Internal and external links and the rel="nofollow" attribute

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

The rel= is a html specification Basic HTML data types but the "nofollow" attribute not. This attribute was designed by Google’s head of webspam team Matt Cutts and Jason Shellen from Blogger.com in 2005. Just to avoid any misunderstandings.

How can anyone outside of the W3C add an attribute to the href?

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you please provide us a couple here so we can have a look?

No... I'm not a rat. I have used the W3C sponsor page as an example in the past. Kgun has also posted about links from Orgs that he thought were paid (since they are labelled as so) that do pass juice. That is my problem with the use of the term "paid links" as what one person thinks is paid may not be the intent of the author.

"NoFollow" is an attribute of the robots element but rel= like the align= could have several values for the attribute. It could be an attribute value of several elements if "recognized" as an attribute value by the spec. I prefer that attributes be under the control of the W3C (the recognized body) so that it doesn't get used at the whims of SE's and can be uniformly implemented. Presently rel="nofollow" is not used in the same way by all engines. So if I use the attribute for "paid links" when my intent is to trust the link then... I've needlessly buggered it for Yahoo! and MSN in order to follow the wishes of Google. IMO, not fair to anyone but Google and is actually expecting me to act in direct conflict with my true intent which is to indicate trust in the resource

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Again incorrect. According the W3C specs <META name="ROBOTS" content="NOFOLLOW"> means that a robot should not analyze a document for links, and not for preventing passing PR juice: Performance, Implementation, and Design Notes

Agreed it's a bastardized tag that is not valid html so how can they say it has to be used for this that or whatever a SE needs. If everybody starts bastardizing the spec then it becomes useless. So how is not analyzing a doc not preventing it from passing juice? I'd say that is semantics.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you explain what you do mean exactly with IBLs hurting?

Anyone and their brother can buy links and point them wherever they choose. So if I want to screw with you I won't bother cloaking etc. and risking my site. I'll develop a list of paid links submit to them and a few other places that will toxify your link profile and ensure negative effects are passed by the paid links. Remember no one checks to see if the submission came from the owner.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Oh s--t! I don't trust my own site! All this time I've been using 'nofollow' on my own link to as much as say, don't waste your time, I haven't had time to do anything here since July.

That was a good laugh, thanks. I think it also points to something at the heart of the matter which is "trust".

I personally don't think every sponsored link should pass PR juice, unless we want organic results saturated by those with the highest advertising budget. At the same time, webmasters should be trusted to use their own discretion to whom and to where they want to pass the rank juice, regardless if they were paid for it. Sponsoring should generally mean an exchange for traffic and exposure, but it should be up to the webmaster to decide if the ad is also something they think is worthwhile to give the metaphorical "vote" to (as google sees it).

Even not being identified as sponsors -- whether or not it's ethical, the practice is nothing new and isn't unique to blogs. It happens in journalism, or any time a hidden endorsement happens where there's been some type of exchange of money or favors. I'm just concerned things may go too far in policing the activity online where it casts a darker shadow of disdain over all bloggers.

After re-reading this I'm not sure about my wording. Hmm, I have a feeling I may have to explain myself more. Oh well.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Anyone and their brother can buy links and point them wherever they choose. So if I want to screw with you I won't bother cloaking etc. and risking my site. I'll develop a list of paid links submit to them and a few other places that will toxify your link profile and ensure negative effects are passed by the paid links. Remember no one checks to see if the submission came from the owner.

Cloaking? Risk your site? If you want I can provide you a PHP script and some lines for your .htaccess file, where Google will never be able to figure that out, except if a human would manually look at your source code.

Now back to Google. Do you really believe Google relies alone on an automatic discovery method to catch paid links and penalize web site owners?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I think I am not ready yet.

Question: What happens if you can disallow Google to crawling a link? Will PR be passed? No!
So what about this? Googlebot: Keep out!

Didn't anyone read this post of mine? I am still waiting to hear your thoughts.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Oh s--t! I don't trust my own site! All this time I've been using 'nofollow' on my own link to as much as say, don't waste your time, I haven't had time to do anything here since July.

Oh, well, sh!t happens; then we die.

The important fact to focus on is that you are still on the right side of the grass.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Didn't anyone read this post of mine? I am still waiting to hear your thoughts.

Not sure what you're looking for by way of response, as the "nocrawl" directive is, in my mind, very easily understood. And, such understanding makes it clear that any links contained within a "nocrawl" page are never seen by the indexing engine, such that their attributes are therefore of no consequence.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Not sure what you're looking for by way of response, as the "nocrawl" directive is, in my mind, very easily understood. And, such understanding makes it clear that any links contained within a "nocrawl" page are never seen by the indexing engine, such that their attributes are therefore of no consequence.

