Ed Jay wrote:
> Brian Cryer scribed:
>
>> "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.
>
> My specific issue pertains to a single page that contains all of my external
> links, and having that page generated using Perl (or any other SS solution).
> My observations indicate that none of the SE spiders follow links to Perl or
> other SS scripts. If one is penalized for the number of outgoing links, then
> the SE spider would never see those links.

They do on my sites. Don't know why they don't on your site, Ed. Maybe
something in your robots.txt file?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================