Only fun till someone loses an eye
Les wants to be acknowledged by search engines for his expertise in wil wheaton monkey sex. I wouldn’t really recommend it, based on my experience with the main squeeze of a certain golfer. My poor, neglected Big Blog Tool blog is still bringing in several hundred frustrated searchers who want to do unspeakable things with pictures of E— N——- every day, despite Google describing it in the serp as:
Number three was T—- W—-‘ new girlfriend, E— N——–, so being a cruel searcher-deceiver, I added “now without naked pictures of E— N——–” to my
How desperate do you have to be to pretend you are playing “hole in one” with her, to follow that link?
So this would be monkeys having sex like Wil Wheaton, correct? I’m unsure as to what resource the happy little simians have available for actually learning his methods. And really, I refuse to imagine the alternate interpretation to this… Then again, we could always ask the source:
http://www.wilwheaton.net/
But my main question is: why am I stuck with ”I am a moron” and ”THREE STOOGES DOLLS” as the most exciting search engine referrals coming through my logs? Guess I’ve got to start using the word ”sex” in combination with various mammal species far more often than I have (which is nil). Anyone up for some hedgehog lovin’?
You’ll never get anywhere that way: surely you meant hedgehog lovin’?
Wha-hoo Phil, you come up with the answers before the question’s asked. I’ve been having similar problems with the lady you mention. I’ve done a search and I’m sitting at number 2 on Google, as an authority on group sex with the young lady in question and her male consort. This arises from my ripping off a fellow blogger with whom I have a jocular but somewhat adversarial relationship. I had castigated him earlier for messing with Google but now I see you were doing the same thing. I’m not changing my position on the ethics of messing with the engines (ha!) – you may continue to experiment with Google as you like. You are, after all, a professional. The blogger in question is not. The nut of it that I’ve been receiving an inordinate amount of traffic from the same people and I’m sure most are terribly disappointed when reading what I have to dish up. I was convinced it was because I persist in linking to my fellow blogger but, given Google’s algorithms, it’s pretty obvious that it’s because the lady’s name is there and people keep clicking on the damned thing. Mind you, if you read Google’s description, I’m not surprised. I’m not pulling the post, which Google so efficiently dates, but I’m going to see whether or not and just how long changing the names as you have done results in those interested in her, for whatever reason – though I suspect you are correct, pissing off to bother somebody else.
Well, well…
Ah, jeez, how the hell does one edit something that’s been archived? Will my villification of M— S- haunt me forever?
In the Blogger posting screen, bottom right, there’s a box to search your entries: search for the Swedish bombshell by name, and you’ll find every time you’ve mentioned her. Edit, post & publish, and then unless you are on the newer Pro server, which automatically republishes the correct archive file when you edit an old post, either republish the affected archive file(s) or just take the easy way out and ”republish all”.
Oddly, yesterday I got 118 hits from various forms of her name, but only 26 who were looking specifically for her without clothing, even though I’m number one for E— N– n—-, and only in the middle of page two for the name alone.
And speaking of backfiring Google-teases: since Kafkaesquí didn’t follow through and fill his blog with descriptions of spiky little bundles of fun getting busy with each other, now I’m Google’s number one expert.
Heh, that should s—- the fs (or drive a lot more traffic to your site). Thanks Phil. By the way, you’re now at number 22 for those seeking information on E— (not of a carnal nature). The spelling I used for her surname appears to have more pages on Google than that containing the ’e’ breaking up the syllables. You might obtain far more hits were you to try that version or, better still, both :).
Thanks for the help, Phil. The search option was obvious, but you know how it is :).
Ah, that’s where you are. I was looking for you with an e, but I got distracted by amiannoyingornot (survey says: yes, she is).
Eh, I’m generally not into surfing the Web for good looking women but, bejesus, young Jesper must have nightmares… I mean, if I had a nannie like that, or if I just had… whatever… ah, I’ve always been a sucker for blondes.
Why’d you go and do this to me? And bugger you, I’m not sharing her… yes, okay, I’m distracted too. Damn, I was blogging something… where the hell was I? Jeez… I must get out more often…
Wake up Golby, you live in Cape Town. They’re a dime a dozen around here and you’re married.
Doesn’t stop me looking… Smack!
Er, thanks for that, Phil, most interesting. If you dig up any more… Ah, shite, back to the blogs…