|
Posted by Jan Roland Eriksson on August 19, 2004, 2:47 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:31:12 +0100, Matt
>Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
[...snipped up a level of context...]
>If there's no link anywhere, how will it be found?
Well, from the start of it there is this xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx addressing
method, where xxx in any position ranges from 0 to 255.
That in it self makes for a hell of a lot of "fixed addressed" sites.
Each and every one of those fixed adresses can then have any number of
virtually hosted adresses assigned, that still appears to the www as a
single unity at the URL level. You go figure on that :-)
Still; any one who knows a bit of the background here will be able to
write a computer program that is capable to scoot around every damned
virtual or real web address it can find :-)
Creating the actual web crawler is not the real challenge when it comes
to create a generic web database. The creation of intelligent selection
criterias otoh; that is the real robot designers problem :-)
[...]
>> They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".
>> Try that search criteria, quotes included...
[...]
>Maybe a referrer log was published?
I don't know anything about that.
>Or your own log?
I don't have one.
Generic advice for how to help web spiders...
1) A web site shall have human readable content.
2) A web site shall be structured and good to read and understand
without any other means than correct markup.
Rest of it is next grade class...
--
Rex
|
|
Posted by Dr John Stockton on August 19, 2004, 1:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:55:11, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:29:41 +0100, Dr John Stockton
>>My site was found by search engines without, as far
>>as I recall, any particular encouragement.
>
>Sound structural markup of content with a _very_ small level of
>repetition in headlines and main content of relevant keywords for the
>subject that is described. I.e. just write headlines and content as you
>would like it to appear in a publication that you would pay money for at
>your local news stand.
I can assure you that my site was found without the aid of sound
structural markup (I don't deny that s.s.m. has other benefits).
Indeed, the state of the markup can have no effect on whether a site is
found, since the search engines cannot read a site until after they have
found it. I do here assume that the markup is such that the pages do
display, with some resemblance to what was intended, in at least one
common browser.
Finding is of course quite distinct from, though an essential precursor
to, getting a high rating.
>>Someone may have linked to it.
>
>For some search engines that might help a bit on the way, still it's not
>a requirement.
>
>>Do search engines find a site if the ONLY reference
>>to it is in News...
>
>They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".
>
>Try that search criteria, quotes included, and look at hits around 4-8
>in Google. I have never ever made that page public to any one, it was
>still found somehow.
But can you be sure that there was no existing reference to it? At one
stage, IIRC, a customer of my ISP was able to access a list including
all active hostnames, from which he generated a site linking to all
extant www.<hostname>.demon sites.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
|
|
Posted by Jan Roland Eriksson on August 19, 2004, 9:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:36:50 +0100, Dr John Stockton
>Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:55:11, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:29:41 +0100, Dr John Stockton
>>Sound structural markup of content with a _very_ small level of
>>repetition in headlines and main content of relevant keywords...
>I can assure you that my site was found without the aid of sound
>structural markup (I don't deny that s.s.m. has other benefits).
I was not expressing my self clear on that; what I was thinking of was
how to get a good indexing result once the page was found. Naturally any
URL can be found even if its content is just lousy "tag soup".
But as an extension to that line of reasoning, just the fact that a page
gets found does not automatically mean that it will be indexed. It is up
to the discretion of the spider programmer/operator to decide if he
needs some level of quality in a page to trigger the indexer to do its
job. That's where s.s.m. comes in.
>>>Do search engines find a site if the ONLY reference
>>>to it is in News...
>>
>>They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".
>>Try that search criteria, quotes included...
>But can you be sure that there was no existing reference to it?
At least Google's 'link:URL' search comes up blank for that page.
--
Rex
|
|
Posted by Brian on August 20, 2004, 4:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
> Dr John Stockton wrote
>
>> But can you be sure that there was no existing reference to it?
>
> At least Google's 'link:URL' search comes up blank for that page.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything. I've seen Google's inbound link
search show up emtpy when I knew there were pages linking to site, and I
knew those pages containing the links were in Google's index. In fact,
Google's link: search doesn't seem terribly useful. I often find 2
dozens links to a page from the same domain. Well duh, I didn't really
need Google to tell me that example.com/foo links to example.com/bar.
Meanwhile other, exernal links, are missing. I've tried to figure out
other ways for finding external links to supplement Google's link search.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
|
|
Posted by Stephen Poley on August 18, 2004, 5:55 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
>Neal wrote:
>
>> BTW, your site is totally unusable by a text browser - that would
>> include Google. The reason - all links are Javascript. Dump the
>> Javascript links, or have redundant normal links for users without
>> Javascript enabled.
>
>interesting... how many people use text-only browsers anymore? (and
>why?)
May I offer http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/whatnojs.html for
some thoughts on the subject.
>if you disable JavaScript, it seems to me, most websites nowadays
>would probably not work very well..
"Most" is an exaggeration, but rather a lot do not, it is true.
--
Stephen Poley
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Using Icons As Images | June 30, 2005, 9:14 am |
| IExplorer Image Icons off | October 21, 2004, 3:06 pm |
| Website Icons (aka favicons) | November 14, 2004, 5:58 pm |
| changing icons of sites on favourites menu | October 21, 2004, 10:19 pm |
| Get callers IP address? | March 9, 2005, 1:43 am |
| How To redirect IP Address | April 11, 2005, 2:00 pm |
| favorite with a different address | November 2, 2007, 2:01 pm |
| Email address found in an IMG SRC tag. | October 14, 2004, 9:53 am |
| Cloaking Email Address | May 21, 2005, 3:37 pm |
| same address new page without using frames? | September 3, 2005, 10:13 am |
|
XML Sitemap