Google's top search ranking factors & CTR in SERPs

27 replies
  • SEO
  • |
In a Q&A session Andrey Lipattsev, a Search Quality Senior Strategist at Google, said the most important two factors are links and content. Last year they claimed that Rank Brain was the third most important factor. This is how SEL got the list of the top three. The top two are hardly surprising to any SEOer.

Brian Dean recently linked to this slide deck by Google's Paul Haahr. He seems to confirm that Google is in fact using clicks from search, CTR, and clicks back to search as a ranking factor. This is of course something that people have been suspecting for ages. They also test their own search results by doing A/B live testing. Haahr said that if you do a query you're often taking part in at least one test.

Here's Haahr's talk from SMX West:


Nothing new, but a couple of small confirmations from Google.

(Sorry for a shortened link, but WF tries to embed slideshare and fails miserably.)
#factors #google’s #ranking #search #top
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

    In a Q&A session Andrey Lipattsev, a Search Quality Senior Strategist at Google, said the most important two factors are links and content.

    Technically it's (followed links + text).

    I'm not trying to nit pick just pointing those things out because any old link isn't ranking a page (ex: nofollow link, javascript link, flash link, etc...) & content doesn't necessarily have to be articles like most IMers would assume. It's plain text that's optimized for SEO which can be any text on a webpage (ex: heading tags, alt-text, image captions, anchor-text, page title, bullet list, tables, etc...) basically any text that shows up on the text version of a webpage.

    Really I shouldn't even say webpage because it could be any file type that Google can index. They all rank the exact same way (followed links + text).

    [source]
    • Adobe Flash (.swf)
    • Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf)
    • Adobe PostScript (.ps)
    • Autodesk Design Web Format (.dwf)
    • Google Earth (.kml, .kmz)
    • GPS eXchange Format (.gpx)
    • Hancom Hanword (.hwp)
    • HTML (.htm, .html, other file extensions)
    • Microsoft Excel (.xls, .xlsx)
    • Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt, .pptx)
    • Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx)
    • OpenOffice presentation (.odp)
    • OpenOffice spreadsheet (.ods)
    • OpenOffice text (.odt)
    • Rich Text Format (.rtf, .wri)
    • Scalable Vector Graphics (.svg)
    • TeX/LaTeX (.tex)
    • Text (.txt, .text, other file extensions), including source code in common programming languages:
    • Basic source code (.bas)
    • C/C++ source code (.c, .cc, .cpp, .cxx, .h, .hpp)
    • C# source code (.cs)
    • Java source code (.java)
    • Perl source code (.pl)
    • Python source code (.py)
    • Wireless Markup Language (.wml, .wap)
    • XML (.xml)






    Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

    Brian Dean recently linked to this slide deck by Google's Paul Haahr. He seems to confirm that Google is in fact using clicks from search, CTR, and clicks back to search as a ranking factor. This is of course something that people have been suspecting for ages. They also test their own search results by doing A/B live testing. Haahr said that if you do a query you're often taking part in at least one test.

    Here's Haahr's talk from SMX West:

    SMX West 2016 - How Google Works: A Google Ranking Engineer's Story - YouTube

    Nothing new, but a couple of small confirmations from Google.

    (Sorry for a shortened link, but WF tries to embed slideshare and fails miserably.)


    Like you said, we already knew traffic clicking back to a search query was a bad idea. If anything it's a complete fail on behalf of sales conversions. No point in doing SEO If traffic is going to bail once they reach the money page.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10625995].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    I'm watching the OP video now, funny Paul mentions Pagerank at 9:22.

    Hasn't anyone told Google Pagerank is dead?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626044].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I'm watching the OP video now, funny Paul mentions Pagerank at 9:22.

      Hasn't anyone told Google Pagerank is dead?
      Why would they?? He's a Google engineer who can still see pagerank internally. Its not dead to him but its dead to everyone else because they will never again know the actual pagerank for any site on the web..
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626099].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Why would they?? He's a Google engineer who can still see pagerank internally. Its not dead to him but its dead to everyone else because they will never again know the actual pagerank for any site on the web..

        It's not dead for everyone else. We already know the ranking process & the process still exist today.

