"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:R72dnTtJFO7zckTbnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Brian Cryer wrote:
<snip>
>> For what its worth, for link exchanges I don't exchange links with sites
>> which use perl, nofollow or scripts for their links.
>
> There is no such thing as a "perl link" on a web page. Perl may generate
> the link - but it's straight html code, and no one can tell from the
> client side whether the link was generated statically, with Perl, PHP, ASP
> or one of the 1,000,000 parrots pecking on keyboards.

Quite true.

What I meant, and what I think the OP was referring to is that pages that
are generated using perl typically seem to have a zero PR. Whether a 0 PR
means that Google isn't following the link I simply don't know. For example
while example.com (if generated using perl) might have a PR of say 5,
example.com/foo.pl?i=3 typically has a PR of 0. (This may not be restricted
to perl.) More than happy to be shown that I'm wrong on this - my feeling is
that I should be wrong about it.

I suppose in the context of the OP thread, a link generated using a perl
script if it were simply generating html wouldn't in any way be
distinguishable from a normal link. So, in the context of the thread you are
100% correct. Good point.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian