Sitemaps in Google alternatives?

09/09/2006, 16h46

So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me
that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar.
Do they, and are they worth using?

Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I
should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use
different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do
they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)?

Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest
search engines?

10/09/2006, 12h34

__/ [ KimmoA ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 16:46 \__

> So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me
> that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar.
> Do they, and are they worth using?
>
> Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I
> should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use
> different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do
> they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)?
>
> Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest
> search engines?

Kimmo,

Forget about Google Sitemap. Drop rel="nofollow" as well. They don't
you. They are not standard either, in case you care for importance of
uniformity, which is essential for any engineering discipline. They are like
Amazon/A9's sitemap.xml, which is a selfish 'extension'. Don't fool
yourself. Companies will have you believe that these things benefit you, but
it's really about self benefit, to the inve[n/s]tor.

Site map = "give us a picture of your site, so that we spare less bandwidth,
CPU, and RAM. In terms of crawling, indexing, and cycles, nothing better is
guaranteed."

rel='follow' = "Oops. Our backlinks-based algorithms is flawed and it is
easily subverted by SPAM. Please modify your site to clean up our SERP's. To
you, let it be perceived as an elixir to SPAM rather than aimless flagging
for the benefit of SE('s)."

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Community is code, code is community
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 483308k used, 31172k free, 17596k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

10/09/2006, 15h07

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:34:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

>__/ [ KimmoA ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 16:46 \__
>
>> So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me
>> that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar.
>> Do they, and are they worth using?
>>
>> Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I
>> should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use
>> different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do
>> they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)?
>>
>> Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest
>> search engines?
>
>Kimmo,
>
>Forget about Google Sitemap. Drop rel="nofollow" as well. They don't
>you. They are not standard either, in case you care for importance of
>uniformity, which is essential for any engineering discipline. They are like
>Amazon/A9's sitemap.xml, which is a selfish 'extension'. Don't fool
>yourself. Companies will have you believe that these things benefit you, but
>it's really about self benefit, to the inve[n/s]tor.
>
>Site map = "give us a picture of your site, so that we spare less bandwidth,
>CPU, and RAM. In terms of crawling, indexing, and cycles, nothing better is
>guaranteed."
>
>rel='follow' = "Oops. Our backlinks-based algorithms is flawed and it is
>easily subverted by SPAM. Please modify your site to clean up our SERP's. To
>you, let it be perceived as an elixir to SPAM rather than aimless flagging
>for the benefit of SE('s)."
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Roy

Ahem; why was it you didn't get that job again? :-)

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/mats-...a-i137200.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/mats-...ngel-fish.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/mats-...aby-seals.html

10/09/2006, 15h22

__/ [ Big Bill ] on Sunday 10 September 2006 15:07 \__

> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:34:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>__/ [ KimmoA ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 16:46 \__
>>
>>> So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me
>>> that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar.
>>> Do they, and are they worth using?
>>>
>>> Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I
>>> should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use
>>> different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do
>>> they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)?
>>>
>>> Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest
>>> search engines?
>>
>>Kimmo,
>>
>>Forget about Google Sitemap. Drop rel="nofollow" as well. They don't
>>you. They are not standard either, in case you care for importance of
>>uniformity, which is essential for any engineering discipline. They are
>>like Amazon/A9's sitemap.xml, which is a selfish 'extension'. Don't fool
>>yourself. Companies will have you believe that these things benefit you,
>>but it's really about self benefit, to the inve[n/s]tor.
>>
>>Site map = "give us a picture of your site, so that we spare less
>>bandwidth, CPU, and RAM. In terms of crawling, indexing, and cycles,
>>nothing better is guaranteed."
>>
>>rel='follow' = "Oops. Our backlinks-based algorithms is flawed and it is
>>easily subverted by SPAM. Please modify your site to clean up our SERP's.
>>To you, let it be perceived as an elixir to SPAM rather than aimless
>>flagging for the benefit of SE('s)."
>
> Ahem; why was it you didn't get that job again? :-)

I am not a sufficiently experienced systems administrator. But getting a job
is one thing. Retaining it when people Google your name is another.
*shudders*

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | GNU is Not Universal (begin recursion)
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:20pm up 52 days 3:32, 10 users, load average: 1.18, 1.03, 0.87
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

11/09/2006, 13h13

> should waste bandwidth with XML data.

Depending on your site, the extra information may be useful.

> that Yahoo!

Yahoo uses .txt as well

> Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest
> search engines?

In my search logs Google is definitely the largest :-)

--
best regards
Thomas Schulz
http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/sitemap-generator/
http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/website-analyzer/

09/09/2006, 16h46	#1
KimmoA Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Sitemaps in Google alternatives? So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar. Do they, and are they worth using? Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)? Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest search engines?