Em, links contained within a "nocrawl" page? I think you missed something...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Em, links contained within a "nocrawl" page? I think you missed something...

Which would be what?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Which would be what?

Again: Googlebot: Keep out!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Again: Googlebot: Keep out!

I'm presently typing with one hand, owing to a pinched nerve rendering my right arm & shoulder very much in pain & less than fully functional, such that scrolling through lengthy pages is presently no mean task.

I've revisited said blog, and still find nothing there stated by Matt that relates to the issue at hand.

Kindly explicitly state your point.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

I'm presently typing with one hand, owing to a pinched nerve rendering my right arm & shoulder very much in pain & less than fully functional, such that scrolling through lengthy pages is presently no mean task.

I've revisited said blog, and still find nothing there stated by Matt that relates to the issue at hand.

Kindly explicitly state your point.

I am about OBLs which we may not pass PR (e.g paid links, affiliates, etc)

Originally Posted by Matt Cutts

At SES New York, someone asked “Why don’t you provide a parameter, like ‘?googlebot=nocrawl’ to say ‘Googlebot, don’t index this page’?” That was a pretty good question. The short answer would be that on pages you don’t want indexed by spiders, you can add this meta tag to the page:

<META NAME=”ROBOTS” CONTENT=”NOINDEX”>

You can read more about the noindex and nofollow meta tags on our webmaster pages.

But the user specifically wanted a url parameter. I mentioned that because the parameter “id” is often used for session IDs, Googlebot used to avoid urls with “?id=(let’s say a five digit or larger number)” but that I didn’t know if that was still true. I think someone else nearby asked “Isn’t that kind of an ugly hack though?” and I had to fall back on “You asked for something that worked, not something that was pretty.” The questioner persisted, but I was out of other ways to do it, so I said I’d pass the feedback on, namely “someone wants a url parameter that’s keeps Googlebot from indexing the page.”

That question came up again today, and I wanted to mention one more way to block Googlebot by using wildcards in robots.txt (Google supports wildcards like ‘*’ in robots.txt). Here’s how:
1. Add the parameter like ‘http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/some-random-post.html?googlebot=nocrawl’ to pages that you don’t want fetched by Googlebot.
2. Add the following to your robots.txt:

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: *googlebot=nocrawl

That’s it. We may see links to the pages with the nocrawl parameter, but we won’t crawl them. At most, we would show the url reference (the uncrawled link), but we wouldn’t ever fetch the page.

E.t.c.

Source: Googlebot: Keep out!

----------------------------------

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!! My first post of 2009!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Cloaking? Risk your site? If you want I can provide you a PHP script and some lines for your .htaccess file, where Google will never be able to figure that out, except if a human would manually look at your source code.

Ummm... Please don't assume I am on a Nix Platform? What I mean is that if I were a Blackhat presently cloaking and/or using other risky techniques that could get a domain banned, buying links to the sites above me might be cheaper than blowing up a website/domain so...

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Now back to Google. Do you really believe Google relies alone on an automatic discovery method to catch paid links and penalize web site owners?

Rat program, link profiles, known link sellers and Networks would be just three of likely many methods used.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

That was a good laugh, thanks. I think it also points to something at the heart of the matter which is "trust".

Agreed that is what the "NoFollow" attribute value is supposed to do. When Google instructs webmasters to label all paid links then doesn't do anything to clarify what is paid then... who is in control?

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

I personally don't think every sponsored link should pass PR juice.

Agreed, anything that isn't reviewed or is only about the $.

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

unless we want organic results saturated by those with the highest advertising budget.

So... you assume that those willing to buy links to place won't find another way to use that budget to pay their way to the top? IMO, that won't stop those that see budget as their advantage. The budget will just be used another way which benefits no one except the guy with deep pockets. Soon the only way for publishers to monetize their sites safely will be AdSense. Be careful what you wish for.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

Hmm, I have a feeling I may have to explain myself more. Oh well.

Can I call it or what.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

So... you assume

No. I never assume because you know what they say. My little point I was adding was entirely missed. Never mind, you may all carry on with the squabblefest.

[kgun]

Time for web masters (start in 2009) to take control and enforce their own semantics through:

1. xlink:type="extended" xlink:role=
2. xlink:href=
3. xlink:label=
4. <go xlink:type="arc" xlink:from="item" xlink:to="madeby"/>
5. Etc.

Source: Advanced semantic linking and transclusion.

