Website Creation - The Book-keepers Forum (UK)

Nuts4Numbers · Newbie

Website Creation

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

I've used Namesco for the past four years and they've always been pretty good.

Sure that we had a thread about this...

www.book-keepers.org.uk/t41880322/website-hosting-and-building/

You might also find this one useful www.book-keepers.org.uk/t45818911/marketing/

There are plenty of others but for some reason when we start talking about marketing debates that go off subject normally follow so I'll leave it with just those couple for starters.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

I can provide web domain name with web hosting for £30 a year. It will come with a control panel that you can use to set emails up (unlimited) and add things like Wordpress. (Google Cpanel for further info)

Other providers I would recommend are Vidahost, Fasthosts, 123-reg (email is extra but reasonably cheap). 1 & 1 offer a very good web builder but costs can soon escalate with add ons.

Rhianrach · Expert

We use fasthosts and they seem fine.

VinceH · Expert

I use 1&1 and while they do have some good points, overall I wouldn't recommend them, TBH.

For one thing, they annoy me from time to time by ringing me up to try to sell me additional features - MS Exchange most often. I'm not quite sure why the fact that I didn't want it the last 27 times doesn't give them the hint that I won't want it the 28th time they ring. Or the 29th time. Or the 30th time. That does seem to be happening a little less often now, though, which is something.

And their control panel is a pain in the neck. Once you know where everything is on it, it's easy enough - but that's usually the point they'll decide it's time to move everything around again, so you end up having to look for things.

And the control panel isn't a per-domain thing, it's one overall control panel to control all your domains, which means it's not very good if you want to provide hosting to others. I don't as a rule, but I sort of do in that despite the fact that I don't, some people have ended up coming to me and asking if I can (IYSWIM) - and I don't like turning down money. That means (for example) if someone wants to add a new email address (either as a forward to an existing mailbox, or as a new mailbox in its own right) they have to ask me to do it for them.

(It's possible there's a solution to this - an option to set up a control panel for hosted sites, but I don't do it often enough to have felt the need to look. It's certainly not something that's jumped out of me more generally.)

Those add-ons John mentions... just say no. It's simple enough. :)

I've not used their web builder features - I design my sites in a text editor and upload the pages via ftp - so I can't comment on that.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

VinceH wrote:
I've not used their web builder features - I design my sites in a text editor and upload the pages via ftp - so I can't comment on that.

A guy I know used it and I was quite impressed with the result. Just had a look on his facebook page, but he must have packed that business in because the website doesn't exist.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Would be interested to know what SEO people do.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Cheshire wrote:
Would be interested to know what SEO people do.

Hi Jo,

Their sole reason for existence is to irritate site moderators.

Therefore they are all very successful in their chosen career biggrin

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Lol.

Ok - re-phrase....I would be interested to know what SEO you lot do to improve the rankings of your websites.

VinceH · Expert

I don't do any. At least, I don't think in terms of SEO per se. My view is that the purpose of a website is to convey information, so my sites convey the information I want them to convey - any decent search results that are a result of that are a bonus and, IMO, are borne out of honesty, rather than an attempt to game the system.

In some case, I might add a meta keywords/description tag to the header section, but I'm inconsistent in that respect. It's sensible to do so (not least because some of my software can generate an alphabetical index based on such keywords, along with other things), but I'm forgetful: it's not really part of the content (as displayed on the visitor's screen) so it's something I'm inclined to leave until last... and then tend to forget.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

I had an interesting conversation with a pal of mine, who is a hypnotherapist, about such as she thought her business was the lead ranking on page one, until I explained that was only if you put the exact name of her business in the search engines. If you didn't know what her business was called and just out hypnotherapist and the rough area she was based in, then she didn't actually feature until about page twelve.....most peopel get bored by then. Shame given she is one of only three in about a 20 mile radio us and frankly one of the best in the whole area. With a few tweaks on the seo front people can find her. I agree a website should convey info but it does help if it at least does what the old yellow pages does for you and allow people to look you up without knowing your business name.

MarkS · Expert

Cheshire wrote:
Lol.

Ok - re-phrase....I would be interested to know what SEO you lot do to improve the rankings of your websites.

