PHWinfo - Afficher un message

02/09/2007, 21h12

Jerry Stuckle scribed:

>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 :-) ).

Yes, they are. Aren't your Perl scripts?
>
>Also, a maybe too-obvious question - how do you know the spider doesn't
>follow the external link?

I see the HTML page hits in my stats, but no page hits on the pages
generated by the Perl scripts.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

02/09/2007, 21h12	#14
Ed Jay Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Outgoing links and Google ranking Jerry Stuckle scribed: >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 :-) ). Yes, they are. Aren't your Perl scripts? > >Also, a maybe too-obvious question - how do you know the spider doesn't >follow the external link? I see the HTML page hits in my stats, but no page hits on the pages generated by the Perl scripts. -- Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)