Paul Burke wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 08:27:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Paul Burke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:58:29 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>Yes, I agree. Some pages with ~200 links get indexed just fine even
>>>>though I try to stick to 100. Remember that too many links in a single
>>>>page are a burden to a user with a dial-up connection or little RAM.
>>> It would have been pointless to have had them under 100 or less.
>>> I have two site maps. One for text pages. One for graphics pages.
>>Site maps are probably identified by search engines and get treated
>>differently. In fact, they should. They are very vital pages.
> I don't see why mine should be not treated as such.
> They have <h1> site map </h1> etc
> To have just one on my site would be too much, hence I had to split
> mine between graphic pages and text.
>>Imagine yourself a scenario where every pages links to all other 200 pages
>>in the Web site. This is tactless SEO. Have you ever reached one of these
>>pages that only contain a tonnage of barely links?
>>>>Aren't these very artificial pages though? Search engines might suspect
>>>>that these pages are "up to no good".
>>> Sorry, you have lost me on this one. Why should they be classed as
>>> artificial pages ?
>>> They are genuine site maps.
>>You're right. I had some of these scrapers in mind. If you want, I can
>>post an example to clarify.
> Please. As others would not doubt like to see one as well.
> Thank you
Have a look at the following. I noticed it appearing in an MSN SERP:
For a given term, it has been moving around the top 10 for quite some time.
This page is a linkbase with content that is ripped off other Web sites.
There are plenty of such sites, but they rarely appear among the top
results in good search engines.
Roy S. Schestowitz