| 1:19 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
dauction, THANK YOU. This is exactly what I want. They could check their caches and see that my site still looks the same when it had the #1 ranking as it does now. How do I contact Google to do this? Is it even possible?
| 1:26 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I am new, what are "SERPs"?
And to answer another misunderstanding, no I did not convert to JS to improve my page in relation to SEs. I already had my #1 spot. I converted my pages to JS to improve the experience with my surfers AND to have my webpage fully and quickly adaptable to new content by mearly appending variables in arrays in the JS code.
| 1:40 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Text based browsers don't execute scripts, HQ.
Think of yourself as an architect. You may think a 'gone with the wind' style staircase is pretty cool as the entrance to a new shopping centre - but the law (the planning authorities) say you must not discriminate against eg disabled people. Your website design is no different. And your 'I'm hip and its 2002 get a new browser' ain't an option for many people.
Read the applicable laws in your country - and the W3C accessibility information. Comply with best practice and the law.
| 1:43 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>My point is that it sucks that Google does not parse JS and I want to draw attention to it.
I dont think any amount of prayers, debate or else here is going to change anything in the next months.
| 1:52 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
HQ, you're not going to be able to persuade Google or many of the members here.
Instead, think about this phrase...
"What would Google do?"
| 2:23 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hehe - the guy's running a porn site and you're worried about it being accessible to the blind?
| 2:51 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You could always try filling out this form
and letting them know that you demand that they manually give back your ranking.
It is the one form that GoogleGuy has repeatedly said that they read.</sarcasm>
If you don't want to play by their games, there are a few billion other sites that will.
[edited by: Marcia at 6:03 pm (utc) on Oct. 30, 2002]
| 9:05 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Why not put your previous site version in <noscript>? or am I missing something?
| 11:43 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
2) If a script uses browser detection techniques, which one should Google be?
3) If a page uses a script to validate a form and then submit the form, what should Google index? (After all the fields may all be blank)
If you want to serve smaller, faster files, look at zipping them up and changing your server settings to serve compressed files if the client will accept them.
| 2:26 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hahaha, good one Deodato! I prefer to call it an adult-related website! :)
Funny, this morning I woke up and my #1 position was restored for one of my websites (the bigger one). Weird. It was gone for over a week. Is this common? Perhaps i blew up too soon.
| 2:28 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"2) If a script uses browser detection techniques, which one should Google be?"
gxs, very good point. I never thought of this. Script will have to be written to accept 'general' browsers. But that would not work as you could create a different version of your site for the googlebot. I guess Google would have to pretend it is IE, if even allowed.
| 2:30 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I only have 0% content when JS is disabled. I think that is why I lost the listing, but now that I am back at #1, I am not sure. Perhaps my #1 spot has to do with the Google Dance?!
"If you want to serve smaller, faster files, look at zipping them up and changing your server settings to serve compressed files if the client will accept them."
Sorry, but this is not an option as I do not own the content that I give to my visitors.
| 2:33 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"Why not put your previous site version in <noscript>? or am I missing something?"
MHes, yes you are missing something. If I did that, then even the JS users have to load all that content (which is never displayed) so there is no save on bandwidth, and the site does not load faster. If I did this, I would remove the JS code completely.
In the world of trading adult traffic, the speed of which your site loads is extremely important. I traded 40k hits yesterday (which is a lot of me, but low compared to some) and a few extra seconds of load time could have cut that down significantly.
Also, the noscript tags would remove my functionality of my scripts to easily add more content as it becomes available to me.
| 2:41 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I still vote for server-side scripting that would make your content changes fast and easy but would present straight HTML to both human visitors and robots.
| 3:13 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If saving bandwith is such a major concern think about using mod_gzip or any other technique available to you to pack the documents you serve.
| 3:53 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
HQ, only thing I can say to your problem is what is so often to be read on adult webmaster boards: Want to get listed? Accept the rules. Complaining doesn't help.
You have to decide if your site will be optimized for thousands bookmarkers or fresh visitors from Google.
