Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Limited number of dynamic pages indexed by spider

  • Subject: Re: Limited number of dynamic pages indexed by spider
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 04:29:18 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <1131292122.994379.143610@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns9706656FDE030castleamber@>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2

__/ [John Bokma] on Sunday 06 November 2005 15:58 \__

> "goragedan" <trujillo.dan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> We've built and launched a site that we thought was search engine
>> friendly. It seems that the Google indexing ony goes so far into our
>> dynamic pages. The site content grows daily and we want the people
>> adding to the site to get the benefit of being found through search
>> engines. Anyone have any idea how we can change portions of our URL or
>> maybe a function of the supporting code to allow or encourage the
>> indexer (spiders) to go through all of the dynamic pages?  Here are
>> some examples of the way we have the URL's structured:
>> http://www.gorage.com/mygorage/DesignerEyewear  - This is the URL for
>> all of the items listed by a particular seller.
>> http://www.gorage.com/myitem/361 - This is a URL for the individual
>> item.
> Google can't see if a page is dynamic or static unless you give it away (in
> the url, maybe headers). I doubt it is an issue here.

Agreed, until I read Tony's follow-up (see below) and spotted URL's like the


I have seen sites that do not rewrite URL's. By using URL's as seen above,
they virtually have identical PageRank across, regardless of what is
contained after the question mark. An SEO hack? I doubt so. PageRank perhaps
becomes meaningless in a circumstance as such.

> However, you might want someone to have a serious peek at the SEO efforts
> on the page(s). I mean: 500 keywords (or there about) in the keyword meta
> tag... Doesn't do a thing with Google, and I doubt with any SE you want to
> take serious.

Doesn't do any harm. Doesn't do any good either and may indicate an
old-styled SEO effort (or spam at worst). Whoever works/ed on these keywords
may be working in vain while better efforts could be invested elsewhere.

__/ [Tony] on Sunday 06 November 2005 21:31 \__

> The PHP sessions are no doubt causing an issue.
> Also, G recommends not using:
> "&id=" as a parameter in your URLs, as we don't include these pages in
> our index.
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html
> That's a fairly recent addition to their guidelines
> see http://tinyurl.com/dhr3d to prove the case in point
> so ... pid?= is probably not far behind.
> imo, look at mod rewrite and loose the PHP sessions.

My suggestion would be similar. When I started the blog, it took me a couple
of months to get rid of post ID (a number) such as /blog/article.php?p=12.
By rewriting, not only will /you/ be able to distinguish between posts, but
so will search engines. Moreover, the URL's will contain key words that you
probably want; they are means of SEO. I try to make the URL complement the
page title rather than repeat it. As an Example,

Page title: Google Compromise Users' Privacy Due to Investors' Pressure

URL: /blog/google-spy-pressure


Roy S. Schestowitz      | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  4:15am  up 4 days  0:13,  4 users,  load average: 1.84, 1.54, 1.01
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index