Offshore Outsourcing & Scammer

It seems that Christopher Caudle does not understand the difference of a presumption ( “can be”, “seems to be”) and a fact (“is a”). It doesn’t matter what he understands and what not. Interesting is his actual connection to the disappeared and putative scammer Wesley Jon Pollard.

He expressed himself in an email July 30, 2015 (found in the update from August 26, 2015), which he has forwarded to me on August 26, 2015:

I have known Wesley Jon Pollard for many years. He lives in the Philippines and owns the company mentioned, which has a large number of important clients on his books. He arranges call centres for his clients, and makes a point of visiting each one to vet the company and ensure their procedures match their application.

We find in the LinkedIn profile “Lord Caudle” (Lord-Caudle-LinkedIn.pdf (459.36 kb)) that he is CEO of Chat Network Plc since March 2011 and Chairman from Surecall Telecoms Ltd since the year 2010. He got for both jobs recommendations, one from a Turkish and one from an Indian LinkedIn member. The recommendations got given in exchange.

Praveen George from India got a recommendation from “Lord Caudle” on March 26, 2014 and has written a recommendation for “Lord Caudle” on March 27, 2014.

Riz Balloch from Turkey has gotten a recommendation from “Lord Caudle” on April 13, 2012 and got a recommendation from “Lord Caudle” back on the same day. In this case cannot get determined which recommendation was written first.

Coincidentally Wesley Jon Pollard has published yesterday (September 9, 2015) a post in LinkedIn Pulse (Wesley-Jon-Pollard-Addressing-what-needs-are-required-for-a-successful-sales-website.pdf (206.19 kb)). In this article he offers 24 hour live chat services of dexterity-leads.com – a site registered in the high risk country (ScamAdviser) Pakistan with an U.S. phone number:

So this is the final and fifth part in our post episode on what a successful 24 hour support service such as ourselves can do for your websites sales and customers service side, since we are 100% committed to delivering a successful outcome month in and months out, 365 days a week for all our clients.

At Campaignprovider.com a page gets found with the title “lord chris caudle's Page” (.pdf (197.20 kb)). The page has the first entry from February 2, 2012 (.pdf (180.64 kb)) and the last entry from September 10, 2014.

In my view, are here occurring too many coincidences. Each normal thinking person will ask the following questions:

• Are Christopher Caudle and Wesley Jon Pollard more than friends?
  
  
• Why is Wesley Jon Pollard offering the same kind of business at the same time like Christopher Caudle?
  
  
• Which role takes Ma Eliza Reyes Reburiano that Christopher Caudle likes to get her name from the article "Scammer Wesley Jon Pollard - outoftheboxsolutions.weebly.com - dexterity-leads.com - rollingdice.in" removed? This article was merely quoted from LinkedIn profiles parts which Maria herself has accepted or written. Others may probably have similar considerations when they are reading the profiles carefully.
  
  
• Is the whole case, not just a red herring? Especially if taking a look which countries are all involved in this case: Philippines (ROLLINGDICE PHILIPPINES), India (ROLLINGDICE PUNE), Pakistan (domain dexterity-leads.com), UK, USA (actual profile and phone number used in advertisings), etc.
  
  
• If Wesley Jon Pollard is on a escape he would not be so stupid and use his old accounts (LinkedIn, Twitter and Pinterest) and his own name for making money to finance his escape. For the case that the authorities are searching for him would it be very easily to locate him by his IP address using for posting the articles. Why should he give the hints to the authorities by himself if he is on escape? I think that Wesley Jon Pollard has helpers, which are publishing his articles. Who are these helpers in this case?
  
  
• Christopher Caudle writes by himself in his mail from July 29, 2015 (found in the update from August 26, 2015 of the article "Scammer Wesley Jon Pollard - outoftheboxsolutions.weebly.com - dexterity-leads.com - rollingdice.in"): “I wish to report Wesley Jon Pollard owner of Out of the Box solutions, as missing presumed kidnaped, since 7th July 2015”. Who should kidnap him and for which reason? The offshore outsourcing business is down, there is not much to earn. Who shall pay in this case the ransom?
  
  Another statement from Christopher Caudle:
  

  It is my opinion having served for 10 years with the British Police (now retired) that Wesley Jon Pollard was not in India and never arrived there, I do not believe he was in Malaysia either, and that he is somewhere in the Philippines possibly kidnapped.

