Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Storeman Data Layout

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Storeman Data Layout



    That is good advice. rewrite rules are you're friend.

    Jason


    > Bruce,
    >
    > I think it's a good idea to head off trouble. But can I suggest you
    > rewrite those urls instead of banning them via the robots file.
    > You've got the urls in the serch engine... just to notify the bot to
    > dump them ... not allow them... seems like wasting gold being handed to
    you.
    > Instead 'correct' those sek results and permanently redirect them to the
    > ones you want listed in teh search engine.
    > That way also anyone who has those old links to you (that get followed
    > by the spiders) will still be of value for inbound links (and will help
    > the spiders update their search engines at the same time).
    >
    > I feel that just blocking those older urls... is like cutting off your
    > nose in spite of your face... we fight for rankings and work so hard to
    > get them..
    > any inbound link to our sites is a treasure... a potentential revenue
    > source... use them to improve your rankings instead. Tell the bots what
    > they should have instead.
    >
    > rewrite rules can be really confusing and a pain in the butt to figure
    > out... but they really are our friends in situations like this.
    >
    >
    > Kelly
    >
    >
    >
    > Barrett wrote:
    >
    > > I did some testing today and found some of our results containing the
    > > sek url as the indented item, but then just as I did figured that
    > > would be consistent; the SFL styles can in as indented. Continuing my
    > > not so scientific analysis it looks as though some of our results that
    > > I'm pretty sure that used have indented sek urls are now single SFL
    > > results.
    > > Today I disallowd on the sek directory since our SFL links out number
    > > the SEk results by 4 to 1 - hope I am heading off trouble and not in
    > > to it.
    > > Should be ok I think as it is in keeping with what google is really
    > > trying to do.
    > >
    > > For now we'll just live with the slow down when the spider feeds.
    > > I'm not about to completely change horses in midstream at this point.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > -Barrett
    > > http://handmade-paper.us
    > > Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
    > > ShipWorks by Interapptive.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 02:26 PM, mivalist wrote:
    > >
    > >> I'm far from an expert on Google so I'm just making an educated guess
    > >> here
    > >> but I know that when I do a Google search I'll sometimes see a
    > >> listing from
    > >> one domain followed by an indention and then a second listing from
    > >> the same
    > >> domain. I don't know under what circumstances Google chooses to do
    > >> that but
    > >> I would have to guess it's due to their algorithm deciding that two
    > >> pages
    > >> from the same domain qualify for the same ranking (based on the search
    > >> terms) and would therefore get the #1 & 2 (9&10, 10063 & 10064, etc.)
    > >> position but it adds the indention to shows that both listings are
    > >> from the
    > >> same domain.
    > >>
    > >> If we assume that to be the logic, pages on the same domain with
    > >> duplicate
    > >> content would naturally have the same ranking and would always
    > >> display that
    > >> way giving such stores an advantage over their competition.
    > >>
    > >> Again, I don't know if any of this is the case but it's the only
    > >> thing I can
    > >> think of that makes Google's new policy make any sense.
    > >>
    > >> Dan
    > >> Impulse Creations
    > >>
    > >> For low priced back issue comics and the very best in service visit
    > >> us at
    > >> www.impulsecreations.net and be sure to look for information on our
    > >> discounted subscription service with free bags and free shipping!
    > >>
    > >> -----Original Message-----
    > >> From: [email protected]
    > >> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bruce
    Golub -
    > >> Phosphormedia.com
    > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:05 PM
    > >> To: 'Miva Merchant Users'
    > >> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>> -----Original Message-----
    > >>> From: [email protected]
    > >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
    > >>> Jason Henderson
    > >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:58 AM
    > >>> To: Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com
    > >>> Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
    > >>> Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
    > >>>
    > >>>> Also, I think some are confusing "mirror" sites with
    > >>>
    > >>> "mirror" pages.
    > >>>
    > >>>> I'm
    > >>>
    > >>> not
    > >>>
    > >>>> certain, but pretty sure that Google, or any search engine for that
    > >>>
    > >>> matter,
    > >>>
    > >>>> does not penelize for duplicate "pages" under the same
    > >>>
    > >>> domain...that
    > >>>
    > >>>> would just be silly. What they are penalizing are duplicate pages,
    > >>>> under
    > >>>
    > >>> different
    > >>>
    > >>>> domains. For example, www.ThisIsTheRealSite.com/rankme.html being
    > >>>> exactly the same as www.ThisIsAnotherSite.com/rankthis.html.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Bruce,
    > >>>
    > >>> Did you miss Dave's post yesterday? Google indeed is now
    > >>> penalizing for duplicate content on the same domain.
    > >>>
    > >>> Jason
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I didn't have time to read the article, however, if they are doing
    this,
    > >> then I'm selling my shares in Google, cause it shows they are just
    being
    > >> stupid. There is no benefit from having duplicate content under the
    same
    > >> domain, so why invoke a penelty.
    > >>
    > >> -Bruce
    > >>
    > >
    > >
Working...
X