2008.07.28 08:49 "[Tiff] CVS access", by Mateusz Łoskot
-
2008.07.28 13:01 "[Fwd: Re: [Tiff] CVS access]", by Edward Lam
- 2008.07.28 14:02 "Re: [Tiff] CVS access", by Mateusz Loskot
-
2008.08.11 20:55 "Re: [Tiff] windows 64 bit build", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.08.11 19:35 "Re: [Tiff] windows 64 bit build", by Mikhail Kruk
- 2008.08.11 17:57 "[Tiff] windows 64 bit build", by Mikhail Kruk
- 2008.08.11 20:03 "Re: [Tiff] windows 64 bit build", by Edward Lam
- 2008.08.11 20:51 "Re: [Tiff] windows 64 bit build", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.08.11 19:35 "Re: [Tiff] windows 64 bit build", by Mikhail Kruk
2008.07.30 09:32 "Re: [Tiff] CVS access", by Andrew Brooks
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:43:37 +0100, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Given it's bogus, it's hard to understand why so many links point at it. Is the google ranking being manipulated?
Cynical suggestion: given that the bogus page carries Google Adverts and the new page does not, if you were Google which page would you put first?
Andrew