there trying to figure out traffic volume as well, but the accuracy of those tools is disputed.
Check the content of your "ecomm_prodid" parameter, usually the source of all nightmares.
When you include multiple product id you need to format it properly, and google example is wrong and missing a comma. I just googled to search for a good example: http://marketlytics.com/setup-adwords-dynamic-remarketing-using-tag-manager/
Maybe.
Are those page indexed? I assume they are. So they contribute to google view of your website and indirectly affect your SEO. And even if they are not indexed they are nevertheless crawled and probably contributing the same way.
If you have a website which talks about porcelain and football, and you remove a lot of pages about football, google will assume you are more a porcelain site than a football one and rightly so, and this will likely affect your SERP indexing for football related keywords.
By the way, I buy my certificates here: https://www.namecheap.com/
In my opinion from a visitor perspective, to move in and out of ssl during a visit is bad; they would notice something is changing and average visitor wouldn't understand. So I would go for a 100% https. If you google about it you will find a lot of testimonial saying moving everything from http to https didn't have much impact in terms of performance. In my opinion the bad name of https is all coming from ages ago when protocols and hardware were not very good at managing it.
If you search on youtube you may find a video of Matt Cutts where he is saying redirect a million url overnight to the same page would rise a flag in the anti-spam team and lead to a manual review. If you have nothing to fear and you believe your redirects are legit you don't necessarily have to be scared.
But if the links are due to a bug, I guess they have no juice to pass, so why redirect?
Strongly agree with Monica pointing you versus Google Webmaster Tools, at the end of the day if the link is not there google is ignoring it, thus the value for your SERP ranking is most likely 0.
Yet, other tools you may check if you want to track all inbound links are https://ahrefs.com, https://majestic.com/, http://www.semrush.com
10$ vs 250$, the only differences are the brand selling them and their customer service, the brand theoretically affect conversions, if you believe your visitors are going to check the certificate authority and trust one more than another, I don't and I wouldn't go for the more expensive.
But I would go for the EV certificates, just because the browsers will show the website company name just before the url, and I have the impression that does instill trust. But it's just my opinion and googling around you can find opposite views on the subject.
single domain, wildcard or multi-domain, again from a technical perspective are all the same; multi-domain sounds very attractive but do have few drawbacks, first whenever a user check the certificate only one company name and one domain is listed, for all domains the details will be the same; furthermore (and more important) to use UCC certificates you also need a webserver supporting SNI, not all web servers do, and last but not least you need visitors using browsers supporting SNI (which rules out anyone still using windows XP and anyone with old browser versions)
with regard to SEO, are all the same, it's not the certificate by itself which matters, but to follow the right procedure when moving from non-ssl to ssl: http://moz.com/blog/seo-tips-https-ssl
I totally agree with Ray.
Theoretically having the keyword to the leftmost position is better. But I prefer shorter.
If you have time and patience you can test it, use one structure for a group of urls, and the other for another group of urls and try to spot a possible influence.
There's few tools online offering traffic estimate service. In my opinion none is accurate enough to be relevant. you just need to try them with url of websites you have log access to see how poor their guess are.
as far as i know moz doesn't offer such a tool
if i have to name one of those tool i would name semrush, when I tested it's accurancy I found it to report traffic volumes between 10% and 100% wrong, which is more accurate than many others and it's still giving you an idea of a website traffic
If you want to lower bounce rate in analytics you can just trigger an event after a 30 seconds time out using one line of javascript.
But be careful in examining which figures is more interesting in your case, even after 10 minutes someone who leaves the landing page without browsing deeper should be considered a bounce in the majority of the cases in my opinion.
Matt Cutts repeatedly said many ccTLD are recognized by google algo as a country specific signal, while few ccTLD and generic TLD are just... generic and treat as such.
I don't think the TLD of your customer is the real issue.
My experience improving page copy tells me the ranking improvement is not dramatic and the exact amount depends on a variety of factors, as far as I can tell the biggest of these factors are domain authority and keyword competition, if you change content on pages of a domain with a high DA, the ranking of those pages will improve more if compared with the improvement you may get with lower DA pages.
Also the improvement seems proportional to the previous SERP position, in other words it's easier to go from pos 20 to first page, but much harder to go from pos 3 to pos 2; considering all other factors the same.
Of course if you have a page with a a lot of backlinks and a decent ranking despite the content being thin, or poorly related to the keywords you are targeting, improving it will gives you the biggest jump.
Anyway that's just my experience, no golden rule.
EDIT, now I read EGOL answer I can see I totally missed the real core question.
I have never seen a page ranking improve just because a new fresh content replaced the old one. Only because new better quality content replaced old poor content.
And when I heard and read about fresh content boost, they were always talking about new content in new pages, and that depends on the query being searched. If you browse old whiteboard friday from Rand you will find one on this topic which explain that.
In one sentence, if you publish new fresh content about a sport event the night of that sport event you may benefit from freshness boost for query related to that sport event. For obvious reasons google believe new content about a recent event is more relevant than stale one.
When working with angular (or any client side js framework) and ajax you have to stick to one simple rule, load content you want to feed to google bot on first load, without requiring an ajax round trip.
