|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2005 > Interest in CRSQA continues to wane
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Interest in CRSQA continues to wane
|
|
|
| www.alexa.com is a site which ranks websites according to the traffic
they receive. The lower the number, the better your site is ranked.
Last year at this time, CRSQA's site was ranked at 122,000, dropping
off dramatically from a score of about 90,000 earlier in 2003. At that
time, Glenn blamed CRSQA's waning performance on the popularity of
20,000 sites selling the Paris Hilton video. CRSQA has dropped a
staggering additional 315,700 points since last year at this time.
Here is Alexa's current information for www.usaeyes.org:
Consumer organization providing information about wavefront, LASIK, and
other refractive surgery techniques, plus referral to a network of
certified surgeons.
Traffic Rank for usaeyes.org: 437,700
Are those surgeons who pay outrageous fees to retain certification
complaining, Glenn, about the lack of traffic to your site?
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote in
news:1103180770.920855.73460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> www.alexa.com is a site which ranks websites according to the traffic
> they receive. The lower the number, the better your site is ranked.
> Last year at this time, CRSQA's site was ranked at 122,000, dropping
> off dramatically from a score of about 90,000 earlier in 2003. At that
> time, Glenn blamed CRSQA's waning performance on the popularity of
> 20,000 sites selling the Paris Hilton video. CRSQA has dropped a
> staggering additional 315,700 points since last year at this time.
>
> Here is Alexa's current information for www.usaeyes.org:
>
> Consumer organization providing information about wavefront, LASIK, and
> other refractive surgery techniques, plus referral to a network of
> certified surgeons.
>
> Traffic Rank for usaeyes.org: 437,700
>
> Are those surgeons who pay outrageous fees to retain certification
> complaining, Glenn, about the lack of traffic to your site?
>
>
If what Sandy says is true, and if what others have reported is true, it
would appear that interest in all informational websites dedicated to
refractive surgery is on the wane.
DrG
| |
|
| In article <1103180770.920855.73460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
> www.alexa.com is a site which ranks websites according to the traffic
> they receive. The lower the number, the better your site is ranked.
> Last year at this time, CRSQA's site was ranked at 122,000, dropping
> off dramatically from a score of about 90,000 earlier in 2003. At that
> time, Glenn blamed CRSQA's waning performance on the popularity of
> 20,000 sites selling the Paris Hilton video. CRSQA has dropped a
> staggering additional 315,700 points since last year at this time.
>
> Here is Alexa's current information for www.usaeyes.org:
>
> Consumer organization providing information about wavefront, LASIK, and
> other refractive surgery techniques, plus referral to a network of
> certified surgeons.
>
> Traffic Rank for usaeyes.org: 437,700
>
> Are those surgeons who pay outrageous fees to retain certification
> complaining, Glenn, about the lack of traffic to your site?
Sandy
Could you please explain why you revel in the fact that people are
seeking less information about LASIK? Refractive surgery is not going
to go away. Shouldn't all our efforts go into making it a safer and
better procedure? An educated consumer is going to demand better
service from their doctors. I think that CRSQA arms the consumer with
questions and expectations that will make the experience better overall.
Isn't that better than someone going into the procedure totally "blind"?
--
~RT
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in
news:Xns95C149B626567drgleukomacom@204.127.204.17:
> "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote in
> news:1103180770.920855.73460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> If what Sandy says is true, and if what others have reported is true, it
> would appear that interest in all informational websites dedicated to
> refractive surgery is on the wane.
>
> DrG
>
On second thought, there could be another reason related to what Glenn had
asserted, which is that the surfer is distracted by an explosion of
websites, such that websites with formerly large numbers of hits are seeing
their visitations decline...?
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:RTMD24-35FD7F.08071416122004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com:
>
> Could you please explain why you revel in the fact that people are
> seeking less information about LASIK? Refractive surgery is not going
> to go away. Shouldn't all our efforts go into making it a safer and
> better procedure? An educated consumer is going to demand better
> service from their doctors. I think that CRSQA arms the consumer with
> questions and expectations that will make the experience better
> overall. Isn't that better than someone going into the procedure
> totally "blind"?