SEO work includes

1. Regular blog (not done any for about a month)

2. Regular tweets (again not done any for about a month)

3. Google Adwords

I am the only accountant in my town and I appear about 3 - 4 times on the first page of google when you type "accountant in ......" so pick up a lot of business locally. When ask where people got my details they say "from internet/google".

VinceH · Expert

"I agree a website should convey info but it does help if it at least does what the old yellow pages does for you and allow people to look you up without knowing your business name."

A fair enough point, so with that in mind, let's try a few experiments.

Since, as you say, people should be able to find someone without knowing their business name, the search term in this first experiment is superfluous, but let's do it anyway:

Search for "Soft Rock Software" (without the quotes). First result on Google and Bing, the first result after the 'sponsored' results on Yahoo, and the second result on DuckDuckGo.

But although we've established that as a superfluous test, there's an important point to make. Consider the name of my business - Soft Rock Software. In particular, consider the first two words: Soft Rock. That's a genre of music, and there is a lot of material on the subject (i.e. potential search results for it) on the web. What happens if we search just for that?

On Google, I'm on the second page (third up from the bottom before the search results).

On Bing, I'm the second result on page 1.

On Yahoo, I don't appear on the first half dozen pages.

On DuckDuckGo, I'm about half way down page 4.

Given that term, that isn't half bad all considered.

I don't really put any effort into advertising in this field, because I don't really want to be doing it - but if the search term is "soft rock bookkeeping" I'm back as the first result for each of those engines (after any sponsored crud). Change the word bookkeeping to accounts, and various pages of mine (not necessarily the main site) also appear very high. (On DuckDuckGo it's my 'official' Twitter account near the top).

As I say, I'm not that interested in pushing this aspect of my business, so searching for terms such as "bristol bookkeeping" is a waste of time - but what I am interested in, always, is developing software for RISC OS. Just searching for that is a little meaningless; if you had a RISC OS computer, and wanted some software for it, you'd probably search for a term describing the software you want. So, on the assumption you happen to want some software and one of my applications happens to fit the bill...

Let's say you want some website maintenance software: Search for: website maintenance RISC OS

First two results on Google: Mine.

Second and fourth results on Bing: Mine (fifth is someone else's site, but refers to my software, and the seventh link is also mine.

Yahoo's funny. The second link is a tag on one of my sites, which leads to items about someone else's (not unrelated) software - because I haven't updated WebChange in a very long time.

DuckDuckGo: Fourth link (and further down is that same third party site as above for Bing).

What if you like playing text adventure games and your platform is RISC OS? Try adventure game RISC OS.

Google: Third link is a game called Quicksand (mine).

Bing, eighth link isn't the game, but the development system I wrote for writing such games (Trellis). Oh, and scrolling down two more links is Quicksand.

Yahoo, second link is to an archived usenet announcement of the game. ("Soft Rock Software and Vince M Hudd, in association with a glass of lemonade and a ham roll, are pleased to announce the release of Quicksand* for RISC OS computers." The asterisk leads to the small print, which states that there is no quicksand in the game.)

DuckDuckGo, that announcement features highly (first and third), and the game on my website further down the same page.

Note that neither the search for the game nor the search for a website maintenance tool included the name of the relevant software, nor did it include my name or my business name: only what the software is or does, and the operating system on which it is to be used.

The point being that I'm getting half decent rankings for the things I care about - with pretty much no effort, and no deliberate attempts at SEO.

This is because content is king. The more text that appears on your website (or sites) - or other relevant places that point to your site (such as your twitter feed, for example) - the more you are in effect optimising your site for search engines without faffing around with actual 'SEO'. Search engines search text - that is the bottom line.

Mentioning "flobbies" in every meta keyword tag on your site because you sell flobbies is all well and good, but if the content itself doesn't mention them very much, those tags are meaningless (and these days, Google will mark you down for it).

Content is king. Put lots of meaningful text on your site and (do what I don't) update it regularly; a blog is a good idea for this purpose. If you have some key words and phrases ("we sell flobbies!" "get your flobbies here!") then, sure, use them, and use them again, and again - but don't overdo it - and they will be picked up by the spiders and indexed.

As an aside: In the late 1990s or very early 2000s, I was looking through my site logs at the search terms that got people there and one in particular stood out. Someone had found their way to my website by typing the following into a search engine (again without the quotes):

"Where can I download soft porn?"

The reason they found themselves on my site was simply because every one of those words bar the last one appeared at that time on just about every page on the site, several times.

Amusingly, if it is typed into Google now (WITH those quotes this time) it still leads to me in a link near the top because I've mentioned it in a blog post. It's funny how the world turns. (Not the other engines I tried this evening, though).

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

VinceH wrote:
"I agree a website should convey info but it does help if it at least does what the old yellow pages does for you and allow people to look you up without knowing your business name."

This is because content is king. The more text that appears on your website (or sites) - or other relevant places that point to your site (such as your twitter feed, for example) - the more you are in effect optimising your site for search engines without faffing around with actual 'SEO'. Search engines search text - that is the bottom line.
Mentioning "flobbies" in every meta keyword tag on your site because you sell flobbies is all well and good, but if the content itself doesn't mention them very much, those tags are meaningless (and these days, Google will mark you down for it).
Content is king. Put lots of meaningful text on your site and (do what I don't) update it regularly; a blog is a good idea for this purpose. If you have some key words and phrases ("we sell flobbies!" "get your flobbies here!") then, sure, use them, and use them again, and again - but don't overdo it - and they will be picked up by the spiders and indexed.
As an aside: In the late 1990s or very early 2000s, I was looking through my site logs at the search terms that got people there and one in particular stood out. Someone had found their way to my website by typing the following into a search engine (again without the quotes):
"Where can I download soft porn?"
The reason they found themselves on my site was simply because every one of those words bar the last one appeared at that time on just about every page on the site, several times.
Amusingly, if it is typed into Google now (WITH those quotes this time) it still leads to me in a link near the top because I've mentioned it in a blog post. It's funny how the world turns. (Not the other engines I tried this evening, though).

When I say SEO - Im not necessarily talking of paid for. In fact - far from it, given some of he ridiculous amounts some of these guys want. You can do a lot easily yourself as you quite rightly say - content is king, or should I say changeable content is king. Static sites have found themselves dropping down the rankings after one of the google changes and it really doesnt take much to pull it back up. I think your business is probably more unique than many on this forum in that its not just about bookkeeping and accounting. The reason I asked is because Ive seen many a website for a Bookkeeper/ Accountant which theyve clearly spent time and effort on, but are just missing that last piece of the jigsaw because most potential clients cannot locate them - bit like my old pal. I dont actually have a website, not even a static one, still debating it, but unless I want to work more hours or get the assistant Ive been on about I probably wont bother. But if I do, it will certainly benefit from some 'internal' SEO.

HendyPhilhendy · Guru

SEO is all about getting found for your key search terms. This is invariably not your business name (which you should generally always be found).

You need to be found under terms such as 'bookkeeper in mytown' 'mytown bookkeeper' 'accountant mytown' etc. Get to the top of those rankings and for the towns around you, county etc. and you will find people coming to you.

There are ways to do this, one being to ensure your website includes those key terms. Make sure your website has regular updated content i.e. blogs etc.

You can use other things to direct to your site, twitter and forum postings are good. Facebook is generally not as it tend to be excluded from search rankings, certainly with google'.

Use good quality directory sites with links to your website, again locally based ones are good and most have a free listing. If you search on one of your key terms identifies a directory site, then get your name on it.

A Google Places listing is essential as well.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Thanks for the update Phil.

Ive been involved in seo quite a bit in the past and was interested in what others were doing or even if they had considered it.

Eilef · Senior Member

If you already have a site Google nibbler silktide and then you can do an SEO test on your website.

-- Edited by Eilef on Sunday 7th of June 2015 11:24:54 AM

Leger · Master Book-keeper

That's very useful Eilef.

Eilef · Senior Member

As far as SEO goes you need to have some keywords and Meta Tags, these are read by Google spiders which will help rank your website.

Every site should have some sort of google analytics otherwise you get downmarket on Google.

Some key elements that all help are to ensure your website is or contains

Correct use of header tags
Google analysts
Good URL extensions
Images all have correct size limits and ALT text and descriptions
Social media links especially Google plus, it's useless but if you don't have it then no matter how good your SEO is you will always rank low on Google.

