Forum Moderators: open
/mypage.html
or
/mypage.jsp?par1=val1
Reasons your site may not be included.Your pages are dynamically generated. We are able to index dynamically generated pages. However, because our web crawler can easily overwhelm and crash sites serving dynamic content, we limit the amount of dynamic pages we index.
So sayth Google
Google can and does index dynamic content but you have to have enough pr to get it to go many levels deep. It does prefer static pages, or non query stringed pages.
Is converting a new site to look static really worth it ?
Thanks.
site.com/category/4/
It's quite easy, just search for this on whatever lang you use for programming.
Nick
site.com/category/4/
I think google reduces pr for each sub-directory.
I'm going to have something like:
/mypage.jsp?par1=val1&par2=val2
to
/mypage_d_jsp_q_par1_e_val1_a_par2_e_val2.htm
So it looks like a static page any way you look at it.
With a PR of 7 or higher, you can expect 40,000 to 90,000 to get crawled by Googlebot. These are very inexact guesses based on 22 months of Google watching. Don't take them as gospel.
Static pages are helpful when you want Google to crawl deeper than it has in the past. One way in which static pages help is that Google can fetch them a lot faster due to the minimal setup time on your server. If Google can go faster, chances are better that it will go deeper before the crawl is over for that month. On our site, we can let Google fetch as many as ten pages per second (and Google will actually go this fast in spurts during the crawl). If these weren't static pages, we couldn't allow this because our server couldn't handle it.
The other area in which static pages are helpful is that dynamic pages will not be taken very seriously by bots other than Google. FAST/Alltheweb, for example, will crawl conspicuously dynamic links from a static page, but will not crawl such links when they're found on a dynamic page. An engineer at FAST said that this was because they don't want to get stuck in loops.
Most bots will not take a chance on dynamic pages. Ever since Google began crawling dynamic pages 21 months ago, I've been watching the bot referrals for my dynamic pages. Google is the only game in town -- hundreds per day, as opposed to five or six referrals from all other bots combined.
When it comes to conspicuously dynamic content, other bots may say they index, and they may crawl like crazy, but when push comes to shove only Google pulls through with the indexing and the referrals. At least that's how it was as recently as six months ago. Now I am able to disallow all cgi-bin, having dumped my data to static files, so I can't say if things have changed.
Finally, the difference in CPU load for fetching a static page, as opposed to a dynamic page, is at least an order of magnitude lighter, if that makes any difference. Of course, this assumes that the page is really static, and not a dynamic page made to look static to bots.
Of course, this assumes that the page is really static, and not a dynamic page made to look static to bots.
Well, actually that's exactly what I'm doing - dynamic pages made look like static. I can't make all my stuff static, that's just not an option.
It looks that way because the pages further down in the URL hierarchy tend to be more links away from the main PageRank source, which is usually the home page.
It looks that way because the pages further down in the URL hierarchy tend to be more links away from the main PageRank source, which is usually the home page.
So does google reduce pr by "counting clicks" from the home page or just by level of sub-directories ?
No. Crawl is limited to pr value and site size.
> Is converting a new site to look
> static really worth it ?
Absolutly. I figure it is worth 1 to 2 full pr levels.
Absolutly. I figure it is worth 1 to 2 full pr levels.
What do you mean ?
How is being static relates to pr ?
Few people link to dynamic urls. Static urls always attract more inbound links. Both from offsite and insite.
That "effect" translates into about 2pr values.
Few dynamic pages will ever rank as well as they should.
I think you mean "Few people link to dynamic URLs."
A page can have a static URL and still be a dynamic page. But I do agree that people are more loke to link to a static URL than a Dynamic one. The Staticism (?) implies stability, as in the page will be around for a while. Whereas, subconciously, a dynamic URL implies the page could move/disappear at any minute.
Onya
Woz
> a dynamic URL implies the page could
> move/disappear at any minute.
Exactly, and you don't know if the dynamic url could be encoded with something for your ip, or based upon another cookie. It's hard to link to that stuff when you don't know if it will even work for another user.