So in your case those first 18 rooms description is content google crawler will eat, digest and index, all the others dynamically loading using ajax won't.
Same goes for the 400 characters, show them on first load, don't retrieve them later through an ajax call.
Keep in mind if you want to show content gradually you can just serve it on first load to the client and show it gradually through javascript with ng-cloak + ng-show/ng-hide.
One word about ng-show/ng-hide, there have been some debate (even here on MOZ Q&A) around css display: none; because John Muller and Matt Cutts stated few times google doesn't like hidden content, meaning they do not index it, and they may penalize websites for hiding content. In my opinion it was clear they were referring to navigation menu or manipulative techniques.
To quote another of Matt Cutts videos "google knows today web is dynamic and content is show and hidden by user interaction", so I didn't expect google to penalize a fari use of ng-cloak (display: none;).
But these kind of things always worries me, so I tested it on few pages with 200/300 words content, which were already indexed and ranking around top20/top10 in SERP, adding some ng-cloak content on some, removing ng-cloak and just showing the content on some other pages. The results was no change at all, they didn't move, not a single a position one way or the other.
One final notice about gradually loading more content, like in your example, additional rooms after the first 18. Of course those are not going to be indexed in that page. But here you have to think about your content strategy for that listing page, and what is important to feed to google crawler for indexing. 100 titles of rooms? Do you really expect people to reach that page searching for one of those titles? I don't think so.
In addition to all the good things said by others. Be careful about the following:
Of course you can have AggregateRating plus additional schema.org markup on the same page, like reviews, but only one AggregateRating markup.
Standard wordpress installation with zero plugin can do what you described, I suggest you read docs and search for info directly on https://wordpress.org/support/
I am using AdWords remarketing, and I tested AdRoll retargeting between April and May this year.
At the time I did some research (but I don't have the links at hand), my understanding is AdWords coverage is 65% of the web, AdRoll (which include Facebook and other sources) reach 99% of the web. That should give you an estimate of the overlapping.
If you activate both, AdRoll retargeting and AdWords remarketing, for the overlapping portion they will compete with each other and rise your bid/spending, which is something you really don't want. That's why you should either exclude AdWords from Adroll or test disabling AdWords remarketing all together.
When we tested AdRoll we did because we wanted to broad the audience, and we wanted to test how good AdRoll was at retargeting on Facebook. In fact we also tested retargeting on Facebook, directly using Facebook Ads.
The conclusion of the tests where not good. CPA was much higher with AdRoll than AdWords, between 5X and 10X, was also significantly higher when compared to the Facebook ads we ran by ourselves.
CTR of the AdRoll ads (when compared to AdWords remarketing) was extremely good, between 3% and 5%, but CR was horrible.
AdRoll sales people and support was incredibly nice, but the numbers where poor, and after 4 weeks testing we stopped using AdRoll.
When checking AdRoll dashboard be sure to understand the difference between ViewThroughConversions and ClickThroughConversions, admirably AdRoll clearly list conversions as such in the dashboard (Facebook is hiding that behind few clicks in the settings of the campaign), but in the same dashboard the CPA is calculated solely on the base of the ViewThroughConversions, yet if you ask the support they will change that, but you can't do it by yourself (at least at the time was not possible).
How much you pay for the certificate has nothing to do with performance.
Google doesn't want your website to load under .25 seconds, they never gave a specific number above which they penalize or below which they prize. The general consensus is a TTFB (time to first byte) below 1s is ok, below .5s is great.
Keepalive is standard for browsers and servers these days, page load under https will be affected only by the initial handshake.
I never used wpengine, I have no idea how https is going to impact a website hosted on their platform, they should know if they have other customers who moved.
In my experience with the websites I moved from http to https the performance didn't degrade at all, both TTFB and full page load stayed the same, TTFB under .4s and page load below 5s; but no one of these websites were using either WP or shared hosting.
Ray, my understanding on this is, one way or another, you have to redirect every single url, you can do it with “url rewriting’ (either htaccess on apache or web.config on iis) or some other technique but just redirecting the domain won't work. Unless the site url structure stay exactly the same.
Just to clarify any confusion, if an existing url is http://old-domain/foo and the new projected url is http://new-domain/bar just redirecting the domain won't work (meaning google will not transfer any juice).
I would programmatically add meta noindex.
Yes make sense. It's also what the people at koozai describe in the link Sheena posted.
Yet, my personal seo-religion so far have dictated me to never remove, every time I asked myself if I should, I got to the conclusion was better not to.
Let me re-check your motivation to do so:
That's horrible, but removing them is going to improve something else? Maybe, or maybe not. You can find out only trying out (testing).
If you are worried about duplicate content penalization, there's no such thing as a duplicate content penalization, google doesn't penalize duplicate content, google just make a choice, choosing one among different duplicate page to rank. Matt Cutts on that here.
If you have multiple landing pages for similar keyword with thin content, improve the content. You can find authoritative voices advocating multiple landing pages for related keyword interlinking as a perfectly whitehat LSI SEO strategy.
I doubt your algo penalization is due to those 0-traffic landing page mentioned above, remove them and see what happen, but I bet won't change it. Instead I would look honestly at all your website and ask myself what spammy, stuffing, nasty dirty little things did I in the past?