| 1:17 pm on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Please any one there to help me in solving problem
| 1:36 pm on Jun 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I prefer links like:
I avoid links like:
somepage.html - without a beginning /
../../somepage.html - relative links
/somefolder/index.html - omit the index filename!
| 1:33 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
please can anyone tell me that what will be the problem if i use the Link like "./filename.html" As i am sure that it is giving some problem for backlinks in google.
As i have seen that i had use "./filename.html" all over the site and whenever i check backlinks in google it doesnot show internal pages.
Please anyone can solve my query.
| 1:53 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm, is the single dot a valid relative reference? I don't think it is. I've only seen "../" and then root relative references like /filename.html or just filename.html.
|(e.g., ".." means one level up in the hierarchy defined by the path) |
P.S. This may be of importance in your situation, not sure...
|When present, the BASE element must appear in the HEAD section of an HTML document, before any element that refers to an external source. The path information specified by the BASE element only affects URIs in the document where the element appears. |
I know it can be easy to overlook the fact that the base element must come before any other external reference.
| 2:27 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Hmmm, is the single dot a valid relative reference? I don't think it is. |
A little more research into this shows me that the single dot is valid syntax but may not be recommended due to old browsers and some indexing entities that don't understand this specific syntax. I can't recall ever seeing a single dot used in relative URIs. My apologies for the above misinformation. Goes to show I still have a lot to learn! ;)
|The path segments "." and "..", also known as dot-segments, are defined for relative reference within the path name hierarchy. They are intended for use at the beginning of a relative-path reference to indicate relative position within the hierarchical tree of names. |
| 3:00 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This discussion [webmasterworld.com] might help.
| 4:05 pm on Jun 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One thing I should point out with the single dot segment is that it references another file in the same directory, just like a URI with no slashes.
./filename.html is the same as filename.html.
I've just found that using absolute and/or root relative URIs is so much easier in the long run for me. Many will state that is not the case for them and I do believe it will all be dependent on your requirements and the type of editing environment you are used to working in.
| 7:17 am on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So friends i can conclude from this post that if i am using "./Filename.html" then there is no harm in respect to Google.
I had read few articles and they denote single Dot "./" as current directory i mean "./filename.html" = "/filename.html"
So if i am using "./filename.html" then it can be resolved as "/filename.html", but did anyone know that will google bot will able to resolve these paths for backlink.
| 9:35 am on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> So if i am using "./filename.html" then it can be resolved as "/filename.html", but did anyone know that will google bot will able to resolve these paths for backlink. <<
No. The ./filename.html is in the current directory and /filename.html is in the root folder of the site.
I try to begin all links with a / and therefore count through an absolute strcture beginning at the root folder. I very occasionally may refer to other.page.html which is a file in the same folder as where I am now.
I never begin with a . or .. on the URL.
| 10:19 am on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I too had got relative links for my website, my most of the pages where not getting indexed, after reading the bourbon update, which specifies us to keep absoulte links instead of relative, I have changed all the relative links to absolute links. In my opinion it's a good practice to keep absolute links rather than getting mess with relative links.
| 11:08 am on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So after u change your relative links to absolute did all ur internal links pages started showing up.
And yes ramchandra one more thing, how did u use the absolute path. I mean did u entered full path to ur links including http: like this "http://www.yourdomain.com/filename.html"
If ramchandra this works for you then please let me know ,so that i too will change all my relative path links to absolute. As my Site is Already having PR-7 and thousands of my internal pages are linked to home page but when i look "backward links" i can see only 81 Links only.
| 7:02 am on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> So after u change your relative links to absolute did all ur internal links pages started showing up.
Not all but most of my pages have been indexed.
> how did u use the absolute path. I mean did u entered full path to ur links including http: like this "http://www.yourdomain.com/filename.html"
BTW How you are looking for "backward links"?
| 7:34 am on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thats gr8 that after u user full path including "http://" in ur URL ,your most of the page gets indexed.I feel i will also do the same. But i would like to know how long it takes to show ur indexed pages as backlinks in google. I mean as google is crawling my site daily (because of PR7) i m not worried about indexing of pages but my question is when these index pages will starts showing as backlinks.
I think i must clear that my pages are already indexed i can see in the SERPs in google if i use the "PageTile" and my "website name" like this "PageTitle DomainName.com".
My problem is with the Backlinking not Indexing. So if by using "Absolute URL" my backlink starts working then i will be the happiest person in this world to do so.
>BTW How you are looking for "backward links"?
I am using Link:www.mydomain.com to view the backlinks.
So ramachandra do reply my these queries.
| 9:58 am on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> But i would like to know how long it takes to show ur indexed pages as backlinks in google.
I am not sure how long it takes and also I will not assure you that by absolute linking your site pages gets indexed.
If you have good internal linking then you donít have to worry just wait for robot to deep crawl your website.
| 6:58 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It takes 3 months for backlinks to appear in Google, but Google will only show you 5 to 10% of the links that it knows about.
| 10:00 am on Jun 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What adverse effect will be there on my site if i too start using full absolute path for all my urls in my website.
I mean for everything from home page to categories page to product page, all over the place i am planning to use full absolute url. For example"
I know one adverse effect is that Size of my page will increase by few Kbs . but other then size what else will be the effect. AS i had read somewhere that everytime new session will be started if i use "http://".
So if someone can tell me that other than pageSize what all things will be affected if i use absolute URL.
| 8:26 am on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
no reply from anyone about my above post?
| 1:20 pm on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i am not getting reply from any member.... i am afraid that,
Is my thread is [SPAM]?
Not having high [PR]
It is not at all shown in [SERPs]..
please atleast reply