Will Google Index CGI URLs?

[adisakmai]

Hi

Will google index shopping card system that is using CGI?

[edit]
Many Thank

[edited by: rcjordan at 2:34 am (utc) on May 3, 2003]
[edit reason] sorry, no specific references to sites. [/edit]

[Jesse_Smith]

It depends on how simple the URL is. I have much more success with php than cgi.

[maccas]

sure [google.com]

[vnsampat]

I have had google picking up cgi on 1 of my websites.
But its better with asp and php.

[loverty]

right ,i agree with you.php better than cgi

[mcavic]

I agree that PHP is better, but I don't know why an SE would think so. As far as the browser is concerned, PHP and CGI are the same thing, just with different extensions.

[brummie]

Google only started to give page rank to CGI pages in the last few months.

Php and asp have been asigned page rank for as long as I can remember.

[GoogleGuy]

We don't care what the file extension is. Well, don't make it .exe. :) But there's no boost for .php vs. .cgi vs. .asp vs. whatever.. :)

[Jesse_Smith]

:::But there's no boost for .php vs. .cgi vs. .asp vs. whatever.

That's weird. With a php message board, after I dumped the session IDs, BANG, indexed the site.

php= Main page --> Message board indexes --> Page 2 --> and so on, all get's indexed.

But on .cgi I don't see it get deepcrawled very far in.

cgi= Main page --> section index --> item page. Only goes two pages deep, to section index.

Are these bad cgi URLs?

Section: name.cgi?mode=videogames&id=541022
Item: name.cgi?item=B000084318&type=Search

I put them in .shtml using SSI to get them listed.

[mcavic]

The id= might be bad.

[GoogleGuy]

"id=" can look like a session id. I'd avoid session id's in any form if you can..

But there's no boost for different file types.

[ciml]

No boost, but some URL extensions don't seem to get crawled.

The 'normal' ones do, but domain.com/file.somethingunusual won't get in by virtue of returning text/html as the Content-type.