__/ [ Paul B ] on Saturday 29 April 2006 11:31 \__
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:39:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>__/ [ Paul B ] on Saturday 29 April 2006 01:30 \__
>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:20:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>__/ [ Mark Shell ] on Friday 28 April 2006 12:11 \__
>>>>> One of my sites www. mysample.com has PR5. Its URL version
>>>>> www. mysample.com/index.html has also been PR5 - until recently; now it
>>>>> PR0. What might have happened?
>>> Hi Roy
>>> Just browsing and came across this site : http://www. sacredfaces.net/
>>> Yet, http://www. sacredfaces.net/index.html is PR0
>>See my latest reply. I was not reading the original post carefully. Sorry
>>to have led myself to a wrong assumption being made...
> Hi Roy
> That's okay, not worries. But it does seem strange that there are more
> sites out there doing this. May be some sort of algo change ?
I was going to say "I doubt it", but after second thoughts I'd say "I think
you're right". I created various front page versions for my main page (with
and without JS dependency) and I used to refer to the front page
ambiguously. I corrected this a few years ago, I suspect, but omissions are
always likely. Have a look, for example, at:
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/index.php (PR 5)
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/ (PR 2)
Same page, but the whole section is handles using mod_rewrite and thus
virtual structure. I think I have just found the (or one among the)
I'll correct it to avoid PR 'spillage'. I guess it truly pays off to delve
into such discussions... you learn something new every day.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Oracle: Linux adoption to accelerate
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:40pm up 1 day 23:45, 13 users, load average: 0.26, 0.64, 0.65
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms