Indexing Dynamically Generated Content - aggregated from Google Images
3:03 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
Once you choose a "widget" the web-site will pull and display data from Google Images + a "widget website". This content is generated on the fly.
Is it possible to have it indexed by Google?
[edited by: tedster at 4:29 pm (utc) on Apr 30, 2010]
9:05 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
If the final pages will essentially be the search results from Google images, then Google definitely does NOT want to index that.
11:35 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
It will be a combination of images from Google and data pulled from a "widget web-site" such as widget specs (length etc).
11:38 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
I just can't wrap my head around the concept itself. I know that other web-sites somehow manage to do that.
When the google bot comes to the generated page, but not all the data from other sources is loaded, will it only grab the already generated content?
11:42 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
data pulled from a "widget web-site" such as widget specs (length etc)
If this mash-up includes such data directly in the source code, then that is what will be indexed. And if it is unique compared to other online websites, then it jusdt might rank well, too.
Google image search "might" index the images as well - but the original owners of the images might not like that in every case. When you're automating a process like this, you do run some risks.
12:02 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)
so you think that if it's not in the code already it will not get crawled? if the code requests data from another page (sort of like a feed)
Very valid point about respecting others property also
1:07 am on May 1, 2010 (gmt 0)
Yes, as far as I know the text needs to be visible when you "view source" in order for it to be a factor used in ranking your URL. If the source code references some external URL, that URL might be independently crawled and indexed, but it's not part of the page that referenced it.
[edited by: tedster at 1:12 am (utc) on May 3, 2010]
1:05 am on May 3, 2010 (gmt 0)
Just an update, I double checked it by seeing how Google bot sees the page and your statement is true