| 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
| 6:41 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
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.
| 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.
| 6:57 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
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.
| 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.
| 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?
| 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?
| 10:26 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well I've now sent an email to firstname.lastname@example.org maybe I'll find out what's happening with regard to this single page. I hope!
| 11:33 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 12:02 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A typical entry in the database would be:
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?
| 12:10 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 12:17 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|