        Who cares If the spoon feeding is gone, that just separates the wannabes from the pros that know how to do SEO & link profile research.

        If anything Google made it easier to rank pages by hiding public PR.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626118].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          It's not dead for everyone else. We already know the ranking process & the process still exist today.
          That makes no difference yuke. No one is denying quality and authoritative links help to rank sites but that you know based on that the exact value of a page is just pure smoke blowing .Its nonsense and utter nonsense at that

          that just separates the wannabes from the pros that know how to do SEO & link profile research.
          Go ahead and tell me the exact value of a link source in terms of pagerank by ahem link profile research. Silly squared. You don't know the value of any link on the web now. NONE of them in the profile. Only what it used to be 2 and a half years ago.

          Can you guess? why yes. You can make some decent guesses where there are sites you know. You can even look at serps and see some common sites where the receivers are ranking. For example - Adobe probably has strength CNN etc etc but to say that you know how that breaks down for every page though internal pagerank flow and loss or gained links is just gibberish.

          If anything Google made it easier to rank pages by hiding public PR.
          in some cases yes particularly if you are dealing with bought links and placing your own links and some fools are now going DA only to determine strength but everyone is ten times more likely to end up with some duds too inlink building because no system now is not based on guessing even yours.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626156].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Go ahead and tell me the exact value of a link source in terms of pagerank by ahem link profile research. Silly squared. You don't know the value of any link on the web now. NONE of them in the profile. Only what it used to be 2 and a half years ago.

            At least you made enough sense to prove my point about wannabes vs SEOs.

            I should send Google a Thank You card.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626184].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              At least you made enough sense to prove my point about wannabes vs SEOs.
              You proved squat and any objective person that reads this will know you proved squat because even a fool at SEO would know that you can't know the internal pagerank numbers google assigns to a page unless they tell you or you work there.

              such silliness

              I should send Google a Thank You card.
              You should and have them post it on a new page and then you can tell us what the pagerank of that page is by studying the link profile............rofl
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626199].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                Banned
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626740].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  [DELETED]
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630669].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author yukon
                    Banned
                    [DELETED]
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630706].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      [DELETED]
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630722].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author yukon
                        Banned
                        [DELETED]
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630771].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          [DELETED]
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630829].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author yukon
                            Banned
                            [DELETED]
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630861].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              [DELETED]
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630887].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                                Banned
                                [DELETED]
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631023].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author patco
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Why would they?? He's a Google engineer who can still see pagerank internally. Its not dead to him but its dead to everyone else because they will never again know the actual pagerank for any site on the web..
        Yes. True indeed! I also think that the database of all website's PR is still updated, but it's not public anymore... But who pays attention to PR
        Signature

        A blog that will show you How to Lose Weight with a cool Quick Weight Loss guide...
        Also enjoy some of my favorite Funny pictures and photos that will make you smile :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626129].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by patco View Post

          Yes. True indeed! I also think that the database of all website's PR is still updated, but it's not public anymore... But who pays attention to PR
          because we can't and its dead to everyone else but google. However a few people are really confusing the life out of the newbs by claiming nothing has changed and they know how to determine pr without PR being publically available.

          "We are the pros and we can determine ( not just guess it) PR by looking at the links."

          Its nonsense. I am not saying that you can't still determine a good link here and there based upon what you know for some sites but you darn well don't know every site on the net or how link juice is flowing internally in it.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626163].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            because we can't and its dead to everyone else but google. However a few people are really confusing the life out of the newbs by claiming nothing has changed and they know how to determine pr without PR being publically available.
            I don't remember ever seeing any SEO claim that they know the actual PR. I also have no idea why anyone would claim such an utterly moronic thing.

            Yes, we don't see any up-to-date number for PR, but that's been the case for the last couple of years. The numbers haven't been accurate enough to use for any purpose. 3rd party metrics aren't necessarily accurate either, but they're your best bet.

            But don't we all more or less agree on this? I don't really see any controversy here.