  I think that each one knows that the Philipines are an island state. You can leave the Philippines only by using a ship or an airplane. In both cases you'll be listed as crew member or as a passenger if you are leaving the Philippines on a legal way. The authorities would check this database. The opinion from Christopher Caudle shows only his missing geographical knowledge and his missing talent in investigating.
  
  
• Wesley Jon Pollard has been looking today (September 10, 2015) at 10:35am (Manila time) - 3:35am UK time at my LinkedIn profile.
  
  
• If Wesley Jon Pollard disappeared on July 7, 2015 like Christopher Caudle has written it, how can it be that Bruce Young had a communication with Wesley Jon Pollard on August 21, 2015 (Facebook posting of Bruce Young, .pdf (150.80 kb))?
  

  A transcript of a conversation between my two friends;
  
  21/08/2015 00:03:40] Wesley Pollard: Mate payment will be at the end of the month
  [21/08/2015 00:03:41] FRIEND1: I plea to you Wes to understand my fears and my apprehension. I look up to you.
  [21/08/2015 00:06:43] FRIEND1: to be completely honest and open, here's my fear Wes; that I will no longer hear from you after today, no date has been set as when I can received it, meaning there is no projection as to when the money is coming in, if indeed there was a need to wait on...that's my fear Wes, and it is my fault that I trusted you too early despite advises from friends
  [21/08/2015 00:07:13] FRIEND1: please understand
  [21/08/2015 00:07:51] Wesley Pollard: You will have it by the end of the month ok
  
  SO WHERE IS IT NOW? NON PAYMENT. end of month of what year?

  If Bruce Young has chatted on August 21, 2015 with Wesley Jon Pollard, why sends me Christopher Caudle on August 26, 2015 the message that Wesley Jon Pollard "disappeared, properly kidnapped on July 7"?

Exactly all this facts are making the full story for me very supicious. I think that it is nothing else than red herring.

Other articles in the connection with the case about Wesley Jon Pollard:

• Scammer Wesley Jon Pollard - outoftheboxsolutions.weebly.com - dexterity-leads.com - rollingdice.in
• The red herring and/or deception around Wesley Jon Pollard – out-of-the-box-solutions
• Christopher Caudle likes to get more publicity for Ma Eliza Reyes Reburiano

Lord-Caudle-LinkedIn.pdf (459.36 kb)

Wesley-Jon-Pollard-Addressing-what-needs-are-required-for-a-successful-sales-website.pdf (206.19 kb)

lord-chris-caudle's-Page-CampaignProvider.pdf (197.20 kb)

Lord-Chris-Caudle-(NEW)-UK-PPI-Personal-Injury-Sales-Process.pdf (180.64 kb)

Facebook-Bruce-Young-A-transcript-of-a-conversation.pdf (150.80 kb)

Mr. Vance Vogel, CEO and founder of The Marketing Source, has submitted together with an explanation that they are using CallAssistant instead of Avatar systems, the following statement of the FTC from September 11, 2009 (I have only removed the page breaks):

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Federal Trade Commission
Division of Marketing Practices
September 11, 2009

Dear Mr. Bills:

You have requested an informal staff opinion as to the applicability to 2008 amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) to a particular technology used by CallAssistant, L.C.(“CallAssistant”). The amendments at issue impose new restrictions on the use of prerecorded messages in telemarketing. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v); 73 Fed. Reg. 15204 (Aug. 29, 2008).

Specifically, these amendments require, as of December 1, 2008, that any outbound telemarketing call that delivers a prerecorded message include: (1) if the call could be answered in person by a consumer, an automated interactive voice and/or keypress-activated opt-out mechanism that the call recipient can use at any time during the message to assert a Do Not Call request pursuant to § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A); and (2) if the call could be answered by an answering machine or voicemail service, a toll-free telephone number that the call recipient can use to assert a Do Not Call request pursuant to § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A). Additionally, as of September 1, 2009, the amendments prohibit any outbound telemarketing call that delivers a prerecorded message unless the seller has obtained from the recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing, that evidences the willingness of the recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of that seller and includes such person’s telephone number and signature.

