__/ [Borek] on Wednesday 04 January 2006 13:42 \__
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:26:01 +0100, SourceGenie <speakingsoul@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Is there any difference in the way of search engine to see the asp.net
>> pages differ from asp pages. Why is asp based websites are more visible
>> on the search engine?
Maybe (only a therory) they tend to be used by wealthier or more successful
Web sites. You don't see many sites that run Python or Perl these days.
These would often be used in out-of-date sites that are maintained at a
lower degree of rigour or simply run by enthusiasts who are proficient with
the languages and re-use fragments of code. [at risk of being told off]
Static pages are probably among the most 'primitive' pages, yet they tend to
have gathered many inbound links due to age. Then again, by that stage, the
site and its content may have benefited from a makeover too, such as
migration to a CMS.
> asp, php, perl, cgi, html - extension doesn't matter. Content matters.
> And I don't mean content as in "Content-type: application/xhtml+xml",
> but content as in Cat "Content Queen" Yronwode - see her posts in
> this NG :)
True. Extensions are ignored as they should be. The very notion of file
extensions is O/S-specific. The search engines only interprets an object,
whether it's a C file, a binary file (more likely to be skipped), a
Word-generated Web page (although it slows down crawling and embeds unwanted
markup) or a standard-compliant page.
> See my signature - what type are these? Yet they are in first tens for
> their keywords. And hopefully the will be higher :)