|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |
||
| |||||||||
![]() |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
real pr 10
http://www.pr10.com/
hot stuff! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've seen these before!!
Some great joke tips on the page .. Be sure to do the opposite of everything on that page!
__________________
Darrin J. Ward, a Professional SEO Consultant and Original Founder of SEO Chat (this site), Google Dance Tool & some other cool stuff! * Rankings Reporter - Track your Website's Keyword Rankings in Google & Yahoo. * ChatButton - Free AJAX Chatboxes to embed onto any Webpage - super-easy copy/paste setup!. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
i guess there are some lucky n00bs here Darrin, if it wasn't for you i am sure that they would of at least tried some of these tips..
remember, just because google has over 50 phd's doesn't mean they will figure out the #00ff33 trick ;) "the old 00ff33 trick hey?" |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Is this true? |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
yes tis' true.. (thanks to Darrin)
BUT the smaller your page size the better... |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually it is true that Google only indexes the first 101k of documents. This is an attempt to conserve storage at their end. There are 4 points to this logic:
1. If something is more than 101k down the page then it's not too useful to the user and must not be important. 2. It will save a vast quantity of storage on their behalf. There are plenty of 1 Meg+ HTML pages out there! 3. It will save bandwidth (data transferred), meaning they will have lower costs. 4. Given that there would be an over all less amount of data to be parsed, it would be possible to stick to a 30 day update cycle. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
do you see any advantage or disadvantage on this "trick"?
__________________
best regards... mario |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
alot of people believe in this, i for one don't think that you will achieve anything out of this but it is nice to send a little free traffic to your favourite search engine ;)
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Does this include images or is that discarded? Is it only text? |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just the HTML page gets crawled by Googlebot.
What would Google understand from the pictures I took last summer in Transylvania? |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
the question he was asking robert was "are the images included in the 101k cached"
i would say that the images are not included, but they are spidered and they relate that image to the keyterm of the page and the alt tags... if that makes any sense |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't think the are spidered. my logs shows only HTML pages downloaded by Googlebot.
It's true, the page is analysed after and the images are related to their alt tag and/or title and/or href. But defenetely not included in the cached copy. When displayed in Google "q=cache:tXw8ZgiZ....." it uses a BASE tag to get the images. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does this mean that web pages >101k do not get a "cached" link on google results?
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
IMO, if Google gets pages larger than 100 K it will stop the parser when the limit is reached. But I don't know if it gets cached.
I don't know if it makes any difference if the page is cached or not by google. If you worry about this, it means that you worry about the uptime of your server and in this case I suggest you should change your hosting provider |
![]() |
| Viewing: SEO Chat Forums > Search Engine Strategies > Search Engine Optimization > real pr 10 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|