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

Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?

  • Subject: Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:50:05 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <43f60fe3$0$2466$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk> <Xns976D7D988A5A8castleamber@> <1RoJf.47082$T35.762760@news20.bellglobal.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [canadafred] on Friday 17 February 2006 18:45 \__

> "John Bokma" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Xns976D7D988A5A8castleamber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "dk_sz" <dk_sz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I have some pages generated from text files
>>> that have <pre></pre> tags around them.
>>> However, it seems to me they never come
>>> up in anything but extremely specific search.
>>> Sooo... I am wondering... Do you think that this
>>> can be because <pre> tags almost count negative...?
>>> Just wondering if anyone experienced the same.
>> Can't think of any reason why that should be the case (i.e. pre counting
>> less compared to p)
>> I do get quite some hits on perl code specific things and yet the perl
>> code is in a pre (and code).

That might change some day in the near future:


Source code is being indexed differently (as language with syntax), so it
might be searched separately, with the exclusion of normal text.

I have literally thousands of pages where actual text is <pre>'d almost
entirely. Such pages get fairly good traffic from search engines, but
nothing on par with pages that bear higher ranks and have content in <p>'s.

> I'm also discovering more and more <pre>, <li> and even "untagged" <body>
> content being considered as valid content by the major search engines, but
> it wasn't long ago when this content was considered unacceptable.

I think I can see the motive for that. It helps exclude some less relevant

> I know we discussed this a couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup, but I
> feel the need to state my position again, I do feel strongly that <pre>,
> <li> and "untagged" <body> content get less weight than <p> ( and properly
> used <h> obviously ).

That would suggest that MHonArc is very SEO-unfriendly. It gives precedence
to <pre> by default.

> I am experimenting with this theory again at this time. I accept that part
> of staying up-to-date in SEO requires that I shed some past standards and
> learn to adapt to the new.

I'd be interested in hearing the outcome. One multi-file search and replace
could makes a noticeable difference...

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    GPL'd Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  1:40am  up 1 day 13:59,  9 users,  load average: 0.16, 0.21, 0.15
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

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