>
What then do you make of the NICE report and the Parliamentary Board of
Enquiry's recommendations coming out of the UK to provide better consumer
education as well as better standards?
DrG
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-16, 11:10 am |
| RT,
Aren't activists in most areas subdivided into different groups with
different philosophies? This is fair. People have to follow what they
believe. I happen to be of the school that believes in what you suggest
- making it safer and better and eductating consumers. It CAN be done,
as some of the developments in the UK are now showing, with increased
attention to safety standards and consumers becoming more sophisticated
in the information they demand before having surgery. But we don't all
have to be clones of each other. For everyone who cares about future
consumers there is a useful role to be played.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2004-12-16, 11:10 am |
| Interest in websites about refractive surgery has dropped, I believe,
because "word-of-mouth" information is more readily available. There
is an old saying that a happy customer tells a friend, but an unhappy
customer tells everyone. That has certainly happened in the case of
LASIK information. EVERYONE who walks in the door seems to know
someone who has had it and loves their results. But, more and more
they temper their enthusiasm with "but I have another friend who hated
it."
Sandy wrote:
> www.alexa.com is a site which ranks websites according to the traffic
> they receive. The lower the number, the better your site is ranked.
> Last year at this time, CRSQA's site was ranked at 122,000, dropping
> off dramatically from a score of about 90,000 earlier in 2003. At
that
> time, Glenn blamed CRSQA's waning performance on the popularity of
> 20,000 sites selling the Paris Hilton video. CRSQA has dropped a
> staggering additional 315,700 points since last year at this time.
>
> Here is Alexa's current information for www.usaeyes.org:
>
> Consumer organization providing information about wavefront, LASIK,
and
> other refractive surgery techniques, plus referral to a network of
> certified surgeons.
>
> Traffic Rank for usaeyes.org: 437,700
>
> Are those surgeons who pay outrageous fees to retain certification
> complaining, Glenn, about the lack of traffic to your site?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-16, 11:10 am |
| Yet again Keller's misleading subject line does not stand up to
scrutiny.
CRSQA's USAEyes.org website is currently ranked by Alexa at 437,700
with a 4-1/2 star rating. This does not include traffic to our sister
website ComplicatedEyes.org with a relatively low rank of 2,698,436
but an impressive five star rating. AskLasikDocs is ranked 458,201
with no stars. SurgicalEyes, which is ranked 806,604, has a 3 star
rating. LaserMyEye is ranked 860,963 with no stars. Keller's own
website is ranked 999,534 with no stars. Malpractice attorney
Berschadsky's LasikInfoCenter is ranked 1,661,843 with no stars.
Hanson's LasikFraud is ranked 4,361,426 with no stars. LasikMemorial
is too low to be ranked.
There are many reasons why the Alexa ratings have changed. One is
that when Amazon took over Alexa and attempted to merge it into a
ranking of the products sold on its website, the effectiveness and
relevance dramatically changed. Comparing rankings before the Amazon
takeover to rankings after the Amazon takeover are comparing two
different evaluation systems.
While CRSQA's Alexa ranking have dipped from pre-Amazon rankings -
indicating that more people are interested in other websites than
USAEyes.org - we appear to still be the highest ranked and most
popular of the LASIK related websites.
LaserMyEye and AskLasikDocs both have domain-based bulletin boards
that increase traffic, even if that traffic is from the same small
number of people visiting again and again and again. This is a
well-known technique to quickly boost ratings even though it does not
necessarily represent new visitors.
Everything is relative. Besides, what is more important than our
ranking is that patients have objective factually based information
available to them. The fact that more people want to visit non-LASIK
websites is neither surprising nor troubling.
