Ed Jay wrote:
> 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.

Hmmm, that's quite interesting then, Ed. Are the external scripts in
/cgi-bin directories? (I doubt it, but had to ask rather than assume :-) ).

Also, a maybe too-obvious question - how do you know the spider doesn't
follow the external link?

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