Last present common denominator:

1. Use the rel="nofollow" attribute to downgrade the PR role of a link.
2. Collect all paid links, affiliate links and sponsored links within a <div id="advert"> ... <div> tag.
3. Follow all other links.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Rat program, link profiles, known link sellers and Networks would be just three of likely many methods used.

First I am monitoring the Web around the clock, where my company name and url is mentioned with several monitoring tools.

But that is not the point here. How can rat programs, link profiles etc can harm me when it comes to Google.
I have a customer who is permanently attacked through endless adult (porn) sites, and she is steadily ranking at the top for her major key term over a year now, (since I SEO her site).

You need facts? I can PM you.

So can you be more specific? No philosophical discussions. Facts please.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Not sure what you're looking for by way of response, as the "nocrawl" directive is, in my mind, very easily understood. And, such understanding makes it clear that any links contained within a "nocrawl" page are never seen by the indexing engine, such that their attributes are therefore of no consequence.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Em, links contained within a "nocrawl" page? I think you missed something...

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am about OBLs which we may not pass PR (e.g paid links, affiliates, etc)

It remains unclear how my mention of links within a "nocrawl" page is not about OBLs.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

It remains unclear how my mention of links within a "nocrawl" page is not about OBLs.

Or you are kidding me and you want to drive me nuts, or you really don't understand.

First there is no "nocrawl" page. That "nocrawl" is only for links!!!

Last time with a very simple example:

I have an OBL called http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/some-random?googlebot=nocrawl

In my robots.txt I have this rule:

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: *googlebot=nocrawl$

Google may see links to the pages with the nocrawl parameter, but they won’t crawl them. At most, they would show the url reference (the uncrawled link), but they wouldn’t ever fetch the page.

Don't you think that is a clever alternative, than using that dirty no good "nofollow" attribute?

If this is not clear now, I give up. Sorry bro.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Or you are kidding me and you want to drive me nuts, ... .

I was beginning to wonder the same about you!

Originally Posted by Webnauts

First there is no "nocrawl" page. That "nocrawl" is only for links!!!

Ok, here's where we derail. You say there's no such thing; but, then, continue with

Originally Posted by Webnauts

In my robots.txt I have this rule:

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: *googlebot=nocrawl$

Functionally, anything that is so blocked, by whatever command/parameter, is not crawled; I mean "nocrawl" page to be any that is so blocked.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Google may see links to the pages with the nocrawl parameter, but they won’t crawl them. At most, they would show the url reference (the uncrawled link), ... .

Agreed, with an exception. Said parameter will have no effect outside the present instance. Therefore, if the link in question points to a page already indexed, it will remain indexed. Likewise, if the page is not presently indexed, but becomes known to the Googlebot from another source, it will be indexed.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Don't you think that is a clever alternative, than using that dirty no good "nofollow" attribute?

Agreed; in fact, such is precisely what I understood to begin with, which is why I was so puzzled by your rejoinders.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

... , or you really don't understand. ... If this is not clear now, I give up. Sorry bro.

As noted, 'twas clear from the beginning.

Perhaps it was my terse phrasing, born of necessity owing to the aforementioned physical pain, which is momentarily somewhat abated, which gave rise to the confusion. My having earlier said that I was experiencing great difficulty typing, etal. owing to a pinched nerve was no jest; and, my plea for a straightforward explanation of your belief that I'd "missed" something was, for the same reason, equally earnest.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Perhaps it was my terse phrasing, born of necessity owing to the aforementioned physical pain, which is momentarily somewhat abated, which gave rise to the confusion.

Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice. 1598.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

First I am monitoring the Web around the clock, where my company name and url is mentioned with several monitoring tools.

But that is not the point here. How can rat programs, link profiles etc can harm me when it comes to Google.
I have a customer who is permanently attacked through endless adult (porn) sites, and she is steadily ranking at the top for her major key term over a year now, (since I SEO her site).

You need facts? I can PM you.

So can you be more specific? No philosophical discussions. Facts please.

Fact Google has a way for people to report buyers and sellers of links (in another life we called these people rats and a trip behind the barn was in their future). Fact if you have a few links that look paid but aren't (orgs, some directories etc) you were OK. However I can then buy a bunch of links on sites I know are shady and toxify your link profile so it looks like you are buying links to rank. So If I were Google looking for paid links I'd be checking link profiles for the shady sites and too much activity in a single link building technique. The profile can be used to determine if the links are votes/citations or schemes to inflate authority.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Fact Google has a way for people to report buyers and sellers of links (in another life we called these people rats and a trip behind the barn was in their future). Fact if you have a few links that look paid but aren't (orgs, some directories etc) you were OK. However I can then buy a bunch of links on sites I know are shady and toxify your link profile so it looks like you are buying links to rank. So If I were Google looking for paid links I'd be checking link profiles for the shady sites and too much activity in a single link building technique. The profile can be used to determine if the links are votes/citations or schemes to inflate authority.

