| 12:05 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hard to tell without looking at the actual site.
If, on the other hand, there isn't, then someone has found an interesting and likely way to fool GoogleBot.
If it's the latter I'd send a note to Google about it, it would be the first I've seen of that.
| 12:06 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Earlier this month someone wrote that their <no script> tags were no longer being recognized in this fashion.
I had a <no script> for browser support issues and the contents of it actually showed up last month in a lot of my results. Unfortunately, it did not help me in my keyword sector.
I stayed away from it for this update b/c it seemed sort of spammy and appeared to me as something simple for Google to detect and prevent.
| 12:11 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
do you suggest I have to follow this way?
Cause it has, in only 60 days, runned up to 3rd place
for my principal kWord. I have lost this place for this?
| 12:20 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
OneTooMany: If someone has better evidence of what the GoogleBot does with the tags I'll gladly defer..
I say it is doing something with them because I do use them (legitmately) on 2-3 places on my site for at least internal links and text display. GoogleBot follows those links - at least for me. (I would check the text but finding it is hopeless - there are no keywords in there.)
Oliver, if I were in your shoes I might just wait to see what happens to his ranking after the next update. If it seems as through the text inside those scripts is being used to illegimately enhance his SERPs then I would fill out a report to Google about it.
| 12:26 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
what do you think about <noscript> and link exchange page?
Is it possible that with this tag Google does not
find this page.
If it is so,.....it is very ..... impolite...I think
| 12:44 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
consider that the text inside the <noscript> tag is the description that Google takes to describe the site....
| 12:52 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Individual cases may vary & I might be way out...
| 1:12 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have seen google take descriptions from inside the <no script> tag before. Its the link that concerns me.
| 1:23 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
this is an example of this tag
<noscript><h1>all fruits, orange, lemon, apple</h1> <b>orange, lemon, apple</b></noscript>
| 1:28 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've used it in the past ... with embedded content.
I would question why it is needed on a normal html content page. i could understand a flash page. but i've decided never to put anything in that tag, I think for the same reasons as why you are asking.
| 2:02 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 2:10 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> it loads an image with NOSCRIPT
Not the?content? i was refering too. The tag (has / or had) onpage content potential. Which is not displayed. offpage algos would work well (read best) for that kind of a page. Cleary an image is not keyword stuffing.
| 4:32 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Let me clarify...
My last message had little to do with the specifc 'problem' page that this thread started with. I was simply commenting that there are valid uses of a NOSCRIPT tag.
I don't have enough information (the site - per TOS) to decide, for sure, if they're padding for the algos sake or not. I would suspect they are, but just because they are doesn't mean that everyone is. (Which is why I mentioned that use above)
| 9:34 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Regarding <noscript>, on this thread...
Does Google Follow links in dropdowns?
Message #12 suggests...
|Use <noscript></noscript> and provide a plain text menu within them |
Is this a legitimate use of the tag, and will it work?
| 5:29 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|