            If you're experienced enough you can sort of see how the link juice could flow, but these have always been concepts rather than exact measurable data. Well, at least that's my point of view. Maybe others have done more robust testing than me.
            Signature
            Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
            Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

            What's your excuse?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626367].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

              I don't remember ever seeing any SEO claim that they know the actual PR. I also have no idea why anyone would claim such an utterly moronic thing.
              I don't know why anyone would either but when you see someone claiming nothing has changed with the pagerank toolbar turned off and you can just look at the backlinks of a page whats the difference? you are right - its an utterly moronic thing.

              All anyone has to do is read this thread and they will see someone objecting to the most obvious of observations of what has most definitely changed - You can;t know what the PR metric is on any site. Looking at backlinks with no PR data either will not give you a fix You have to give your best guess and as you stated use the best tools still available to save valuable time. in some cases based on knowing certain sites in some way your guess can be pretty good but its going to be a suspect guess many many many times when you don't

              In addition the one person objecting to these most obvious observations is the same person who decries all still available tools such as Moz and Majestic metrics because they are guesses and tries to pretend that just looking to the backlinks is not just guessing too and with a whole lot less data.

              Total silliness.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630673].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                I don't know why anyone would either but when you see someone claiming nothing has changed with the pagerank toolbar turned off and you can just look at the backlinks of a page whats the difference? you are right - its an utterly moronic thing.
                The context tends to be "what's new in SEO" or "PR went away, now what", and this is a reply to that. In the grand scheme of things the way that Google uses backlinks hasn't changed that much. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate misunderstanding from your part.

                PR has always been a sort of useless metric. It's not even nearly up-to-date, and it's been way too easy to scam. Of course it was more useful back in the day, but it was still the basis for your best guess.
                Signature
                Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
                Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

                What's your excuse?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630685].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

                  The context tends to be "what's new in SEO" or "PR went away, now what", and this is a reply to that. In the grand scheme of things the way that Google uses backlinks hasn't changed that much. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate misunderstanding from your part.
                  Theres no misunderstanding. deliberate or otherwise. Read the thread - a point was made about an engineer at google mentioning PR so it has not gone away. I made the obvious point that the guy works at Google where it has not gone away so it does not relate to everyone. I am not sure why you are trying to imply I am saying the use of backlinks has changed and don't know whether that is deliberate either.

                  The point is pretty obvious.When google or google engineers talk about PR now it is of limited practical value because they are not telling you what the Pr value is.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10630707].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    The point is pretty obvious.When google or google engineers talk about PR now it is of limited practical value because they are not telling you what the Pr value is.
                    You're just repeating stuff that's obvious and in the thread, and presenting that as a point of some sort. I'm guessing it's futile to "argue" with you.

                    Yes, I also saw what you did there - completely skipped my remark about the context because it didn't fit your narrative.

                    Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

                    Google updates PR on a daily basis.

                    PR has never, nor will be, a useless metric.
                    As a ranking factor it's indeed one of the best that Google or anyone else has ever came up with. It's not that great as a metric for us outside of Google. That's my entire point.
                    Signature
                    Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
                    Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

                    What's your excuse?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631370].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

                      You're just repeating stuff that's obvious and in the thread,
                      If i am simple repeating what is obvious why is Yukon objecting to several of my posts to what is obviously true to him? He should be happy at my points since it so obvious. Perhaps you can answer that rather than skipping that context to falsely charge me with skipping context to suit my own narrative. Why is Yukon disagreeing with SEVERAL statements that are as you called it - obvious? .

                      As a ranking factor it's indeed one of the best that Google or anyone else has ever came up with. It's not that great as a metric for us outside of Google. That's my entire point.
                      But Paul disagrees and says its useful even without it being available outside google. So strangely he is telling you what you are statng is not obvious to him as well. How can you not see that to claim I am missing context? Your own narrative with paul shows you two do not agree either on what you call 'obvious".

                      seems pretty obvious you are just ignoring context out of friendship with Yukon not me ignoring context.

                      context is also determined by many thinsg including what has been said in other thread sby the same parties. You for example say the metrics we have are the best we can do . In other threads the same parties say that the other metrics are near worthless and you can just look at the link profile instead.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631397].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        Your own narrative with paul shows you two do not agree either on what you call 'obvious".
                        I tend to disagree with Paul about 50% of the time. You know, that would be exactly the reason why I bothered to reply to his comment.

