homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.40.166
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
<head>Java Database</head> giving PR0?
Is my inline database being penalised?
walthamstow




msg:186763
 6:05 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I have a Javascript database in the <head> section of one page on my site. All my other pages have PR5 and this page has now dropped to a white bar.

The database forms part of a unique java driven historical translator for widget collectors which gives the date of design registration and the maker of all Victorian widgets.

The database consists of 1300 entries each with the Victorian codes for day, month,year and the name of the maker and the town. The user simply enters in the four different alphanumeric codes found within the registration mark on the antique widget and if valid the answer is given as to when it was registered and who made it.

It has inbound links from quite a few (clean) sites plus major ones such as a government's patents office and a National library.

Would the data within this database now have become a target of the hidden text algo or is there some other possible reason for this one page dropping to PR0?

 

killroy




msg:186764
 6:36 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

consider moving the db into a external .js file, or into a script section at the bottom of the page. 1400 items.. it might simply be so much code that google doesn'T read past the head section

SN

walthamstow




msg:186765
 6:41 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi Killroy,

I've had no problem with size before and the page is still cached. Each database entry consists of only 8 numbers and a short piece of text. The total size of the page is less than 88K.

killroy




msg:186766
 6:50 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well my advice has many other advantages too, such as faster page response, and that the page is rendered immediatly and the DB loaded afterwards.

SN

walthamstow




msg:186767
 6:57 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Killroy,

I fully agree that it would probably be great for response etc. and would probably be worth implementing at some time BUT the point is the PR0 it now has - is it a penalty?

I've just checked and the page is now PR0 on six of the datacentres with only EX and IN remaining at PR5. The sole point of the page is the translator and an inline database should not receive any penalties as it contains the unique content for the translator.

FleaPit




msg:186768
 7:02 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

How many pages link to it? Do they use normal href links? What is the PR of the page(s) that do link to it?

All these things can contribute to a 0 pr which doesn't mean it is 0, it may be just less than 1. Anyways, there may be a page penalty but without looking at the code there is no way of telling for sure.

walthamstow




msg:186769
 7:24 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

I just checked on alltheweb and I currently have 18 inbound links to this although a couple of recent PR6's aren't shown yet.

Of that 2 are PR6, 1 is PR5, 7 are PR4, 1 is PR3, 4 are PR2, 2 are PR0s. 1 is gray.

The PR0s are not reciprocal links (there is no link anywhere to their sites on mine) and they seem to be large links pages. The gray is an eBay 'ME' page.

My site's pages have all been at PR5 for the past six months. Is it likely that the two unsolicited links to my page from the PR0's are causing a penalty? If so how on earth can this be prevented?

walthamstow




msg:186770
 8:19 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Perhaps Google Guy could explain why this totally unique content page on the web is now a PR0?

No spam or anything similar - is it being penalised for something outside of my control? Or is this single page somehow lagging behind on the update?

walthamstow




msg:186771
 10:26 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well I've now sent an email to webmaster@google.com maybe I'll find out what's happening with regard to this single page. I hope!

amoore




msg:186772
 11:33 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just to clarify a bit. Is this really Java (code that is run by your webserver and outputs HTML)? Or is it really javascript, which is sent to the client (be it a browser or googlebot) for it to interpert. Notwithstanding their similar names, they are very different things.

I would have a tough time ascribing much of a problem to stuff running in java. After all, how should the browser know? If it's javascript, I can see googlebot being happier if you put it in an external file.

walthamstow




msg:186773
 12:02 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi amoore,

It's Javascript enclosed within <SCRIPT language=JavaScript></script> and the data is defined by var reg=new Array().

A typical entry in the database would be:

reg[1]="01094209¦....Maker....,....City....";

It's convenient to keep it in the HTML because once the page is loaded collectors can do multiple wildcard searches without any file access. It's worked fine for 6 months with good feedback from the users regarding it's ease of use and speed in giving a result.

I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding why Googlebot should have a problem with this as it's all within the <head></head> tags and I understood Google disregarded anything within the script tags.

If Google in fact is picking this data array up as spam then surely a lot of similar translators/calculators that use the inline data method will also suffer?

Or is some factor affecting this page's PR adversely?

killroy




msg:186774
 12:10 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Maybe the new theories that Google now tries to scan JavaScript for embedded links may account for that. Perhaps only recently Google started parsign the JavaScript, but was not prepared for such a large chnk of it as in your case and simply chocked on it and put down the page as "faulte" ergo the PR0. Just another theory, sicne we won't know until this update settles in anyways.

SN

walthamstow




msg:186775
 12:17 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Killroy,
Maybe Google Guy will be able to tell us whether that's the case regarding Javascript data arrays. I'd hate to think it might be picking up the name and location of Victorian companies that ceased business over 120 years ago and interpreting them as possible link data. LOL Please tell me it's not true!

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved