> From: suppressed > [mailto:suppressed On Behalf Of Jon > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:03 AM > To: suppressed > Subject: [ic] Google and Scan Versus Search > > An interesting tidbit I've recently noticed/experienced. > > It appears google is more favorable to caching/indexing pages > that are created using scan versus search. At least this is what > I've experienced recently. > > e.g > href="[area search="se= > href="[area scan se= > > Jon > -----Original Message----- > Hi Jon, > > I've never paid attention to the URL constructed by [area], what is the > difference? Don't they both appear as dynamic, something I was under > the impression that Google would not index, which is why ActionMaps can > be of such value? > > Barry Treahy, Jr > Vice President/CIO > Midwest Microwave, Inc. > Emerson Network Power Connectivity Solutions > E-mail: suppressed > Phone: 480/314-1320 > Cell: 480/216-9568 > Fax: 480/661-7028 > > ... but it's a DRY HEAT! I've heard that before :) I had added some 1 click searches on a page a couple of weeks ago and the ones that were created via 'search' are not cached while the ones created using scan are cached. which I thought was interesting because I know those URLs are not very google friendly. And maybe it was the way I defined the search field which I happen to make /sf=* versus /sf=prod_group,title .. for example. I didn't play with a google simulator to see if anything else shows up but I can if you like. What I've historically noticed is the better your site is externally linked the more likely you are to have less search engine friendly URLs cached/indexed. In other words it is relative. Jon _______________________________________________ interchange-users mailing list suppressed http://www.icdevgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/interchange-users
Mail converted by mhonarc 2.6.15
This archive provided courtesy of JSW4.NET, Internet Hosting Services for Small Business.