Although I can’t verify if search engines are less likely to detect you if you use this option, I can tell you it results in fewer time-outs and dial up disconnections, something that would plague my use of previous WPG versions. I now use this option by default because of its ability to stabilize missions. Regardless, given Google’s extremely strong stance against automated software, I strongly recommend you do not include Google in any ranking missions you perform. In past, Google has banned IP addresses of heavy users of such software. Instead, do what I do and select Yahoo Pages instead. This will reveal your positions in Web Page Matches of Yahoo, fed by Google, which is a fairly accurate representation how you rank on Google anyway.

3) Auto-Email Reports  

Another handy function of WPG v2.0 (Pro Version) is ability to automatically email generated reports. When setting up your Reporter missions, you can choose to have Concise Report (with or without Visibility Statistics) sent to one or more email addresses as soon as report is complete. The site URL is automatically included in email body and you can even set up your own email template - a very nice feature if you are emailing clients their reports on a regular basis. Even if you prefer to publish reports to a web site, now you can optionally auto email them to your clients as well. This, combined with Scheduling tool, means once you set up your Reporter missions you can simply press a button and let program do rest.

4) Auto-Upload Reports  

A new feature of Pro Version gives you ability to upload your ranking reports to a specific web site via FTP. The Upload Manager can either use WPG’s built-in FTP program or your own preferred FTP tool to upload files. WPG recommends FrontPage users should use FrontPage to upload files instead, to avoid common occurrence of FTP programs corrupting FrontPage server extensions. Yet another time-saving enhancement, this particular feature is ideal for SEO’s servicing multiple clients or people monitoring various web sites. It took me about 10 minutes to upload latest WPG reports to five of my client’s sites; something that would normally take me about 15 minutes per client. Consequently, I would have to say this is one of my favourite features of WPG v2.0 BETA.   5) Filter Non-Ranking Keywords

A feature I understand demand for but wouldn’t use very often is ability to filter out non-ranking keywords from Reporter Missions. This enables you to email or publish ranking reports that only contain positive results (i.e. keywords that did not rank within your position search range can be excluded). Personally, I think this 'enhancement' opens up program to abuse because it encourages circulation of misleading reports and distorts true performance of a search ranking campaign. If some search terms did not perform as well as others, in my opinion, clients should be aware of this so they can make decisions about which keywords to target in future and about success of campaign in general. Keep in mind that if you remove non-ranking keywords from a report, your visibility percentage will always be 100%. This figure is therefore no longer meaningful and will be automatically removed from report.

6) Auto-Import Keywords  

Tired of cutting and pasting your keywords from your web site’s META keyword tag into Reporter? Well soon you won’t have to. The full release of WPG v2.0 will include a button that does this for you automatically. WPG v2.0 BETA does not yet include this function, just a note that 'this feature is currently in development' and will be available in a future update.

7) New Visibility Report

Another 'how did we ever do without it' feature is new Visibility Statistics table which appears above each ranking report in WPG v2.0 BETA. Now you can see, at a glance, how many top 30, top 20, top 10, top 5 and position 1 ranks you achieved, instead of having to manually count them. 8) Better Rank Tracking  

The Visibility Report also tells you (or your client) how many positions you moved up or down since you last ran report, your overall ranking gain or loss and it even provides an approximate visibility score for your campaign based on your existing search positions. For SEO’s or persons managing campaigns for multiple clients, this enhancement is a real gem, turning a seemingly complex report into an easy to read search performance indicator.

9) Greater Report Customization (Pro Version Only)  

While users of older WPG versions could customize their reports by adding a logo and URL, WPG v2.0 allows you to customize layout and colours of your reports as well. Using a drop down list of colour choices for each report area, you can change look of your reports to match your company stationery, your client’s logo or your mood. The only annoying part of this feature is that there are no previews available of your colour choices. You need to run a report in order to see how it’s going to look. In future releases, it would be nice to see a thumbnail preview of how your chosen colours will look in a report layout, or even better, to have a range of colour templates available for selection. As well as changing colour scheme, you can change layout by creating your own custom template. You do this by altering header and footer to include logos, URL’s, text and email addresses. This is another handy feature for persons preparing reports on behalf of multiple clients.

Not surprisingly, search engines have been reduced to lumping all SEO's into "untrustworthy" basket. On their Webmaster Do's and Don'ts page (http://www.google.com/webmasters/dos.html), Google state: "Be very careful about allowing an individual consultant or company to 'optimize' your web site. Chances are they will engage in some of our "Don'ts" and end up hurting your site". Chances are? Sounds a bit presumptuous if you ask me. Likewise, at a recent search engine conference, a representative from AltaVista declared that "all SEO's could be described using four letter words". The typical Internet user can only come to conclusion that, according to some very reliable sources, SEO's are not to be trusted - now how fair is that?

So main problem is - how do we address this reputation issue? Do we establish and agree on a standard Code of Practise as in development on sites such as World Association of Internet Marketers (http://www.waim.org/ethics.html), SEO Consultants (http://www.seoconsultants.com/seo-code-of-ethics.htm) and SEO Pros (http://www.seopros.org/members/practices.htm)? Do we race around locating and reporting search engine spam in hope of improving our reputation in eyes of search engines? Or do we simply follow our own set of standards and hope potential clients can come to their own untainted conclusions? Personally I'm looking forward to day when I no longer detect immediate suspicion when I tell people I optimize web sites for a living.