So to answer the question posed; no Keller, CRSQA Certified Refractive
Surgeons are not complaining about our USAEyes.org website being
ranked by Alexa as the top independent LASIK information source.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| In article <1103210978.868808.225200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
> RT,
> Aren't activists in most areas subdivided into different groups with
> different philosophies? This is fair. People have to follow what they
> believe. I happen to be of the school that believes in what you suggest
> - making it safer and better and eductating consumers. It CAN be done,
> as some of the developments in the UK are now showing, with increased
> attention to safety standards and consumers becoming more sophisticated
> in the information they demand before having surgery. But we don't all
> have to be clones of each other. For everyone who cares about future
> consumers there is a useful role to be played.
Agreed. I wholeheartedly agree that for "everyone who cares about future
consumers there is a useful role to be played." That's why I'm
perplexed by Sandy's response to CRSQA's web ranking and wanted to know
why she's using this to challenge CRSQA in some way. Until she
responds, I can only guess she revels in the lower ranking because she's
not interested in helping "future" consumers, only commiserating with
people who have had bad outcomes already. So, if Sandy does consider
herself an "activist," then I would think she'd want people to arm
themselves with information. I know Sandy had a bad outcome, but people
will continue to have LASIK, and wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone
had great outcomes?
LASIK is a consumer driven market. Educated consumers who demand better
service and better pre-op evaluations can make the procedure safer and
better and hopefully ultimately more reliable.
--
~RT
| |
| Sandy 2004-12-17, 11:09 am |
| Would you say that Google page ranking is a better indicator?
If so, compare CRSQA's website to one of the less-visited pages on my
e-commerce site:
http://advantagebridal.com/ringbearers.html
It appears that my page of ringbearer tuxedos and gifts is as important
to Google as CRSQA's site is.
In fact, most of my top tier pages share CRSQA's Google page rank of 5.
So do www.lasikdisaster.com and www.surgicaleyes.org.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-17, 7:13 pm |
| Talk about comparing apples to bicycles. Now Keller wants to compare
the Google ranking of USAEyes.org to her bridal supply website. Good
heavens Keller, are you so desperate to try to find some way of making
CRSQA look less that you stoop this low, or are you just trying to use
this newsgroup to drum up business?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Simpledog 2004-12-17, 7:13 pm |
| Oh, it's
http://www.irwin.army.mil
"Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2Bnwd.17596$gd.14794@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Hey, mine is this;
>
> Information and details about the NTC located at Fort Irwin, California.
>
> Avg. Review for army.mil:
> Traffic Rank for army.mil: 1,765
>
> We're rebuilding it now (no, I am not the webmaster, we are contracting
> out a new high speed modern looking site)
>
>
> www.surgicaleyes.org/com
>
> Grassroots organization which exists to help people who have had
> unsuccessful Lasik, PRK, RK or other refractive surgeries that resulted in
> debilitating complications.
>
> Avg. Review for surgicaleyes.org:
> Traffic Rank for surgicaleyes.org: 806,604
>
> "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote in message
> news:1103180770.920855.73460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
| |
|
| I bet that made you happy...
Now more patients will be going to doctors they know nothing about
instead of a doctor that has at least been reviewed to some degree.
Maybe some of those patients will even go to the loser surgeon you
went to.. and he can screw up their vision.. and you will have more
friends to talk to.
On 15 Dec 2004 23:06:10 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>www.alexa.com is a site which ranks websites according to the traffic
>they receive. The lower the number, the better your site is ranked.
>Last year at this time, CRSQA's site was ranked at 122,000, dropping
>off dramatically from a score of about 90,000 earlier in 2003. At that
>time, Glenn blamed CRSQA's waning performance on the popularity of
>20,000 sites selling the Paris Hilton video. CRSQA has dropped a
>staggering additional 315,700 points since last year at this time.
>
>Here is Alexa's current information for www.usaeyes.org:
>
>Consumer organization providing information about wavefront, LASIK, and
>other refractive surgery techniques, plus referral to a network of
>certified surgeons.
>
>Traffic Rank for usaeyes.org: 437,700
>
>Are those surgeons who pay outrageous fees to retain certification
>complaining, Glenn, about the lack of traffic to your site?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-02, 2:08 am |
| How about an update on those Alexa rankings Keller was all aflutter
about.