10/09/2006, 12h34	#2
Roy Schestowitz Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Sitemaps in Google alternatives? __/ [ KimmoA ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 16:46 \__ > So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me > that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar. > Do they, and are they worth using? > > Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I > should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use > different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do > they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)? > > Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest > search engines? Kimmo, Forget about Google Sitemap. Drop rel="nofollow" as well. They don't you. They are not standard either, in case you care for importance of uniformity, which is essential for any engineering discipline. They are like Amazon/A9's sitemap.xml, which is a selfish 'extension'. Don't fool yourself. Companies will have you believe that these things benefit you, but it's really about self benefit, to the inve[n/s]tor. Site map = "give us a picture of your site, so that we spare less bandwidth, CPU, and RAM. In terms of crawling, indexing, and cycles, nothing better is guaranteed." rel='follow' = "Oops. Our backlinks-based algorithms is flawed and it is easily subverted by SPAM. Please modify your site to clean up our SERP's. To you, let it be perceived as an elixir to SPAM rather than aimless flagging for the benefit of SE('s)." Best wishes, Roy -- Roy S. Schestowitz \| Community is code, code is community http://Schestowitz.com \| GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E Mem: 514480k total, 483308k used, 31172k free, 17596k buffers http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

10/09/2006, 15h07	#3
Big Bill Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Sitemaps in Google alternatives? On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:34:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote: >__/ [ KimmoA ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 16:46 \__ > >> So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me >> that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar. >> Do they, and are they worth using? >> >> Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I >> should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use >> different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do >> they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)? >> >> Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest >> search engines? > >Kimmo, > >Forget about Google Sitemap. Drop rel="nofollow" as well. They don't >you. They are not standard either, in case you care for importance of >uniformity, which is essential for any engineering discipline. They are like >Amazon/A9's sitemap.xml, which is a selfish 'extension'. Don't fool >yourself. Companies will have you believe that these things benefit you, but >it's really about self benefit, to the inve[n/s]tor. > >Site map = "give us a picture of your site, so that we spare less bandwidth, >CPU, and RAM. In terms of crawling, indexing, and cycles, nothing better is >guaranteed." > >rel='follow' = "Oops. Our backlinks-based algorithms is flawed and it is >easily subverted by SPAM. Please modify your site to clean up our SERP's. To >you, let it be perceived as an elixir to SPAM rather than aimless flagging >for the benefit of SE('s)." > >Best wishes, > >Roy Ahem; why was it you didn't get that job again? :-) BB -- http://www.crystal-liaison.com/mats-...a-i137200.html http://www.crystal-liaison.com/mats-...ngel-fish.html http://www.crystal-liaison.com/mats-...aby-seals.html

10/09/2006, 15h22	#4
Roy Schestowitz Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Sitemaps in Google alternatives? __/ [ Big Bill ] on Sunday 10 September 2006 15:07 \__ > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:34:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz > <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote: > >>__/ [ KimmoA ] on Saturday 09 September 2006 16:46 \__ >> >>> So... I've been using Google sitemaps for a while now, and it struck me >>> that Yahoo! and MSN/Live Search also probably have something similar. >>> Do they, and are they worth using? >>> >>> Is it bad to use puretext ones? I currently do that. I don't see why I >>> should waste bandwidth with XML data. Do the other search engines use >>> different formats, so you need to make one sitemap per engine, or do >>> they use a common standard (be it XML or puretext)? >>> >>> Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest >>> search engines? >> >>Kimmo, >> >>Forget about Google Sitemap. Drop rel="nofollow" as well. They don't >>you. They are not standard either, in case you care for importance of >>uniformity, which is essential for any engineering discipline. They are >>like Amazon/A9's sitemap.xml, which is a selfish 'extension'. Don't fool >>yourself. Companies will have you believe that these things benefit you, >>but it's really about self benefit, to the inve[n/s]tor. >> >>Site map = "give us a picture of your site, so that we spare less >>bandwidth, CPU, and RAM. In terms of crawling, indexing, and cycles, >>nothing better is guaranteed." >> >>rel='follow' = "Oops. Our backlinks-based algorithms is flawed and it is >>easily subverted by SPAM. Please modify your site to clean up our SERP's. >>To you, let it be perceived as an elixir to SPAM rather than aimless >>flagging for the benefit of SE('s)." > > Ahem; why was it you didn't get that job again? :-) I am not a sufficiently experienced systems administrator. But getting a job is one thing. Retaining it when people Google your name is another. shudders Best wishes, Roy -- Roy S. Schestowitz \| GNU is Not Universal (begin recursion) http://Schestowitz.com \| SuSE Linux \| PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E 3:20pm up 52 days 3:32, 10 users, load average: 1.18, 1.03, 0.87 http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

11/09/2006, 13h13	#5
dk_sz Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Sitemaps in Google alternatives? > should waste bandwidth with XML data. Depending on your site, the extra information may be useful. > that Yahoo! Yahoo uses .txt as well > Also, what's the current marketshare percentage between the largest > search engines? In my search logs Google is definitely the largest :-) -- best regards Thomas Schulz http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/sitemap-generator/ http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/website-analyzer/

Outils de la discussion
Afficher une version imprimable Envoyer un lien vers cette page par email