Again. Why doesn't my client get penalized with that mass of IBLs from adult sites? Just answer me that question.

Thanks.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Agreed, with an exception. Said parameter will have no effect outside the present instance. Therefore, if the link in question points to a page already indexed, it will remain indexed. Likewise, if the page is not presently indexed, but becomes known to the Googlebot from another source, it will be indexed.

I don't care if its indexed or it will be de-indexed or it was indexed, as far it is an external URL and I do not pass PR.

But... I am just curious that no one else here gave any statement on this.

Originally Posted by deepsand

Perhaps it was my terse phrasing, born of necessity owing to the aforementioned physical pain, which is momentarily somewhat abated, which gave rise to the confusion. My having earlier said that I was experiencing great difficulty typing, etal. owing to a pinched nerve was no jest; and, my plea for a straightforward explanation of your belief that I'd "missed" something was, for the same reason, equally earnest.

I am sorry man. I really thought that you were kidding. I hope you will recover soon.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice. 1598.

"Pain makes for a quick tongue." - deepsand (2009)

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I don't care if its indexed or it will be de-indexed or it was indexed, as far it is an external URL and I do not pass PR.

Understood. I made mention of this particular for the benefit of others.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

But... I am just curious that no one else here gave any statement on this.

At least 3 possible reasons; everyone else :

1) Thinks that it's common knowledge;
2) Thinks that it's wrong; or,
3) Could care less.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am sorry man. I really thought that you were kidding. I hope you will recover soon.

I wish that I were kidding; or, that it's all a bad dream, given my past experience with this particular ailment.

About 4 yrs. ago, with precisely the same symptoms, I learned that I have a degenerative cervical disc; not fully herniated, but sufficiently deformed so as to pinch nerve(s), thus causing debilitating pain from neck down through fingers. That episode lasted several weeks, requiring multiple sessions of TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) - or, perhaps it was EMS (Electronic Muscle Stimulation) - to interrupt the feedback loop caused by contracted muscles impacting the very nerves which cause the muscles to contract, followed by at-home self-administered cervical traction - which is a real bitch getting hooked up with but 1 good hand - so as to increase the spacing between the vertebrae, thus reducing the pressure on the discs.

Sleep is also hard to come by, as there's no good way to keep the neck in a cocked position sufficient for somewhat relieving the pressure at the primary point of causation, so as do diminish the sharp pains long enough to fall into a deep sleep.

As I earlier said, sh!t happens, then we die.

In the mean time, if I seem to be a bit out of sorts, you now know the reason.

[jawn_tech]

I have a quick question in the theme of this thread, maybe anyone can help. I may make my question a separate thread if it seems worthy of one, but it basically goes along with the post.

What about with Google Analytics. Like I said before, I believe spiders don't stop at "nofollow", they just don't pass rank. So theoretically, using nofollow within one's own site for the purposes of not passing rank to less-important pages shouldn't affect the data being calculated in one's Analytics reports.

Sound right?

(also give me shout if anyone thinks this is a topic for a different thread. I'll let you guys have a voice in this call.)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

I have a quick question in the theme of this thread, maybe anyone can help. I may make my question a separate thread if it seems worthy of one, but it basically goes along with the post.

What about with Google Analytics. Like I said before, I believe spiders don't stop at "nofollow", they just don't pass rank. So theoretically, using nofollow within one's own site for the purposes of not passing rank to less-important pages shouldn't affect the data being calculated in one's Analytics reports.

Sound right?

(also give me shout if anyone thinks this is a topic for a different thread. I'll let you guys have a voice in this call.)

Since Google follows the links with the "nofollow" attribute, but just doesn't pass PR, doesn't have nothing to do with the GA. If the script is installed on nofollowed pages, the statistics will show up. Is that what you are asking?

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Since Google follows the links with the "nofollow" attribute, but just doesn't pass PR, doesn't have nothing to do with the GA. If the script is installed on nofollowed pages, the statistics will show up. Is that what you are asking?

Yep. My thinking is no, it should have nothing to do with GA. Primarily when looking at which navigation links, buttons, etc. are performing, especially using the "site overlay".

I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time!), but nofollow shouldn't be factored in to fluxuations within internal traffic -- that's what I'm saying / thinking / asking if that sounds right.



On a side note, traffic behavior has been strange lately. Not good or bad, just.... different.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Again. Why doesn't my client get penalized with that mass of IBLs from adult sites? Just answer me that question.

