Ed Jay wrote:
> 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?

Some are in cgi, some in cgi-bin - it depends on how the server was
originally set up.

>> 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.

So you said you're disallowing /cgi-bin in your robots.txt file, but now
the spiders aren't hitting those in the /cgi-bin directory?

I must be missing something here, because I know that isn't the case.

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