http://www.example.co.uk/content.php?categoryId=28

These are the same every time, ie, each page has its own specific id
so while it would be my fussy preference to see them formatted as
individual-page-name.php I can't see this as being a reason for the
Googs not to index anything other than the index page,
example.co.uk/content.php
especially since MSN has happily indexed the lot.

Hmmmm. I'm fishing a little here, case you're wondering.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
--

i think as long as you dont use q= or id= you'll be ok

Mark
"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jgnjf192euevj9j85vknjjs01h5u8ef306@4ax.com...

Big Bill wrote:


Good question. I wondered about that myself...

Most CMS (content management system) packages choose this form for item
naming unless (or until) they have post slugs (identifiers) supplied. Such
slugs can form more meaningful permanent links that also make the URL
correlate to the content, as well as reflect on its date and orientation.

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.adaptivepath.com/publicat...ves/000058.php

However, such things require redirections (mod rewrites to be precise) at a
lower level, which is rarely trivial to do. Let us look at the popular
PHP-Nuke, for example:

The URL's in one PHP-Nuke-driven section are as follows:

http://www.schestowitz.com/Vision/mo...article&sid=37
http://www.schestowitz.com/Vision/mo...article&sid=39
http://www.schestowitz.com/Vision/mo...article&sid=38

This is not ideal. WordPress, a popular blogging tool, comes with such
numbering by default too. Have a look at Dvorak Uncensored:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2505
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2506

Every URL (even if added today) is said to have the same PageRank (5), which
is odd. I modified my WordPress installations to have a better structure,
e.g.:

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archiv...n-the-desktop/
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archiv...google-vanity/

In terms of SE referrals, all is well. PageRank varies across items though.

I hope my discussion gave some answers.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:39:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:


Are you saying that these as they stand advertise that they are
temporary links? I was thinking something like that. They're kind of
half-done, although the technicalities of it escape me.

OK I read it. Didn't understand it, but I read it.

More like food for thought, which means more questions when I digest
things a bit. Ta.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
--

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:58:48 +0100, "mark | r"
<trooperbill@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think there's more to it than that.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
--

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:39:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

snip


I read the above article and find it interesting, but it is not
helpful in terms of how do you construct urls in a Google dominated
world. The article isn't bad, just nor helpful. Meaningful urls are
helpful to the person viewing the page, but I suspect are mot that
meaningful to Google.

The real problem, as I see it, is how do you construct urls for a
dynamic web site and still make them seo friendly? That is perhaps
the question or problem the original psoter is driving at.

Which of these urls, all fake, would be the best for seo, assuming
they would all deliver the exact same content?

http:www.domain.com/subject.html

http:www.domain.com/category/subject.html

http:www.domain.com/subject.php

http:www.domain.com/content.php/subject
http:www.domain.com/content/subject
assuming "content" is the name of content.php, your main php, or
activex, or asp, or whatever, processing page

http:www.domain.com/content.php?categoryId=subject

When I say "best for seo", maybe I really ought to ask "which will
hurt for seo", since all, or some, of the above might be acceptable,
but one or more might be a real no-no for Google.

Now I know you can search on Google and find many example of the
format http:www.domain.com/content.php?categoryId=28, i.e. using the
"?". But I have considered using the "?", and yet I am put off by
Google's official position not to use it.

I also know you can do mod-rewrites, but as Roy Schestowitz points
out,

"... such things require redirections (mod rewrites to be precise) at
a lower level, which is rarely trivial to do."

So to get back to the original question, is
http://www.example.co.uk/content.php?categoryId=28 acceptable.
Officially Google says no. Unofficially, Google permits them. For
example, I jsut searched on "mortgages tampa", and the third url is
http://www.bizjournalsdirectory.com/...y/s.asp?d=7489

By the way the first url is
http://www.partypop.com/Categories/M...s/Tampa_FL.htm, which looks like a
clean html page, but we all know it is dynamic.

and the second url is
http://www.superpages.com/yellowpage.../S-FL/T-Tampa/, which looks
suspicious like a dynamic page.

And the fourth url is
http://www.switchboard.com/Mortgage_...ellowpages.htm,
which looks clean, but we all know it is dynamic

and the fifth url is alm.directorym.com/?DirectoryId=9762, obviously a
dynamic page.

In fact we all know, as does google that dynamic pages are here to
stay. I think Google just doesn't want to officially admit it.

So based on this evidence I don't see anything wrong with
http://www.example.co.uk/content.php?categoryId=28.

I could be wrong. In fact my teenagers remind me about 100 times a
day that I am wrong on many things. And in fact if I am wrong on
this, please tell me so I can correct my urls.

And thanks for everyone's input on this.


Best regards,

Al
http://www.affordablefloridainsurance.com
http://www.americanbestmortgages.com
http://www.americanaffordablelifeinsurance.com

Big Bill wrote:
I think it really is that simple!

Except you get whatever keyword bonus that having keywords in your url
gives you if you use:

myexample.com/this.php?page=my_keywords_bonus

or any arbitary ('?','=') to '/' replacement version thereof.


--

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk

AF wrote:


In the back of my mind I have some text or voice (excuse my idiotic
metaphors) telling me that one dominant search engine decided to put
greater emphasis on keywords in URL's. I think it was about a week ago. I
am also not too sure is a match with 'blog' or 'weblog' is dealt with as a
special case. The blog apathists will tell you so...



Yes, as opposed to the item from Adaptive Path, which aims not to fool
search engines.



The rephrasing of the scenario is useful. If you choose to look at
penalties, however, instead of /rewards/ then you might miss 'gold mines'
that might get you good positions.



Don't they use it themselves for search results? One wonders. Hypocrisy, I
yell.



These examples are meaningless if you neglect other more significant factors
like page title, PageRank, last update, etc.



Maybe it wants it to become transparent (e.g. mod-rewrite) because it helps
the algorithms or prevents the need to adapt (READ: code).



All I can say is that to the reader, such URL's are less helpful. You can
use the URL and directory 'levels' (even though these are virtual) to
emulate a breadcrumb trail. People referred from SE's will orientate more
easily. I know I am not the only one who inspects URL's for various
purposes, as well as look at PR and Alexa ranks.


Pleasure to hear from you,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:22:16 GMT, AF <bscinc3000@Yahoo_NoSpam.com>
wrote:

Nor would I, particularly, but this is following on from a 302
redirect, from the domain registrant to the web hoster. I'm thinking
that the combination of the two are perhaps what are stopping any
pages other than the home page from being indexed.

BB




--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
--

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ddd8as$kcn$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
You seem to overlook that Google's SERPS are not intended to indexed?

I hate it when my SERPS at Google are full of pages which are really only
SERPS from lesser search engine. Happens on most Google searches, and
sometimes these SERPS from other engines even occupy top positions. I report
them as spam.

Mikkel