__/ [John Bokma] on Saturday 17 September 2005 17:05 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> __/ [Borek] on Saturday 17 September 2005 11:09 \__
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:25:22 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Interesting: look at the "googlebombing" link:
>>> What are these amps for? Or where are they from, if it is a better
>> I believe that & is simply an ampersand
> correct, entity encoded. So when you click on the URL, your browser
> actually requests: ...safe=off&amp;amp;....
> the trailing amp; amp; etc looks like a bug in some program though.
I can't see why a program would be involved. Do you really think they would
toss trailing ampersands by accident? Is it possibly the CMS behind the
Google blog? Either way, it seems like we have started a storm in a teacup.
__/ [Borek] on Saturday 17 September 2005 16:23 \__
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:09:31 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I believe that & is simply an ampersand ("&",
I was fairly sure it was, but wanted to play safe. You do a great job
spotting my mistakes Borek. *smile*
> Nothing to believe, that's for sure.
>> Do you reckon this might be a tracking trick?
> Interesting idea!
If so, what for? There are bloggers who use scripts like go.php, which for
the blogger, can provide statistics on which external pages get followed. I
also suspect that there is something fishy there, whereby PageRank is
shrewdly preserved. I once commented about (/criticised) that, but many use
such scripts without awareness of SEO implications.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
5:10pm up 23 days 5:24, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.30, 0.48