Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: open
All this routine does is spit out a load of image tabs with a link (i.e. document.write('<a href="xxxx"><img src="yyyyy"></a>');.
Have I just limited my site in the search engine world?
Would this negate the effect or am I better putting the links in each indivisual page?
Also, are links better as "http://xxx.yyy.zzz/page.html" or is "page.html" ok?
>>>Also, are links better as "http://xxx.yyy.zzz/page.html" or is "page.html" ok?
This has been discussed alot, and from personal testing I can say that it doesn't matter. The search engines will follow absolute and relative links.
1) >>>Also, are links better as "http://xxx.yyy.zzz/page.html" or is "page.html" ok?
.....dang, I was always under the vague impression that coding up every link with the full URL - [etc....] - would somehow show the site referring to itself more often in the server logs? I don't know, for some reason I always thought that was "bad" in some vague way, never explored it.
(That's just one of the frustrations about this line of work: how many of us are self-taught? How many tiny holes are there in our knowledge? Thank god for this forum.)
2) OK. So the .js menu's are out, thanks to search engines, then???
Is there some way to use, I don't know, XML to do that? Adapt a sort of nav menu include into a "regular" HTML page??
I mean we do it all the time w/ CFM, PHP, and ASP. Never used SSI but I know that's do-able, too. There's a bunch of small, still-HTML client sites that it would be handy to use that kind of "nav menu include" on so we wouldn't have to move them to a better server.