I know a reasonable amount about websites and have built a few myself including my current business one ghostknights.com I am also building my own bookkeeping one which is almost ready to go live when I have got my licences, as for SEO it changes so much and so fast unless you work full time in this field you will always be out of date.

If you are after a reasonable priced site let me know and I can give you an idea on price.

-- Edited by Eilef on Wednesday 10th of June 2015 06:24:07 PM

VinceH · Expert

"Every site should have some sort of google analytics otherwise you get downmarket on Google."

Boo! Hiss!

I'll have none of that on any of my sites - and I don't care if Google marks me down because of it. Way I see it, that's Google trying to blackmail site owners into allowing them to collect information about their visitors, to help them target ever more annoying adverts at people.

To be fair, though (because it's always good to be fair) I like to apply one of Newton's laws. Action/reaction: Because I don't have Google Analytics on my sites and therefore get no info from it about visitors to my sites*, it's only fair that I also don't provide that information to sites I visit - so I don't allow Google Analytics to work in my main browser when I visit other websites that do use it.

* Other methods of analysing visits exist, without the need for visitors to allow third party javascript or cookies. Start by seeing if you can access your log files - if you can, find something that can analyse them. If you can't, change hosts. But either way, say "No!" to Google!

Eilef · Senior Member

I understand how you feel Vince, there lust for world domination on the internet but you have to ask yourself one really big question.

Is it worth harming your business chances for the sake of Google?

Personal I think not and wouldn't hesitate to install google analytics on to any of my sites. It's hard enough getting noticed on the web as it is without turning away something that will help you.

Out of interest do you use YouTube? Owned by Google.

What about Facebook? There marketing is as bad as googles if not worse, with Facebook demographics you can target people who like certain things, or are members of certain things. You can target them on age, sex, where they live, how much they earn and with the addition of Facebook Retargeting Ads it's now even easier for business to get there product to your screen even if you don't want to see it.

VinceH · Expert

"Is it worth harming your business chances for the sake of Google?"

I don't think I am harming my business, though - and my quick test of some pertinent search terms up thread supports that.

However, whether I am or not, the point here is that I believe in sticking to my guns - so if someone/some business/organisation/whatever causes me to say "Enough!" then I mean exactly that: Enough. If I say "I won't shop in xyz" for whatever reason, then I won't shop in xyz - even if shopping in abcd instead costs me twice as much.

As for what those reasons might be - they can range from significantly pissing me off, to something really minor, such as spelling pedantry: I refuse, for example, from ever shopping in Kwik Save or taking my car into Kwik Fit.

"Personal I think not and wouldn't hesitate to install google analytics on to any of my sites. It's hard enough getting noticed on the web as it is without turning away something that will help you."

s/help you/help them track and gather more information about your visitors/

As I said, if Google are marking people down for not having Google Analytics, then that is blackmail. Simple as. If they are doing that, they are abusing their dominance in the search market, and may be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. ("Nice search results you have there... shame if anything happened to them!")

"Out of interest do you use YouTube? Owned by Google."

I know they own YouTube. Does anyone not know that?

But the answer is yes, I do. I didn't say I didn't use any of Google's services - I do, but I do so knowing what I am doing, and taking care about how much data I hand over to them. I simply have very rigid policies on what client-side scripts to run (especially when served up from third party sites), and what cookies can remain on my system between browsing sessions.

I value my privacy* - and I therefore ascribe a high cost to services of those who want to intrude on my privacy.

"What about Facebook?"

Same policies apply.

* Such as I can while at the same time being someone that appears to be all over the intertubes! The point is I control what I make public, as well as what I allow others to extract through technology.

[edit: randomly vanishing newlines reinserted]

-- Edited by VinceH on Thursday 11th of June 2015 05:57:38 PM

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Eilef wrote:

Images all have correct size limits and ALT text and descriptions
Social media links especially Google plus, it's useless but if you don't have it then no matter how good your SEO is you will always rank low on Google.

-- Edited by Eilef on Wednesday 10th of June 2015 06:24:07 PM

What do you mean by images having correct size limits?

Yes, google + is useless but I recently did a one day seminar on social media for business and the guy running it pushed G+ quite heavily.

I'm with Vince that it's wrong of Google to mark you down for not having their analytics or + but at the end of the day it's their search engine so they are free to make the rules. Other search engines are available, even if they are useless in directing traffic to your site.