As described in your letter, CallAssistant uses technology that enables its calling agents to interact with the recipient of a call using his or her own voice or by substituting appropriate audio recording of a response. According to your letter, when used to place outbound telemarketing calls, this technology works as follows:

A live agent using the System places a call to a consumer and hears the consumer greeting. In response to the greeting, the agent may elect to speak to the call recipient using his or her voice, or may press a button to play an appropriate recorded script segment. After the agent’s response, the agent listens to the consumer customer’s reply. After listening to the consumer’s reply, the live agent again chooses whether to speak to the call recipient in his or her own voice, or another recording. At all times, even during the playing of any recorded segment, the agent retains the power to interrupt any recorded message to listen to the consumer and respond appropriately.

In adopting the 2008 amendments, the Commission 1 recognized that in the future prerecorded message might eliminate the objections that prompted the adoption of the these rules and justify exemptions permitting interactive prerecorded messages:

[T]he Commission notes that it is aware that the technology used in making prerecorded messages interactive is rapidly evolving, and that affordable technological advances may eventually permit the widespread use of interactive messages that are essentially indistinguishable from conversing with a human being. Accordingly, nothing in this notice should be interpreted to foreclose the possibility of petitions seeking further amendment of the TSR or exemption from the provisions adopted here.

73 Fed. Reg. 51180 (Aug. 29, 2008).

Furthermore, according to your description, “live agents hear every word spoken by the call recipient, and determine what is said” in response. A single agent always stays with a call from beginning to end.

You seek an opinion as to whether the amended TSR provisions on the use of prerecorded messages in telemarketing apply to CallAssistant’s calls that employ the technology summarized above. Based on the description of the technology included in your letter, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has concluded that the 2008 TSR amendments cited above do not prohibit telemarketing calls using this technology if the calls that otherwise comply with the TSR and other applicable law. The 2008 amendments at 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v) prohibit calls that deliver a prerecorded message and do not allow interaction with call recipients in a manner virtually indistinguishable from calls conducted by live operators. Unlike the technology that you describe, the delivery of prerecorded messages in such calls does not involve a live agent who controls the content and continuity of what is said to respond to concerns, questions, comments – or demands – of the call recipient.

In adopting the 2008 TSR amendments, the Commission noted that the intrusion of a telemarketing call on a consumer’s right to privacy “may be exacerbated immeasurably when there is no human being on the other end of the line.” 73 Fed. Reg. at 51180. The Commission observed that special restrictions on prerecorded telemarketing messages were warranted because they “convert the telephone from an instrument for two-way conversations into a oneway device for transmitting advertisements.” Id.1 Consequently, in Staff’s view, the concerns about prerecorded messages addressed in the 2008 TSR amendments do not apply to the calls described above, in which a live human being continuously interacts with the recipient of a call in a two-way conversation, but is permitted to respond by selecting recorded statements.

Nevertheless, the use of such technology in a campaign to induce the sales of goods or services, or charitable donations is “telemarketing” under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6106(4), and therefore must comply with the Rule’s other requirements and prohibitions. In particular, the technology must connect an outbound telephone call to a live agent within two seconds of the call recipient’s completed greeting. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iv). The agents making calls using this technology must disclose the purpose of the call, the identity of the seller, make other required disclosures, and comply with other TSR provisions preventing deceptive and abusive conduct. Id. §§ 310.3 and 310.4.

Please be advised that this opinion is based exclusively on all the information furnished in your request. This opinion applies only to the extent that actual company practices conform to the material submitted for review. Please be advised further that the views expressed in this letter are those of the FTC staff. They have not been reviewed, approved, or adopted by the Commission, and they are not binding upon the Commission. However, they do reflect the opinions of the staff members charged with enforcement of the TSR.

Lois Greisman
Associate Director
Division of Marketing Practices

 In short - the system Virtual Voice Technology is only legal if:

• a live agent hears the called party from the greeting until the hang-up or transfer.
• an agent is active in the line within 2 seconds the called party has finished his greeting.
• the live agent is free in his choice to speak with the called party or playing prerecorded messages.
• if the live agent is playing prerecorded messages he needs to have a possibility to stop the playback.
• the Telemarketing Sales Rules (TSR) does not get changed.

