I'm made to understand that if a site has outgoing links, but few or no
reciprocal or incoming links, the site is penalized in terms of Google page
rankings. This presents a problem, as I need to link to several outside
sources as references, with no chance of obtaining reciprocal links.

I note that Google spiders the HTML documents on my site, but doesn't spider
any of the Perl-generated pages. All of the reference-related links will be
on a single document.

Does it make sense to generate the external links page with Perl? Will I
avoid penalty doing it this way?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay wrote:
> I'm made to understand that if a site has outgoing links, but few or
> no reciprocal or incoming links, the site is penalized in terms of
> Google page rankings.

Who told you that?

"Ed Jay" <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message
news:42mgd3100t680t7pgq54jp1806cuq7pvmg@4ax.com...
> I'm made to understand that if a site has outgoing links, but few or no
> reciprocal or incoming links, the site is penalized in terms of Google
> page
> rankings. This presents a problem, as I need to link to several outside
> sources as references, with no chance of obtaining reciprocal links.

An important note to remember when reading about search engine optimization
on the internet: Almost everything you read is often just idle speculation
by one person who came to their stated results after observing said results
on one website: their own.

Like regarding this outgoing link stuff I can say: A few years ago I ran a
job portal website. This site had well over 10,000 outgoing links for its
content and less than 200 inbound links. BUT the home page (and 3 other
pages) was PR8 and most of the site was PR7 including the dynamic ASP pages
that generated all the links.

With those results I could make an observation like: "Linking your website
to a site with similar or related content that has a higher page rank (in
this case my job portal linking to Monster and such) must have some kind of
reciprocal effect!"

That'd be just about as correct as where you read about Google penalizing
people for having outbound links.

Unless somebody actually works for Google and saw/designed/programmed the
algorithms that operate the search engine, anything they say is going to be
casual observations and speculations on their part.

Auggie scribed:

>
>"Ed Jay" <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message
>news:42mgd3100t680t7pgq54jp1806cuq7pvmg@4ax.com.. .
>> I'm made to understand that if a site has outgoing links, but few or no
>> reciprocal or incoming links, the site is penalized in terms of Google
>> page
>> rankings. This presents a problem, as I need to link to several outside
>> sources as references, with no chance of obtaining reciprocal links.
>
>An important note to remember when reading about search engine optimization
>on the internet: Almost everything you read is often just idle speculation
>by one person who came to their stated results after observing said results
>on one website: their own.

Understood...and agree. That's why it's important to verify whether or not
information gathered is correct or a myth. (<pun alert>Nobody wants to make
a mythtake</pun alert>)
>
>Like regarding this outgoing link stuff I can say: A few years ago I ran a
>job portal website. This site had well over 10,000 outgoing links for its
>content and less than 200 inbound links. BUT the home page (and 3 other
>pages) was PR8 and most of the site was PR7 including the dynamic ASP pages
>that generated all the links.
>
>With those results I could make an observation like: "Linking your website
>to a site with similar or related content that has a higher page rank (in
>this case my job portal linking to Monster and such) must have some kind of
>reciprocal effect!"
>
>That'd be just about as correct as where you read about Google penalizing
>people for having outbound links.
>
>Unless somebody actually works for Google and saw/designed/programmed the
>algorithms that operate the search engine, anything they say is going to be
>casual observations and speculations on their part.
>
I know the Google algorithm changes frequently, but I looked at the original
Page algorithm and I see nothing relating to the outgoing/incoming
links...only to incoming links. (Actually, the original Page algorithm deals
with external links and how they relate to the probability of a surfer
reaching site-X based on other sites' external links to site-X.)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

"Ed Jay" <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message
news:42mgd3100t680t7pgq54jp1806cuq7pvmg@4ax.com...
> I'm made to understand that if a site has outgoing links, but few or no
> reciprocal or incoming links, the site is penalized in terms of Google
> page
> rankings. This presents a problem, as I need to link to several outside
> sources as references, with no chance of obtaining reciprocal links.

I think what you are referring to is known as "page rank leakage". The
equation for calculating page rank results in a lower page rank the more
outgoing links a page has. If you google for it you should find a number of
pages discussing it.

> I note that Google spiders the HTML documents on my site, but doesn't
> spider
> any of the Perl-generated pages. All of the reference-related links will
> be
> on a single document.
>
> Does it make sense to generate the external links page with Perl? Will I
> avoid penalty doing it this way?

A much simpler way would be to include rel="nofollow" on each of your links.
That way google won't follow it.

Generating the links using perl might be just as good, but I'm sure its only
a matter of time before google follow perl links (if indeed they don't
already).

