Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.22.192

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

<head>Java Database</head> giving PR0?

Is my inline database being penalised?

     
6:05 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 0


Hi,

I have a Javascript database in the <head> section of one page on my site. All my other pages have PR5 and this page has now dropped to a white bar.

The database forms part of a unique java driven historical translator for widget collectors which gives the date of design registration and the maker of all Victorian widgets.

The database consists of 1300 entries each with the Victorian codes for day, month,year and the name of the maker and the town. The user simply enters in the four different alphanumeric codes found within the registration mark on the antique widget and if valid the answer is given as to when it was registered and who made it.

It has inbound links from quite a few (clean) sites plus major ones such as a government's patents office and a National library.

Would the data within this database now have become a target of the hidden text algo or is there some other possible reason for this one page dropping to PR0?

6:36 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from MT 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 1, 2003
posts:1843
votes: 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

SN

6:41 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 0


Hi Killroy,

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)

Senior Member from MT 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 1, 2003
posts:1843
votes: 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.

SN

6:57 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 0


Killroy,

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)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 11, 2003
posts:149
votes: 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)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 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)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 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)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 0


Well I've now sent an email to webmaster@google.com 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)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 30, 2001
posts:373
votes: 0


Just to clarify a bit. Is this really Java (code that is run by your webserver and outputs HTML)? Or is it really javascript, which is sent to the client (be it a browser or googlebot) for it to interpert. Notwithstanding their similar names, they are very different things.

I would have a tough time ascribing much of a problem to stuff running in java. After all, how should the browser know? If it's javascript, I can see googlebot being happier if you put it in an external file.

12:02 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 0


Hi amoore,

It's Javascript enclosed within <SCRIPT language=JavaScript></script> and the data is defined by var reg=new Array().

A typical entry in the database would be:

reg[1]="01094209¦....Maker....,....City....";

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)

Senior Member from MT 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 1, 2003
posts:1843
votes: 0


Maybe the new theories that Google now tries to scan JavaScript for embedded links may account for that. Perhaps only recently Google started parsign the JavaScript, but was not prepared for such a large chnk of it as in your case and simply chocked on it and put down the page as "faulte" ergo the PR0. Just another theory, sicne we won't know until this update settles in anyways.

SN

12:17 am on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 16, 2003
posts:27
votes: 0


Killroy,
Maybe Google Guy will be able to tell us whether that's the case regarding Javascript data arrays. I'd hate to think it might be picking up the name and location of Victorian companies that ceased business over 120 years ago and interpreting them as possible link data. LOL Please tell me it's not true!
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members