PHWinfo - Afficher un message

02/09/2007, 20h09

Jerry Stuckle scribed:

>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.
>
>Another though, Ed - have you tried validating the page? It could be
>the html is screwed up just enough to upset the se spider. Or are you
>sure this page is being spidered at all?

Two things, Jerry. I've written my robots.txt file to disallow /cgi-bin. My
pages validate 100% and it gets spidered.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

02/09/2007, 20h09	#12
Ed Jay Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Outgoing links and Google ranking Jerry Stuckle scribed: >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. > >Another though, Ed - have you tried validating the page? It could be >the html is screwed up just enough to upset the se spider. Or are you >sure this page is being spidered at all? Two things, Jerry. I've written my robots.txt file to disallow /cgi-bin. My pages validate 100% and it gets spidered. -- Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)