AskLasikDocs is now 363,315 with a solid gain from 458,201 and is in
first place among the related websites. Kudos Dr. Trattler.
USAEyes.org moves up a bit to 397,294 from 437,700, and in a virtual
dead heat with AskLasikDocs. So despite Keller's subject line,
interest in CRSQA does not wane, but in fact grows. At least by the
Alexa rankings, anyway.
Keller's website gained a hair to 937,294 from 999,534.
SurgicalEyes heads further down to 1,014,529 from its previous
806,604. I believe this is the first time SurgicalEyes has fallen
below the one million mark.
LaserMyEye lost significant ground to 1,212,395 from 860,963, dipping
below the faltering SurgicalEyes.
Attorney Berschadsky's website really hasn't changed much at 1,693,175
compared to its previous 1,661,843.
ComplicatedEyes.org continues with a low ranking at 1,854,939, but up
significantly from its previous 2,698,436. Still nothing to rave
about, but nice growth and we have kept all those five stars.
It may be hard to believe, but Brent Hanson's website slipped further
into the abyss to 4,429,440 from its already dreadful 4,361,426.
Keller's LasikMemorial is still so low as to be off the radar.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| administrator@lasikcourt.com 2005-01-04, 7:12 pm |
| 1) Alexa rankings are absolutely meaningless. Alexa even publicly
admits
that any rankings above the 100,000 mark are worthless.
2) Alexa officially gets its rankings from a SPYWARE toolbar users must
intentionally install on their browser.
3) It is a fairly simply matter for a web master to skew the rankings.
I
once manipulated the rankings of my own site for a few days for
entertainment. Don't believe it? Here are some quotes from web master
forums.
========================================
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com...1#post18741=...
"Alexa Rankings are even easier to manipulate than SE ones. Install the
bar on your site and set it as your home page. Also, there are
companies that actually "sell" it by operating auto-click solutions."
========================================
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum...============...
"If you want to be in the top 100 it is easy. All you need is a coputer
with a macro program on it. Have it surf through your site all day
long. You can add several other computers and you will rock. It does
not care if it is from the same IP. "
========================================
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum5/4964.htm
========================================
"alexa rankings are totally useless. They are easily manipulated with
scripts and are on a daily basis.(to make it look like a website gets
more traffic than it really does)"
========================================
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156775
========================================
yea, alexa rank is completely capable of manipulation. I know a site
where two of the staff using the toolbar raised the rank from a 18,000
to 2,000.
"I hate alexa... It's got all my sites so wrong... I can't believe
ANYONE
takes it as accurate. If google did a thing like this or yahoo, the big
toolbars, we might believe it, but how many people have the alexa
toolbar..."
"So can Alexa through crap like alexabooster.com"
"Actually this isn't true at all. Alexa is completely worthless. Here
is a thread that gives examples of small sites manipulating Alexa
rankings so that they rank higher than sites that get over 10 times the
traffic:
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153286 The thread even
contains a Java script that allows you to manipulate your own Alexa
ranking.
"
"Based on what I have seen - using Alexa to estimate site traffic is a
worse alternative to guessing."
"You guys that like Alexa - how can you explain that a site with around
3
million page views per month is ranked much higher than a site with
well
over 30 million page views per month. This is how it is in my industry.
You are going to have a hard time convincing me that Alexa has any
value at all."
========================================
http://forums.seochat.com/archive/t-12647
========================================
"The secret that most newcomers to SEO love Alexa, is that because the
more you focus on it, the higher your site ranks! I fell into this trap
some time ago! I kept on visiting my site 10-20 times a day, and i was
impressed! My site jumped to the top 100,000 in no time! But now, as i
realized all this is fake, i uninstalled the toolbar, and my site is
slowly drifting back to the 1,000,000th position!!  "
| |
| Brent Hanson - LasikFraud.com 2005-01-05, 11:08 am |
| 1) Alexa rankings are absolutely meaningless. Alexa even publicly admits
that any rankings above the 100,000 mark are worthless.
2) Alexa officially gets its rankings from a SPYWARE toolbar users must
intentionally install on their browser.