If the main and only purpose of the software an illegal action then this software is illegal. In the case of the Avatar system is service legal because at the site from the Federal Trade Commission are listed a few cases where Robocalls are allowed:

Some prerecorded messages are permitted — for example, messages that are purely informational. That means you may receive calls to let you know your flight’s been cancelled, reminders about an appointment, or messages about a delayed school opening. But the business doing the calling isn’t allowed to promote the sale of any goods or services. Prerecorded messages from a business that is contacting you to collect a debt also are permitted, but messages offering to sell you services to reduce your debt are barred.

Other exceptions include political calls and calls from certain health care providers. For example, pharmacies are permitted to use prerecorded messages to provide prescription refill reminders. Prerecorded messages from banks, telephone carriers and charities also are exempt from these rules if the banks, carriers or charities make the calls themselves.

As you see in the above statement are legal and illegal purposes for Robocalls available. Illegal is this technology for making business (promoting any goods or services) in the United States of America. That the Avatar technology is a Robocall technology gets found out by reading the judgement from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division, Civil Action No. H-13-2777, Case 4:13-cv-02777 from January 28, 2014 (.pdf). In this case Flowroute got sued to conspire with Avatar because: "Flowroute’s VoIP services, and employing Flowroute’s Calling Name Management Service ('CNAM-MS') to alter the caller’s identification as it appeared on Plaintiff’s cellular phone." Like expected had this case a positive end for Flowroute. The same way like Flowroute is Avatar only a service provider and is not responsible for the misusage of their products from their customers.

At Federal Trade Commission - Consumer Information - What to do if you get a Robocall explains the FTC attorney Kati Daffan in here video and in the first paragraph of the transcription what is a Robocall:

If you have a telephone, robocalls may be ruining your day. I'm Kati Daffan, an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission. If you answer the phone and hear a recorded message instead of a live person, it's a robocall. If the recording is a sales message and you haven't given your written permission to get calls from the company on the other end, the call is illegal period.

Playing pre-recorded messages or compile manually pre-recorded messages live will remain to be a prerecorded material and is never the same like speaking to a live person. There is no way to foresee all possibilities during a call. For this reason a live speaking agent cannot get replaced.

A short description of the Avatar system is that a call center agent is playing prerecorded messages to the called ones. The messages are getting selected depending on the answers from the called ones. With other words the called one does not speak with a real agent and for some questions are even no prerecorded answers available. Only if the called one is interested in the offer he gets transferred to a real person. One agents handles normally two calls at the same time. I think everybody knows the result of mulittasking.

Avatar is promoting their services as "Lead Generation without the accent". From my own experience and from the experience of my customers is it in the German speaking area of Europe (Austria, Germany and a part of Switzerland) not important to speak without an accent to make a sale. Much more important is it to adjust your own communication within splits of a second to the same level as your presumptive customer is using. A joke during the communication at the right time can be an ice breaker. This cannot get done by using prerecorded messages. Already the first impression a sales person is making can lead to a good business or to a total loss.

Avatar Technologies Phl, Inc. is providing their services only B2B and for this reason they need not warn about the misusage of their product. From business owners is it expected that they know the law in their country and in the country they are serving. For a consumer are the offered services not from any interest. For this reason they need not warn them about the illegal use of their products.

The FTC is challenging the DEF CON community to create a tool that people can use to block and forward unwanted robocalls automatically. Forwarded calls will go to a honeypot — a data collection system that researchers and investigators can use to study the calls. See the contest descriptions and the winners of the 2015 Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back Contest.

Look at the videos where an attorney from the FTC explains the illegal Robocalls.

Clark-et-al.-v-Avatar-Technologies-Phl-Inc.-et-al.-Decision.pdf (128.96 kb)

It is difficult for offshore call centers to provide their services by using a legal way. On one side they need to work lucrative on the other side they need to keep themselves on the law and government regulations of the destination country of their calls, what makes their work very difficult.

If you are watching the following video or read the transcript from the FTC attorney Kati Daffan, then you’ll get it that you are not allowed to greet the called one with a recording and if the center likes to sell something – what is in the most cases the reason for the call from an offshore call center – then the client of the center needs to have a written permission of their victims, which should get called.

The first problem with the greeting done by a life person can get easily handled by adjusting the dial system that every time is at least one free agent is available who can take the call immediately and greet the called one.

