include files, are you referring to php?
well when the php file is requested, it shows the content in html .. not the source .. so theres no question that google will come to know about the include files, it's just gonna see what you do when you view source of that page through a browser.
Ditto Server Side Includes (SSIs).
Don't forget that the server mashes the page together before responding to the request. So GBot should see what your browser does/ view source.
This question has been asked and answered previously, if you try a search ;-)
Thanks. I would like you guys to comment on duplicate content issue and if the same include file will downloaded again and again?
The include file wil never be downloaded - the include file never leaves the server, irrespective of who is requesting the file (FTP aside).
All your include files are appended together on the web server - to create the final HTML page you wish to create - and it is this HTML page which is "downloaded" from the server to the requesting agent.....
So your include file will never be downloaded from the server once, let alone multiple times.....unless you have done something bizarre, like put in a <a href="...."> link to it from the HTML or something...
Go the page which concerns you (the parent file). View the source from the browser. What you see there, is what the bot should see.
>> comment on duplicate content issue and if the same include file will downloaded again and again
Surfer is right. It's not downloaded as a CSS file would be. As it's called each time someone loads a page in the browser that doesn't save you bandwidth or speed up download times.
As others here have said do a View Source.
If you used the same include page in 500 different pages Google would see that as duplicate content BUT if those 500 pages all had substantial other content themselves I can't see you getting penalised.
|the include file never leaves the server |
That's a bit of an assumption really. If it's under the document root, it can get served if someone can guess at the URI. Forbidding it for real requires access control, and I doubt most people do that (although it's real easy with apache).
It's not 100% relevant to the original question, but I'd prefer to word that as "the included file [b]usually doesn't leave the server." I've seen googlebot spider files that have no inbound links (files such as an include file) if you view them in a browser that's toolbar-enabled. That happened to me today, which is why I'm nitpicking about the use of the word "never" in this context.
|1. Does google read included files also or just the parent file? |
Usually just the parent file, but if it's important that it not read the included file you should take steps to prevent that from occurring.
For the other questions,
2) there shouldn't be a dupliate content issue, but I suppose you could create one if you were determined enough
3) the time savings is in maintenance of your site, included files wil take incrementally longer to serve than inline text
4) depends what's in your include files--they're inherently relevancy neutral
5) since server inclusion doesn't require anything from the client whatsoever, it wins by most criteria.
My requirement goes like this:
I going to create affiliate product pages thought of including description for my digital products but worried of dupilicate content.
These pages will be on my servers and can be accessed trough affiliate's design interface. so my options are iframe or include files. And i am also planning to have a copyright information which will link to my site inorder to get pr (probably iframe is out here since google wont read the content inside iframe).
Now i guess includes files are simply part of the same parent file and it adds value only interms of maintanance.
please also suggest me if there is any other way to do it.