http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/15/ya...forces-really/

On 16 Nov 2006 02:08:30 -0800, "Roy Schestowitz"
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

>http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/15/ya...forces-really/

It's encouraging that they're talking about combining on other
projects.

BB

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/15/ya...forces-really/

Reads like the same old tired double-talk to me.

Google has had sitemaps for quite a while now. And, all they do
basically is totally ignore the sitemap. The add URL feature has
worked for years, and still works just great for me. The sitemap is
just a big waste of time.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:08:30 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

> http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/15/ya...forces-really/

Domain Name:SITEMAPS.ORG
Created On:12-Aug-2001 23:51:55 UTC
(...snip...)
Registrant Organization:Google Inc.



Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

Borek wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:08:30 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
> > http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/15/ya...forces-really/
>
> Domain Name:SITEMAPS.ORG
> Created On:12-Aug-2001 23:51:55 UTC
> (...snip...)
> Registrant Organization:Google Inc.
>
>

*LOL*

Good find. First they extend, then they allow others to embrace. If
only they extinguished something last years, they would be Microsoft in
reverse!

> Reads like the same old tired double-talk to me.

> Google has had sitemaps for quite a while now. And, all they do
> basically is totally ignore the sitemap. The add URL feature has
> worked for years, and still works just great for me. The sitemap is
> just a big waste of time.

As someone else pointed out somewhere else (can't be bothered to find
it, but kudos whoever you were) it opens the gates to comparative
search engine performance.

Make a change. Upload the sitemap. Submit the sitemap to all the
engines.

Which one has the new page indexed first? Important metric - we could
see league tables of search engine responsiveness published weekly by,
e.g., The Register.

Phil Payne wrote:
> > Reads like the same old tired double-talk to me.
>
> > Google has had sitemaps for quite a while now. And, all they do
> > basically is totally ignore the sitemap. The add URL feature has
> > worked for years, and still works just great for me. The sitemap is
> > just a big waste of time.
>
> As someone else pointed out somewhere else (can't be bothered to find
> it, but kudos whoever you were) it opens the gates to comparative
> search engine performance.
>
> Make a change. Upload the sitemap. Submit the sitemap to all the
> engines.
>
> Which one has the new page indexed first? Important metric - we could
> see league tables of search engine responsiveness published weekly by,
> e.g., The Register.

I do NOT have a clue as to what you are talking about.

On 16/11/06 23:21, in article
1163719259.968454.242230@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups. com,
"johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com"
<johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:

>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/15/ya...in-forces-real
>> ly/
>
> Reads like the same old tired double-talk to me.
>
> Google has had sitemaps for quite a while now. And, all they do
> basically is totally ignore the sitemap. The add URL feature has
> worked for years, and still works just great for me. The sitemap is
> just a big waste of time.
>



Not in myt experience. I manage three other websites and each of them were
only partially indexed. I bought Google Sitemap Automator and submitted
sitemaps. The following day 100% of the site pages were indexed.

What I can say is that it has made no difference with lampspecs.co.uk and
the conclusion is that if the site is broadly correct W3c validation ect the
it does make a huge difference.