And don't tell me you can't afford more bandwidth your site is on the cheapest hosting provider I know about ;)
| 4:03 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> ...Perhaps i blew up too soon.
HQ, you wouldn't be the first person to see changes and attribute them to something. It can take two updates (from four to eight weeks) to see the effects of a change properly.
| 8:01 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
x_m, www.rackspace.com is not cheap! You must be talking about my image host, www.oxeo.com.
| 8:04 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am still not sure if I am going to keep my #1 ranking or not. Why would I lose it for a whole week? My change from regular HTML to mostly JS was done a while back, so it was not like Google instantly reacted to it. I believe I may still have lost my #1 ranking, but I will have to sit and wait. I normally do not jump the gun. If I lost my #1 ranking for something other than JS, then there is not way for me to find out what that is, as I have done nothing different.
Hmmm... I have gateway pages for first time visitors to my websites but I take them down for trades. So perhaps Google thought I was cheating them. But this type of thing is allowed right? The gateway does nothing more than show a few ads and says, "No Thanks. Please let me see XXXXXXXXX." at the bottom in which you can click on. Is this type of thing allowed? (I think it is, and I have read that it was, but I now want to make sure.)
| 8:06 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"If saving bandwith is such a major concern think about using mod_gzip or any other technique available to you to pack the documents you serve."
andreasfriedrich, the content is not mine, so I can not do this. I can only link to the content. The bandwidth I am speaking of saving are the actual links to this content! I might break 50k hits today, so my b/w bills are steap, even for plain text HTML code.
| 8:08 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
rogerd, I think you are right. The money I make from the SE traffic is worth the bandwidth bill. It is just hard to determine the amount of visitors lost via a slower site. But I suppose I am losing all non-JS users anyway, so that kind of cancels each other out.
| 8:10 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
mod_gzip is all about reducing the size of plain-text html - sounds like it would be perfect for cutting down on your bandwidth bills for your simple links page. I've seen it chop pages from 20k down to 4k. I'm sure others can back me up on this - it's definitely a necessity for any high-bandwidth site.
| 8:35 pm on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Evolve, adapt, or die.
| 2:57 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
mortalfrog, how does mod_gzip work?
| 2:59 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 4:23 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Really? So what's the solution to the parent variable?
And if there is such a solution, why haven't they implemented it yet? (And for that matter, why hasn't any other engine?)
Simple, it is easy to spam using such techniques. Same reason they don't follow frames: I mean; it is just as easy to follow <frame src="..."> as it is to follow <a href="..."> isn't it? But they don't.
It isn't Googles problem, it's yours - it's you that is losing the visitors and Google don't care.
| 5:31 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Perhaps the power is not there yet, but it will be. It will happen, it is just a matter of time. |
HQ, you're sour attitude amazes me. I'm not sure if you are actually looking for a solution or just a forum to gripe in.
Several people here have tried to tell you how it is. Several others have given you solutions to your problem. If that's still not good for you, why don't you go take it up with Google.com.
Listen one more time, HQ.
Evolve, adapt, or die.
| 5:42 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
HQ_Webmaster, I don't think just removing some .js from your page would trigger any problems with Google. You could try putting it back, or check to see if anything else changed on your pages. In general, many webmasters adopt the attitude that everything they do is an experiment, and that Google can change its rankings/index over time. That often serves people well, because if one change causes problems, a webmaster can see what else they can change to improve their site and rankings.
Hope you find the right balance for your sites,
| 6:13 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This looks like a good place for a brief reminder. The WebmasterWorld Terms of Service (link at bottom of every page) states:
|Since this is interactive, and everyone who participates in Webmaster World.com is "in it together", please treat others the way you wish to be treated. One way to guard against misunderstandings is to read over your response before you post it. Flaming: flaming or personal attacks are not allowed or tolerated. Should anyone use inappropriate language, start a personal attack, or engage in hate speech, they will be barred from all further discussions. |
Please let's avoid bickering and personal arguments and try to stay with the issues.
Thanks all, for your cooperation.
| 6:16 pm on Oct 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Only time will tell. I will post the results here for everyone else.
| This 60 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 60 ( 1  ) |