If the client provides calling data the second problem can get solved too. In respect to the data protection law is the client not allowed to provide more detailed information as can get found in a public phone directory. In any case should keep the center a copy of the data transmission or the email with the access to the data for having a proof. The center shall keep the proofs at least 10 years in evidence.

We can find the following explanations from the FTC attorney Kati Daffan about Robocalls at the homepage of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC):

Few things can be more annoying than answering the phone while you're in the middle of something — and then being greeted by a recording.

If you receive a robocall trying to sell you something (and you haven’t given the caller your written permission), it’s an illegal call. You should hang up. Then, file a complaint with the FTC and the National Do Not Call Registry.

Transcript from the video above:

If you have a telephone, robocalls may be ruining your day. I'm Kati Daffan, an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission. If you answer the phone and hear a recorded message instead of a live person, it's a robocall. If the recording is a sales message and you haven't given your written permission to get calls from the company on the other end, the call is illegal period.

So when you get an illegal robocall, here's what to do. Hang up the phone. Don't press one to speak to a live operator. And don't press any other number to get off the list. If you respond by pressing any number, it will probably just lead to more robocalls.

You might consider contacting your phone provider and asking them to block the number and whether they charge for that service. Remember that telemarketers change caller ID information easily and often. So it might not be worth paying a fee to block a number that will change.

Finally, contact the FTC to report your experience. You can do that online at ftc.gov or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP. To learn more about illegal robocalls and what the FTC is doing to stop them, visit ftc.gov/robocalls. That's ftc.gov/robocalls.

Source: The Federal Trade Commission

Another video from the FTC attorney Kati Daffan give some more information:

Transcript of the video above:

If you have a telephone, it probably seems like illegal robo calls are out of control. I'm Kati Daffan, an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission. If you pick up the phone, and hear a recorded message instead of a live person, that's a robocall.

Consumers are getting more and more robo calls, and they are not happy about it. As the number of calls has multiplied, the number of complaints has, too. The reason for the spike in robo calls has to do with technology. Companies are using auto dialers, that can send out thousands of phone calls every minute, for an incredibly low cost.

What's important is that the companies that use this technology don't bother to screen for the numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. If a company doesn't care about obeying the law, you can be sure they're trying to scam you. You've probably gotten robo calls about candidates running for office, or charities asking for donations. These robo calls are allowed. But any robo call that's trying to sell you something probably is illegal, unless you've given your written permission to get calls from that company.

The FTC has stopped billions, yes billions, of robo calls in the last two years. Tracing these calls is a tough job, and there are a few reasons for that. One, is that many different companies use the same, or very similar, recorded messages. Another, is that they fake the caller ID information that you see on your phone. That's called caller ID spoofing, and new technology makes it very easy to do. And the third, is that the robo callers often place the calls through internet technology, that hides their location.

At the FTC, we're continuing our aggressive enforcement efforts. And we're also looking for innovative, technological solutions to the robo call problem. For more information, please visit ftc.gov/robocalls. That's ftc.gov/robocalls.

Source: The Federal Trade Commission

Don’t forget that the fines in the U.S. are very high. Everybody who needs to defend himself in front of the law court will think first about himself and will very fast forget his given promises only for the reason that the fine will be a little bit less drastically. Your client will be coming first into the focus of the investigators, because you are selling his products. So your client or broker will in the best case provide the contact details of his partner in crime to the state attorney for getting a better deal for his own judgement. He will even try to make you alone guilty for his own fails. You need to have in this case proofs for your own protection and defense.

To answer this question we take the service from Alexa, an Amazon company, which got founded 1996. This is the true pioneer in the world of web analytics and got the necessary experience over the years. How their data are collected and have to get interpreted is declared under the menu About Us on the Alexa website:

Alexa's traffic estimates are based on data from our global traffic panel, which is a sample of millions of Internet users using one of over 25,000 different browser extensions. In addition, we gather much of our traffic data from direct sources in the form of sites that have chosen to install the Alexa script on their site and certify their metrics. However, site owners can always choose to keep their certified metrics private.

Our global traffic rank is a measure of how a website is doing relative to all other sites on the web over the past 3 months. The rank is calculated using a proprietary methodology that combines a site's estimated average of daily unique visitors and its estimated number of pageviews over the past 3 months. We provide a similar country-specific ranking, which is a measurement of how a website ranks in a particular country relative to other sites over the past month.