VinceH · Expert

"What do you mean by images having correct size limits?"

I think by size limits, Eilef meant size attributes.

i.e. if you inline a png file that is 120 pixels wide by 80 pixels deep, you should have something like:

<img src="filename.png" width="120" height="80" alt="whatever"> etc.

(Hopefully, since I'm in the 'visual' editor, not the html one, I won't need to escape the angle brackets...)

"I'm with Vince that it's wrong of Google to mark you down for not having their analytics or + but at the end of the day it's their search engine so they are free to make the rules."

Only until it's recognised that they are crossing a legal line. A company's rules, terms, conditions, contracts, etc cannot override the law of the land.

(That's if they are crossing a line - I'm not sure I've actually read anywhere other than here that they mark sites down that don't use their analytics. Do you have a link for that Eilef?)

Whether they are or not, though, my stance is more about the privacy issue.

Speaking hypothetically, if I was someone who didn't have a problem with Google analysing my every move on the intertubes, Joe Bloggs might - and Joe Bloggs might not have the technical knowledge and abilities to counter that. (Or he might be unwitting - blissfully unaware it's happening). So if I allow Google to analyse my site's web traffic, that means I'm helping them analyse Joe Bloggs' movements on the web, if he happens to visit my site.

That's my real issue. Anyone who runs Google Analytics on their site is helping Google track third parties, no matter if they are unwilling or unwitting.

And when I'm the potential third party, I'm definitely unwilling (and, thankfully, technically able) - so no thanks, Google, I'm not running your analytics in my browser. And on those occasions I do allow you to set a cookie, they won't stay on my system beyond the current browsing session.

As a website owner, that means you (yes YOU, not Google) are therefore missing statistics about me as a visitor if you use Google Analytics (or any that requires an external script to work) - information that you would get if you were analysing your own site logs.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

VinceH wrote:

Whether they are or not, though, my stance is more about the privacy issue.
Speaking hypothetically, if I was someone who didn't have a problem with Google analysing my every move on the intertubes, Joe Bloggs might - and Joe Bloggs might not have the technical knowledge and abilities to counter that. (Or he might be unwitting - blissfully unaware it's happening). So if I allow Google to analyse my site's web traffic, that means I'm helping them analyse Joe Bloggs' movements on the web, if he happens to visit my site.
That's my real issue. Anyone who runs Google Analytics on their site is helping Google track third parties, no matter if they are unwilling or unwitting.
And when I'm the potential third party, I'm definitely unwilling (and, thankfully, technically able) - so no thanks, Google, I'm not running your analytics in my browser. And on those occasions I do allow you to set a cookie, they won't stay on my system beyond the current browsing session.
As a website owner, that means you (yes YOU, not Google) are therefore missing statistics about me as a visitor if you use Google Analytics (or any that requires an external script to work) - information that you would get if you were analysing your own site logs.

I understand what you're saying Vince, and broadly agree. I hadn't considered the privacy issue when making my comment and it would be interesting to know if Google is breaking any privacy laws. I would have thought not, otherwise I think a stink would have been raised by now (remember the issue with information collected by Google Street View)

Regarding privacy: Joe Bloggs, should be aware, if he is really concerned, that his moves are being tracked on the web, and take steps to protect himself.

Eilef · Senior Member

By image size I mean what vince has said yes.

Web spiders like to see the image controlled at source and not stretched by the web browsers.

I don't have any links to hand but almost every SEO selling company have it in some way about Google marking down sites, the problem is nobody really knows what Google use to calculate where your site will appear. (Except Google)

I dont disagree with what you both say about Google being the big eye spy and that you do everything to protect what you do online, but anybody with a little knowledge and the right software can bring up the info of every website you ever visit no matter what you do.

You can format your computer but you never fully clear it the data is stored still in the dark depths of your hard drive. But that's another topic all together, but web browsing history you can delete from anybody to see, but it is recoverable still.

I think the main reason Google record so much of people's data is that every time you go online you see adverts for things that you have looked at and then that's where the Retargeting ads come in, for which they make money.