Thanks.

The obvious answer is that no one has reported it or pointed toxic paid links at it. Second if they are an adult site then... IME, the adult sites play by different rules. I know SEO firms that got away with link manipulation for years. Before that they mirrored content and once again they are back in the top ten, for now, in the end they always get found out and disappear. IMO, they just overdue techniques to the point that they become filtered or weighted less.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

What about with Google Analytics. Like I said before, I believe spiders don't stop at "nofollow", they just don't pass rank. So theoretically, using nofollow within one's own site for the purposes of not passing rank to less-important pages shouldn't affect the data being calculated in one's Analytics reports.

GA is wholly independent of & behaves quite different from bots; its focus is strictly on activity.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

The obvious answer is that no one has reported it or pointed toxic paid links at it.

An obvious answer is not necessarily a correct one.

An equally, if not more, obvious and simpler explanation is that IBLs have no negative effect.

[subhzash]

For internal linking of my website i never use rel="nofollow" tag. I use rel="nofollow" for external site which are lower than my page rank.


Regards
Subhzash

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by subhzash

For internal linking of my website i never use rel="nofollow" tag. I use rel="nofollow" for external site which are lower than my page rank.


Regards
Subhzash

That is ridiculous. Sorry.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

I use rel="nofollow" for external site which are lower than my page rank.

1) You have no way of knowing any site's current PR, let alone that of the future.

2) There is no necessary relationship between a site's PR and its trustworthiness.

"Better to remain silent, and be thought the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That is ridiculous. Sorry.

Why ridiculous John?? It is one of the method to stop page rank flow..Everyone has their own strategy and if you don't agree at least don't say Rediculous

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by deepsand

1) You have no way of knowing any site's current PR, let alone that of the future.

2) There is no necessary relationship between a site's PR and its trustworthiness.

"Better to remain silent, and be thought the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

hey deepsand if you want i can give you Famous person quotes, against to your every post...Remember we are here to share each others strategy..if you feel something is wrong then explain in details

All the best

[getmea]

Originally Posted by subhzash

hey deepsand if you want i can give you Famous person quotes, against to your every post...Remember we are here to share each others strategy..if you feel something is wrong then explain in details

All the best

Although I have a slight understanding of the PR, I agree with John's/Deepsand's comments (although somewhat not sugar-coated ).

I know of no method to programmatically calculate another sites PR "on the fly". If there IS a way, then one would need a nightly script/cron job to get the PRs from your external links and update your pages accordingly. If there is NO way, I see you manually visiting sites on a daily basis to check out their PR, and adjust your "Nofollow" code accordingly. Maybe others know of an auto-magic way...

Lastly, I agree there is no relationship between a PR and its trustworthiness. You can have a PR 5 site and still be a crap (spam, marketing, data miner, etc) site.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

hey deepsand if you want i can give you Famous person quotes, against to your every post.

Yes; but, they won't necessarily logically follow.

Originally Posted by subhzash

Remember we are here to share each others strategy.

No; we're here to share useful knowledge.

Originally Posted by subhzash

if you feel something is wrong then explain in details

Already done. But, just in case you missed them, I'll repeat.

1) You have no way of knowing any site's current PR, let alone that of the future.

2) There is no necessary relationship between a site's PR and its trustworthiness.

[kgun]

Pagerank:

1. Popularized article: Google PageRank - Introduction
2. Original paper: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by getmea

I know of no method to programmatically calculate another sites PR "on the fly". If there IS a way, then one would need a nightly script/cron job to get the PRs from your external links and update your pages accordingly.

And, were such possible, by the time your OBL is re-evaluated by Google, the data upon which your decision was based may very well be stale!

Originally Posted by getmea

If there is NO way, I see you manually visiting sites on a daily basis to check out their PR, and adjust your "Nofollow" code accordingly.

Whether automatic or manual, it won't work, as all you can view is Toolbar PR (TPR), which is no more than a snapshot of PR at a specific point in the past. TPR generally goes months between refreshes.

[kgun]

A good PR related video:

SMX West 2008: Stephan Spencer

Related:
Understanding what the “No Follow” tag can do for you

FireFox Web Developer plugin

[getmea]

Originally Posted by deepsand

And, were such possible, by the time your OBL is re-evaluated by Google, the data upon which your decision was based may very well be stale!


Whether automatic or manual, it won't work, as all you can view is Toolbar PR (TPR), which is no more than a snapshot of PR at a specific point in the past. TPR generally goes months between refreshes.

Thanks for your comments!

Getmea...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by getmea

Thanks for your comments!

Getmea...

My pleasure.

[full house]

wonderful thread! very helpful!!!