3) It is a fairly simply matter for a web master to skew the rankings. I
once manipulated the rankings of my own site for a few days for
entertainment. Don't believe it? Here are some quotes from web master
forums.
========================================
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com...1#post18741=...
"Alexa Rankings are even easier to manipulate than SE ones. Install the bar
on your site and set it as your home page. Also, there are companies that
actually "sell" it by operating auto-click solutions."
========================================
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum...============...
"If you want to be in the top 100 it is easy. All you need is a coputer with
a macro program on it. Have it surf through your site all day long. You can
add several other computers and you will rock. It does not care if it is
from the same IP. "
========================================
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum5/4964.htm
========================================
"alexa rankings are totally useless. They are easily manipulated with
scripts and are on a daily basis.(to make it look like a website gets more
traffic than it really does)"
========================================
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156775
========================================
yea, alexa rank is completely capable of manipulation. I know a site where
two of the staff using the toolbar raised the rank from a 18,000 to 2,000.
"I hate alexa... It's got all my sites so wrong... I can't believe ANYONE
takes it as accurate. If google did a thing like this or yahoo, the big
toolbars, we might believe it, but how many people have the alexa
toolbar..."
"So can Alexa through crap like alexabooster.com"
"Actually this isn't true at all. Alexa is completely worthless. Here is a
thread that gives examples of small sites manipulating Alexa rankings so
that they rank higher than sites that get over 10 times the traffic:
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153286 The thread even
contains a Java script that allows you to manipulate your own Alexa ranking.
"
"Based on what I have seen - using Alexa to estimate site traffic is a worse
alternative to guessing."
"You guys that like Alexa - how can you explain that a site with around 3
million page views per month is ranked much higher than a site with well
over 30 million page views per month. This is how it is in my industry. You
are going to have a hard time convincing me that Alexa has any value at
all."
========================================
http://forums.seochat.com/archive/t-12647
========================================
"The secret that most newcomers to SEO love Alexa, is that because the more
you focus on it, the higher your site ranks! I fell into this trap some time
ago! I kept on visiting my site 10-20 times a day, and i was impressed! My
site jumped to the top 100,000 in no time! But now, as i realized all this
is fake, i uninstalled the toolbar, and my site is slowly drifting back to
the 1,000,000th position!! "
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:47 pm |
| So let's see how Keller's prediction of the demise of interest in our
website is faring.
CRSQA squeaked by the nearest website oriented primarily toward
refractive surgery coming in at Alexa ranking 275,893, up 286,011 in
the three month average. That puts us in the number one position, but
so close to AskLasikDocs as to be virtually tied.
AskLasikDocs is at 281,030, up a respectable 117,765 in the past three
months.
After a dip, LaserMyEye made significant comeback to 613,609, up
367,953 in the three month time period. Apparently burning Alcon in
effigy does well for ratings.
The three month average for LasikDisaster is 694,608, holding with a
small gain of 27,426.
SurgicalEyes made a rebound of sorts to 776,850, but is still 159,876
lower in the three month average.
ComplicatedEyes continues to stay toward the bottom at 1,683,691. The
one week gain is impressive, but there is still a 56,297 loss over the
three month average.
No need to report Hanson's website, since he will proclaim anything
that he does not agree with to not be of any value anyway.
Berschadsky's and Keller's LasikMemorial websites all but do not exist
in the Alexa rankings.
So I guess it would be fair to say that Keller is proven wrong once
again. Interest in CRSQA is waxing, not waning.
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-02-01, 2:47 pm |
| And as our internet-savvy friend Hanson showed, Alexa ratings are
easily manipulated and mean nothing. Most webmasters strive for a
better Google page rank. Hagele's main site is a PR5, while
http://www.lasikdisaster.com is a PR4. Not bad, considering that I
have no publicity agent, no surgeons paying me thousands upon thousands
of dollars to market my site, I don't submit it to search engines, and
my site has not received ANY press for quite a while. It has a very
respectable rank all due to the number of persons searching the
internet for lasik complications.