I'm not sure how you set them up or how much they cost to run, but the long and short is say you went to Vinces bookkeeping website and had a look round, but didn't buy anything. If vince had the Retargeting running then when you logged into the web again you would see adverts that would be selling Vinces services or products. They market it as that not many people buy from the first view. But if your taking your time to see what's right for you and Vinces ads keep popping up your more likely to remember them and go to him for your purchase. Hence Vince then makes more money. But it's a bit more complicated than that.

At no point am I suggesting Vince currently runs these or should run them I'm just using an example.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Eilef wrote:
By image size I mean what vince has said yes.

Web spiders like to see the image controlled at source and not stretched by the web browsers.
Ah right, thanks. Vince gave the example of what you meant, it was the wording you used that confused me

I'm not sure how you set them up or how much they cost to run, but the long and short is say you went to Vinces bookkeeping website and had a look round, but didn't buy anything. If vince had the Retargeting running then when you logged into the web again you would see adverts that would be selling Vinces services or products. They market it as that not many people buy from the first view. But if your taking your time to see what's right for you and Vinces ads keep popping up your more likely to remember them and go to him for your purchase. Hence Vince then makes more money. But it's a bit more complicated than that.

I always thought that was Google pushing the ads, from sites you'd visiting after googling them. It always make me chuckle when I've been on a site and it plagues me for ages afterwards, when I might have already bought something from it anyway.

VinceH · Expert

"it would be interesting to know if Google is breaking any privacy laws. I would have thought not, otherwise I think a stink would have been raised by now"

I didn't mention privacy laws - only privacy.

Where I questioned the legality of what they're doing was based on the claim that they mark sites down in their search results if they don't use Google Analytics - which may be anticompetitive if true. That's a different issue to privacy laws.

However, on the subject of privacy laws, there is one which may be pertinent - but, sadly, the onus is on site owners rather than third parties like Google: What's commonly known as the EU cookie directive, which came into force only a few years ago.

If you run a website that uses any third party scripts, such as those provided by (and needed to use) an analytics service, the chances are you're dropping (or updating)* cookies on people's computers - and you should therefore be informing visitors of that, and giving them the option of not accepting those cookies.

TBH, I'm not behind the cookie directive - it's an example of legislation being put before education, and is actually an inconvenience to site owners, especially small guys, and a bloody nuisance to site visitors who use sensible cookie management policies - but that's beside the point.

* If their cookie isn't already on a visitors computer who arrives at the site in question, the cookie is created (dropped). If the cookie is already there from another site (or a previous visit) it's updated.

-- Edited by VinceH on Saturday 13th of June 2015 11:26:39 AM

VinceH · Expert

"I always thought that was Google pushing the ads, from sites you'd visiting after googling them. It always make me chuckle when I've been on a site and it plagues me for ages afterwards, when I might have already bought something from it anyway."

Sort of... Google only shows adverts from people who are paying them to show their adverts - but as Eilef says, those adverts may come from sites you've visited, depending on what those sites are doing (i.e. how they are set up with Google).

For organic search results, when you enter a given search term, Google not only looks at its vast database of the intertubes, but it also looks at its database of YOU. What sites does it know you've visited (because cookies and tracking), and which of those sites are pertinent to the search term you've entered.

Consequently, sites that it knows you've visited (because cookies and tracking) tend to come up higher in the search results than sites you've not visited - especially sites you visit regularly.

Therefore, if you limit the tracking they can do on you, then a search result in a reasonably fresh browsing session (i.e. with no pre-existing Google-flavoured cookies) should be more organic than one based on what Google knows about you.

Bringing this therefore back to the subject of SEO, it's worth remembering the above point when thinking about that: It means the search results you get might differ from the search results I, or any other visitor, might get because cookies and tracking. You might think you're appearing high on the search results, but it might be because of the number of times you've entered key search terms and clicked through to your own site; if you do that the higher ranked your own site is going to appear in your own subsequent searches - while others don't necessarily see the same.

Now consider that, consider my policy on cookies (and Google and other search engines), and consider my example searches further upthread. Those results are about as organic as they can be.

Those results truly are based on the words and phrases, and not the result of technology analysing my historical searches and other data known about me, in order to come up with results that best match what the engines think I want to see.

(And it's only just occurred to me that this might be the origins of the idea of Google marking sites down if they don't use Google analytics - but if so, it's not quite the same thing.)