Useful information from FEEDJIT: Rule #1: Never get someone with a low quality or spammy site to link to you. Ever.

I like feedjit.com. I use the free version.
You see on this blog that I have Feedjit Live Traffic Feed and Feedjit Live Traffic Map.
At the bottom of the Feedjit Live Traffic Feed box, I click on Real Time View.
That is a very interesting thing to analyze your website.
Mine is this: http://live.feedjit.com/live/dorincard.blogspot.com/0/

http://feedjit.com/blog/2010/the-daily-feed-issue-10-the-rules-of-linking/

It looks like we should strictly limit the number and assess the quality of the websites linked to our own websites.

Now let's talk about EDITING.

Whenever you write something, it's very useful to EDIT it: maybe there are mistakes, redundancies, etc.

When somebody points out to you a mistake in your text, then your best attitude would be to honestly admit it, and to see what can be done to fix it.

You can be grateful to your new, unofficial editor right then, later, or never.

What do YOU (people from around the world) think of this?

I have sent this email to feedjit about the above hyperlinked issue10:

"What's the difference between rule#1 and 4?

:)

"Rule #1: Never get someone with a low quality or spammy site to link to you. Ever. 

This will hurt your ranking in Google and it's tough to recover once you've been flagged as a spam site or part of a "bad neighborhood". 

Rule #4: Only link to high quality sites no matter how badly someone begs or pleads that you link to them.

Linking to a spam or low quality site will hurt your ranking."

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

I got this answer:

"Hi Dorin,

We were just trying to point out the difference between bad sites linking to you and your site linking to bad sites so people would think about both of these types of links. Most people just worry about who their site links to and don't think about the impact of having bad sites link to them."
---------------------------
Well, I get the point, it makes sense, but I think that this answer is...DEFLECTIVE.
I wish that my question got a straight answer.


Anyway, I strongly recommend everybody to visit http://feedjit.com and select at least the cool, free widgets that I mentioned above, if not the paid pro version.
:)

Yes, that's an euphemism. postage stamp from Zazzle.com

Yes, that's an euphemism. postage stamp from Zazzle.com

Not a true canyon: Bryce Canyon (USA) - maximum card that I created with an FDOI (First Day Of Issue) postmark

In the above MC, notice (click on it to enlarge) below the round cancel the group of horse riders (or mule riders?) on the trail.

This is a very interesting and weird landscape.

Not VOODOO, but HOODOO.

"Bryce Canyon National Park (pronounced /ˈbraɪs/) is a national park located in southwestern Utah in the United States. The major feature of the park is Bryce Canyon which, despite its name, is not actually a canyon but a giant natural amphitheater created by erosion along the eastern side of the Paunsaugunt Plateau. Bryce is distinctive due to geological structures called hoodoos, formed by wind, water and ice erosion of the river and lake bed sedimentary rocks. The red, orange and white colors of the rocks provide spectacular vistas for park visitors."

"Bryce Canyon was not formed from erosion initiated from a central stream, meaning it technically is not a canyon. Instead headward erosion has excavated large amphitheater-shaped features in the Cenozoic-aged rocks of the Paunsagunt Plateau.^[5] This erosion exposed delicate and colorful pinnacles called hoodoos that are up to 200 feet (61 m) high. "

Another brick in the wall?

No, another hole in the wall, rather.

Here's another impressive view from there: Thor's Hammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_Canyon