For what its worth, for link exchanges I don't exchange links with sites
which use perl, nofollow or scripts for their links.

Hope this s.
--
Brian cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Ed Jay" <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message
> news:42mgd3100t680t7pgq54jp1806cuq7pvmg@4ax.com...
>> I'm made to understand that if a site has outgoing links, but few or no
>> reciprocal or incoming links, the site is penalized in terms of Google
>> page
>> rankings. This presents a problem, as I need to link to several outside
>> sources as references, with no chance of obtaining reciprocal links.
>
> I think what you are referring to is known as "page rank leakage". The
> equation for calculating page rank results in a lower page rank the more
> outgoing links a page has. If you google for it you should find a number of
> pages discussing it.
>
>> I note that Google spiders the HTML documents on my site, but doesn't
>> spider
>> any of the Perl-generated pages. All of the reference-related links will
>> be
>> on a single document.
>>
>> Does it make sense to generate the external links page with Perl? Will I
>> avoid penalty doing it this way?
>
> A much simpler way would be to include rel="nofollow" on each of your links.
> That way google won't follow it.
>
> Generating the links using perl might be just as good, but I'm sure its only
> a matter of time before google follow perl links (if indeed they don't
> already).
>
> For what its worth, for link exchanges I don't exchange links with sites
> which use perl, nofollow or scripts for their links.
>
> Hope this s.

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.

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

"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.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Brian Cryer wrote:
> "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.

That's the only kind of link Perl (or any other language) CAN generate.

Perl and the others don't run on the client - they run on the server.
The server communicates with the client via html. The ONLY type of link
the server can send is an HTML link. And the client cannot tell whether
the link was generated by html, perl or whatever.

Of course, this is ignoring special purpose stuff like SOAP, java
applets, etc. - which don't necessarily use html for communications.

Whether a page has PR 0 or PR 10 has nothing to do with how it's
generated. It has everything to do with its content. And if you take a
Perl (or any other language) generated page, save the generated html to
a file and serve that (now static) file, the PR will be exactly the
same. Because Google and others will see exactly the same page as if it
were generated dynamically.

As for using GET parameters - that has nothing to do with Perl or any
other language. And there is some debate on this. The opinion by some
is using "id" as an identifier and Google won't spider your page. But
I've got at least one site which uses parms like
http://www.example.com/somepage.asp?id=400 (relics from a previous
webmaster) that has a lot of those pages, and Google spiders them quite
well. And the pages are typically PR 4 with a few PR 5.

Plus, most blogs, CMS's, etc. would have PR0 if this were the case. And
that is definitely NOT the case.

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

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.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

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.

They do on my sites. Don't know why they don't on your site, Ed. Maybe
something in your robots.txt file?

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

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?

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

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.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

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
==================

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)

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
==================

Jerry Stuckle scribed:

>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.

If I'm disallowing the spiders to roam cgi-bin, how can they spider the
scripts contained within it? I don't understand your confusion.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle scribed:
>
>> 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.
>
> If I'm disallowing the spiders to roam cgi-bin, how can they spider the
> scripts contained within it? I don't understand your confusion.

I'm confused because earlier you said:

"I've written my robots.txt file to disallow /cgi-bin."

So files those directories would not be spidered, but pages which link
to those (but are not in /cgi-bin) will be spidered.

Is this what you're seeing?

Sorry, but it looks like I'm missing something obvious.

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

Jerry Stuckle scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle scribed:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If I'm disallowing the spiders to roam cgi-bin, how can they spider the
>> scripts contained within it? I don't understand your confusion.
>
>I'm confused because earlier you said:
>
>"I've written my robots.txt file to disallow /cgi-bin."
>
>So files those directories would not be spidered, but pages which link
>to those (but are not in /cgi-bin) will be spidered.
>
>Is this what you're seeing?
>
>Sorry, but it looks like I'm missing something obvious.

I shouldn't have confused the issue with my robots.txt file, as I didn't add
it until a couple of days ago. It's 98º here and I think it's affected my
thinking (more than usual). So, forget the robots.txt disallowance.

With access to /cgi-bin allowed, I'm seeing the hit stats showing the static
HTML pages getting hits from the spiders, but none of the .pl, .cgi or HTML
pages generated by these scripts are shown as getting hits.

There's another possibility...each of the scripts checks for a login
before it allows access to the script. IOW, the spiders can't access the
scripts, because they don't set a , so the HTML document is never
generated for the spider to roam.

I won't be answering again for a few hours. We're off to get some relief
from the heat. Thanks for your input and queries. You make me think.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle scribed:
>
>> Ed Jay wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle scribed:
>>>
>>>> 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 spide