                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        seems pretty obvious you are just ignoring context out of friendship with Yukon not me ignoring context.
                        I know none of these guys on any level that I'd label as friendship. I have no clue who Yukon is. I'm not sure where you even pulled that kind of conclusion. I don't particularly care for your shared history or whatever backstory you have. Obviously I speak only for myself.

                        If Yukon objects to your comments how about addressing his argument instead of bringing some old "he said, he said" to the thread? Granted, my conclusion on what he was trying to say was based on my impression from those other discussions too.

                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        Also it would be pretty easy for Google to have a trust factor that includes sites that more readily get links form other sites within a niche beyond generic PR. again with medical sites getting links from other high authority site picked by google would make sense.
                        Yeah, this seems like something they do. I'm not sure if they've disclosed how they determine "trust" if they even do that, but people at least think that the best links are niche specific. And that would make a lot of sense.
                        Signature
                        Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
                        Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

                        What's your excuse?
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631744].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author paulgl
                  Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

                  PR has always been a sort of useless metric. It's not even nearly up-to-date,...
                  Google updates PR on a daily basis.

                  PR is inherent to their (patented) search algo.

                  It's really what sets google apart from all the wannabes.

                  PR has never, nor will be, a useless metric.

                  Now some stuff here, is indeed...useless.

                  I can't see gravity, but I sure know it's working.

                  Paul
                  Signature

                  If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631166].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

                    PR has never, nor will be, a useless metric.
                    Yawn.....thats like saying inches are helpful when no one can measure them

                    or Pounds are useful when theres no scale to tell you how many pounds you or anything weighs

                    or miles per hour is helpful when no one has speedometers or radar to track

                    people are always blaming the newbies here for nonsense posts but recently its the old timers making the silliest posts.

                    Who in their right mind cares about a metric or finds it useful when they can't use it to measure anything???

                    SO I know that things weigh in pounds but no scale to tell what the pounds of anything is. Helpful right?

                    ROFL.... WF at its finest.

                    I can't see gravity, but I sure know it's working.
                    I don;t know what planet you are on but i can see gravity at work every time i throw something up. I can weigh the item and have a clock that can tell me how fast something goes up comes down. so yeah i can see and measure gravity

                    P. S. gravity itself isn't a measurement or a metric
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631179].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author irawr
    Banned
    Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

    In a Q&A session Andrey Lipattsev, a Search Quality Senior Strategist at Google, said the most important two factors are links and content. Last year they claimed that Rank Brain was the third most important factor. This is how SEL got the list of the top three. The top two are hardly surprising to any SEOer.

    Brian Dean recently linked to this slide deck by Google's Paul Haahr. He seems to confirm that Google is in fact using clicks from search, CTR, and clicks back to search as a ranking factor. This is of course something that people have been suspecting for ages. They also test their own search results by doing A/B live testing. Haahr said that if you do a query you're often taking part in at least one test.

    Here's Haahr's talk from SMX West:

    Nothing new, but a couple of small confirmations from Google.

    (Sorry for a shortened link, but WF tries to embed slideshare and fails miserably.)
    Great, after I'm done packing orders and dealing with auctions I'll watch that. Seems interesting.

    Edit: awesome thanks! There's a bit of internals discussions, things we didn't know publicly before, nothing that will rank your site, but indeed very interesting.

    Edit2: Slideshow is extremely revealing. Look at slide 23 carefully, I've been suggesting to people that all the ranking factors work like that for years.

    So in a competitive SERP, does https matter? Well it's going to be factor 100, so it's worth 1/100, probably doesn't matter. Same thing with social signals, people who say "well I build a site, buy social signals, then build links" always seem to swear by the social signals, anybody who does it the other way around argues that social signals do nothing...

    Note: Theory and probably bad math ahead

    Granted we'll never know how Google weights everything out but let's say you optimize for a factor that logically can't be worth much. Like https, let's say it's factor #50. So 0.02 / 4.499205338 = 0.0044452294344251

    So that factor contributes to 0.44% of your ranking, unless we operate a massive website, that's not going to do anything. In reality it's probably much less then that. Obtaining a single quality link will be a better use of our time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626347].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim3
    Thanks for posting that, it's a very interesting read, far removed from the usual.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10626965].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author deepakrajput
    I think your site have all features w3validation than you don't need above these points.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10628688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim3
    I don't want to chuck petrol on the blaze here guys, just sprinkle some water on it

    Can we just clarify a small point...