Let us take a look at some actual ranking examples from Alexa (the ranking of the best sites can get found here):

#1 google.com
#2 facebook.com
#3 youtube,com
#15 linkedin.com
#26 bing.com
#109 nytimes.com
#173 forbes.com
#258 google.at
#327 google.com.ph
#1163 heise.de (a IT magazine publisher from Germany)
#1449 orf.at (the Austrian TV station)
#3894 golem.de (IT and gaming online news from Germany)
#5528 krone.at (an Austrian daily newspaper)
#10563 kurier.at (an Austrian daily newspaper)

If you take a look at all this sites, then you see that all this sites have a lot of content. The content is bringing the visitors and the site metrics are getting considered in the search results of the search engines. It does not help you if you make a site, optimize it for a few keywords and think that you get now a lot of traffic. If you have no content on your site, which is interesting for your readers, then they are faster away then they have been coming.

SEO helps you only in starting a website. If you are not bringing new information and make your readers interested, then your website will not perform. In such a case you can create back-links optimize for keywords and result will be that nobody will visit or revisit your site.That gives you a bad ranking and you can start from the beginning again, because you'll lose your ranking in the search engines.

We can see an example about such a result from a Skype communication, which I had today in the morning:

He: We have spent around $7000 for Data itself to run the processes but we went in total loss. So now we are mostly looking for process where the clients give the specific data

Me: The data, which you can buy, are already heavy used by other centers. Responsible for this is the data protection law in the traditional outsourcing countries

He: Yes, we use to get lot of duplicate leads looks like the vendor sale the same data to multiple centers. Just know somebody suggested us to generate our own data with by developing websites and taking SEO Help.

Me: You'll not get enough data from a website to run a call center. There are so many websites, which are never getting visited by someone. Promotion at the good websites will be very expensive. It will be only profitable if the payout very high, but there is another rule: "As higher the offered payout is as less sales will be done."

You can take a look at the ranking of my blog at Alexa and compare it with the unique visitors, which are visiting my blog:

Yesterday I have started a free service from geovisites.com, which is listing the unique visitors per country. The geovisites are running since yesterday morning. On the right site of geovistes is listed the full day.:

Do you thing that one from the 38 US visitors will drop his phone number? If you are lucky then 1 from 1000 will do it. You'll see at Alexa that 18 millions of domains, which are having fewer visitors.

He: yes.. now I understood the equation, it's difficult to achieve. We are currently running a Online Campaign for Drug and alcohol rehab which went online a month ago, and the SEO work was done by a professional still it didn't gave us any inbound call: www.dictionbreakfree.com

Me: Alexa says about dictionbreakfree.com: We don't have enough data to rank this website. You see, the seo work alone brings nothing.

That it is not necessary to register your site at Alexa is showing the example from one of my customer. He made only a website for having one. His customers are property management companies, with he has contracts. For this he made never a SEO or registered his site somewhere. The site weber-haustechnik.at exists already around 20 years. Even this site has a better traffic ranking then the above one with SEO:

He: Oh God, i was having high expectations

Me: Seo is only search engine optimization. That alone does not bring visitors.

He: Sir i have found that when i look for process in Google search your blog is listed mostly on first page or second page ... so i think the quality of the articles also plays an important role in driving the traffic.

Me: Sure, the content makes the search engine optimization. Google is using similar data or the data from Alexa too.

He: I was not aware of that. We try to outsource SEO work to freelancers who were taking fewer fees. May be next time we should try with an expert who is good in SEO and content writing

Resume: Forget everything about SEO and tricking the search engines. If you like to get visitors coming to your site, then you have to write quality content about the topic of your website. Everything else is not more than a cat, which is hunting her own tail!.

If you are not permanently adding content to your website, then your website will be soon only a hidden secret in the World Wide Web. If you think you need to add only a few pictures and that is it, then you are wrong. Nobody is searching for pictures and pictures are not getting indexed by the search engines.

Tricking the search engines with optimizing the content for them, bring you only for a short time in front of the result list for the used keywords, but there is no guarantee that it brings you some visitors. As soon as they are changing their indexing algorithm you can get found as the last entry of a search result. Only quality content keeps you permanently in front and brings visitors to your site.

A website is like a store window - if the content does not change it will not attract customers.