So, try again, Hagele.
| |
|
| On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 03:05:56 -0500, Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote
(in article <1107245156.594912.46810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> ):
> CRSQA squeaked by the nearest website oriented primarily toward refractive
> surgery coming in at Alexa ranking 275,893, up 286,011 in the three month
> average. That puts us in the number one position, but so close to
> AskLasikDocs as to be virtually tied.
Does this include all 50 or so other web addresses you acquired that redirect
to CRSQA? I have to admit I must have added 100 or so hits because I tried
them all--I bet several others did on this NG too. You should thank whoever
it was who posted all of those--it increased traffic for you.
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:47 pm |
| The Alexa ratings relate only to one website. If you go to another
website, it would not count. As example, if you visit our
ComplicatedEyes.org website, the visit would not be considered in the
ranking for our USAEyes.org website.
If you go to another domain that is forwarded to our website, our
website would get the credit for the visit, however this ONLY applies
if you have already downloaded the Alexa toolbar and have it active in
your Internet browser. If you have not downloaded the Alexa browser
toolbar, none of your visits will be counted toward the ranking of any
website.
As Hanson has noted, the Alexa toolbar is a spyware program that
records where you visit and sends that information (only) to their
servers. This is how they are able to evaluate the amount of traffic
a website receives.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:47 pm |
| >And as our internet-savvy friend Hanson showed, Alexa ratings are
>easily manipulated and mean nothing.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place? You started this
thread Keller.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:55:30 -0500, Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote
(in article <89nvv0tf941pq3vfp7ljlihtv78jhkuuk3@4ax.com> ):
> the Alexa toolbar is a spyware program that records where you visit and sends
> that information (only) to their servers. This is how they are able to
> evaluate the amount of traffic a website receives.
Oh well, sorry Glenn. I didn't help your rankings. I use a Mac and I double
the Alexa toolbar spyware is made to install on Macs.
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-02-03, 11:07 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
> Then why did you bring it up in the first place? You started this
> thread Keller.
>
At the time, I didn't know what Brent knew. Now I do. Maybe you
should read his post too, and you might learn what I did.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:21 pm |
| Thanks for the thought, RT. Let me guess. You are left handed.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:21 pm |
| Significantly more Mac users than average are left handed. Perhaps
this is because Mac has dominated the computer generated arts world.
I don't know if anyone has done a study on Mac eye dominance. 8^)
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:50:35 -0500, Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote
(in article <d69001dn1vm2nhtdbc2mlnu5rgnjm6f55b@4ax.com> ):
> Thanks for the thought, RT. Let me guess. You are left handed.
No, but I am left eye dominant
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:21 pm |
| Just so we all have this straight. You initially used the Alexa
rankings in an attempt to make CRSQA look bad, when in fact they
showed that USAEyes.org is the number one primarily LASIK oriented
website. Then when our numbers continued to climb up, you decided
that all this is irrelevant because of something Brent Hanson said.
Yea, that seems about the way you would do something. Quote it when
you think it serves your purpose, and then when it comes around to
bite you on your behind, use a statement from the opposite of a
credible source as an excuse to attempt to disregard your whole
embarrassing foolishness.
Too bad you can't just admit you made a fool of yourself (again),
laugh at yourself, and move on. Instead you just bury yourself
deeper...if that is even possible. All this for what? To try to make
CRSQA look bad? How childish.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:26:09 -0500, Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote
(in article <7mo001pmj5frojjk5jhjcp1rl7pb07tvrp@4ax.com> ):
> Yea, that seems about the way you would do something. Quote it when you
> think it serves your purpose, and then when it comes around to bite you on
> your behind, use a statement from the opposite of a credible source as an
> excuse to attempt to disregard your whole embarrassing foolishness.
We are all allowed to change our minds. There's no crime in that. We all
have to decide for ourselves what constitutes credible evidence.
What's dangerous is people who have made up their minds to think in a certain
way--and NOTHING will budge their notions. Then you might as well crawl
under a rock....or become the president of the United States.
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:21 pm |
| Good point RT. At least Keller did admit she was wrong about
something.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
| |
|
|