    Is it not correct that nofollow links, although not passing PR, do 'absorb' or dilute some of the 'juice' flowing into a page, thus the lowering the outflowing PR.

    Wasn't this introduced by Big G some time ago to prevent PR sculpting? I'm almost sure there's a Matt Cutts video on this somewhere. Thoughts?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631095].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Tim3 View Post


      Is it not correct that nofollow links, although not passing PR, do 'absorb' or dilute some of the 'juice' flowing into a page, thus the lowering the outflowing PR.
      Yes think it was back in 2009 some changes were made but it certainly does not stop all PR from flowing to internal pages through some "followed" navigational links to make all new internal pages real NAs. shucks even some pages with no links with next to no links got PR zero and PR internal to Google was even fractional although the toolbar only showed whole values.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631125].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tim3
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Yes think it was back in 2009 some changes were made but it certainly does not stop all PR from flowing to internal pages through some "followed" navigational links to make all new internal pages real NAs. shucks even some pages with no links with next to no links got PR zero and PR internal to Google was even fractional although the toolbar only showed whole values.
        Thanks for confirming that Mike, it may also help clarify things a bit more anyone else who may be reading this thread.

        Yes, I too noticed back in the day that sites went from N/A to 0 without any external links, but back then I never had time to give it much thought and it never occured to me at the time it may well have been due to internal links.

        Maybe there is actually more to the whole linking thing than Big G has ever let on, because it directly affects the SERP's, and they keep a few secrets up their sleeves.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631168].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Tim3 View Post

          Maybe there is actually more to the whole linking thing than Big G has ever let on, because it directly affects the SERP's, and they keep a few secrets up their sleeves.
          not only that Tim but for all the blather about we know how pr works whats to stop google in the last few years with no Pr update slowly changing how that works in each algo update?? Webmasters and SEOs being in the dark are exactly what google wants why they stopped updating PR publicly.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631187].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tim3
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            not only that Tim but for all the blather about we know how pr works whats to stop google in the last few years with no Pr update slowly changing how that works in each algo update?? Webmasters and SEOs being in the dark are exactly what google wants why they stopped updating PR publicly.
            Agreed, I think some folks tend to think of Big G as just another giant company, they forget that some of the people they employ are extremely brilliant at computer science, and know exactly how to game their own systems, and what tools are needed for webmasters to attempt it.

            I also think they were a bit naive in the first place making PR public, but there could be no way that Mr P. and Mr.B could have ever foresaw how their company would expand at an almost impossible rate, and the that everyone and his mother and their dog would completely deluge their creation with crap to make a buck.

            It was only a matter of time before they got around to targeting everything that is not 100% legit.

            Your other post just now makes a great of sense too, there is definitely a shift in the SERP's for some markets, when I look at the SERP's it makes me think Big G has Whitelist, and if you're not on it, you ain't getting in the SERP, might be my paranoia but we'll see.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631236].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by Tim3 View Post

              Your other post just now makes a great of sense too, there is definitely a shift in the SERP's for some markets, when I look at the SERP's it makes me think Big G has Whitelist, and if you're not on it, you ain't getting in the SERP, might be my paranoia but we'll see.
              Correlation doesn't equal causation but there is definitely something to be said for the fact that something with major brands gets preference. I think it probably comes under user intent they talk about. I am not going to lie. I want to see certain sites rank for certain searches. for eg my intent on some medical searches is to get sites like webmd

              Also it would be pretty easy for Google to have a trust factor that includes sites that more readily get links form other sites within a niche beyond generic PR. again with medical sites getting links from other high authority site picked by google would make sense.

              Of course it could just be links - major corporations can pretty much buy links with promotions. You and I do a promotion on something no one cares. Pepsi does one and it s picked up in the trade journals. We can give to charities and nothing much to it but again they do charity work it makes news due to corporate status.

              Thanks for the intelligent exchange. At this point i am going to withdraw from this thread as I don;t see much more going on here but denials of the obvious on a number of fronts.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10631445].message }}

Trending Topics