| 2:41 am on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It depends on how simple the URL is. I have much more success with php than cgi.
| 3:15 am on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 6:46 pm on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have had google picking up cgi on 1 of my websites.
But its better with asp and php.
| 6:52 pm on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
right ,i agree with you.php better than cgi
| 6:55 pm on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree that PHP is better, but I don't know why an SE would think so. As far as the browser is concerned, PHP and CGI are the same thing, just with different extensions.
| 7:25 pm on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google only started to give page rank to CGI pages in the last few months.
Php and asp have been asigned page rank for as long as I can remember.
| 1:25 am on May 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We don't care what the file extension is. Well, don't make it .exe. :) But there's no boost for .php vs. .cgi vs. .asp vs. whatever.. :)
| 1:51 am on May 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
:::But there's no boost for .php vs. .cgi vs. .asp vs. whatever.
That's weird. With a php message board, after I dumped the session IDs, BANG, indexed the site.
php= Main page --> Message board indexes --> Page 2 --> and so on, all get's indexed.
But on .cgi I don't see it get deepcrawled very far in.
cgi= Main page --> section index --> item page. Only goes two pages deep, to section index.
Are these bad cgi URLs?
I put them in .shtml using SSI to get them listed.
| 4:06 am on May 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The id= might be bad.
| 5:55 am on May 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"id=" can look like a session id. I'd avoid session id's in any form if you can..
But there's no boost for different file types.
| 2:44 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No boost, but some URL extensions don't seem to get crawled.
The 'normal' ones do, but domain.com/file.somethingunusual won't get in by virtue of returning text/html as the Content-type.