100K page limit ?

Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the major
robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and YAHOO are.

Also, if this is still the rule, does anyone think it will change with the
advent of faster algorythms and faster computers and technology?

Cobalt wrote:

Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the major
robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and YAHOO are.

Yahoo certaily does not. Where did you read that it did?

Also, if this is still the rule, does anyone think it will change with the
advent of faster algorythms and faster computers and technology?

If I were designing search algorithms very long pages would be a point
against when searching and I suspect this is how Google works at least,
more weight is given to text higher in the page.


----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/

"davidof" <david.george (AT) g-dumpthisbit-mail (DOT) com> wrote

Cobalt wrote:
Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the major
robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and YAHOO
are.

Yahoo certaily does not. Where did you read that it did?

Also, if this is still the rule, does anyone think it will change with
the advent of faster algorythms and faster computers and technology?

If I were designing search algorithms very long pages would be a point
against when searching and I suspect this is how Google works at least,
more weight is given to text higher in the page.

I'm curious if what shows up in the cache (in SERPs) is what's actually been
covered by the 'bots? (I'm specifically referring to Google).

I ask since I've this one page (HUGE) which I haven't gotten around to
separating into separate pages. 'and well, only 2/3 of it shows up as
cached. 'Or am I understanding this wrongly?

WhoTurnedOffTheLights wrote:

I'm curious if what shows up in the cache (in SERPs) is what's actually been
covered by the 'bots? (I'm specifically referring to Google).

Not necessarily. Look for some unique phrases in your long document and
try searching for them with Google, you can use the site: operator to
restrict the search to pages in your domain. I’ve noticed that long
documents seem to get indexed to around the 115K point (text and markup)
but obviously this may evolve.

There is a previous thread on this subject on a.i.s-e if you can get
Google groups to work for you.

----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/

Cobalt wrote:

Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the
major robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and YAHOO
are.

Google has been seen crossing the 100k limit recently. I blogged about
it but can't find the post right now.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

On 09 May 2005 13:33:25 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com>
wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the
major robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and YAHOO
are.

Google has been seen crossing the 100k limit recently. I blogged about
it but can't find the post right now.

What's this, Philipp, a recess?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Sat, 7 May 2005 17:22:51 -0400, "Cobalt" <spam (AT) linhax (DOT) com> wrote:

Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the major
robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and YAHOO are.

Also, if this is still the rule, does anyone think it will change with the
advent of faster algorythms and faster computers and technology?


Hi

One of the sites I run is rather large (4500+ static html) and I have
two sitemaps.
One is 208kb and the other 217kb in size and both pages have been
cached, spidered etc by engines okay.
hth
plh
Paul


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cobalt wrote:

Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the major

robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and YAHOO
are.

Also, if this is still the rule, does anyone think it will change with
the
advent of faster algorythms and faster computers and technology?

No matter how you look at the issue, 100K+ pages seem like a waste of
bandwidth to me. Why don't you break it into 4 25K pages and add
cross-links to all pages? This way you

#1 made the pages more readable as the visitor won't get lost on a
super-long page
#2 gave yourself four chances to show any ads you want instead of only one
#3 got four pages indexed by search engines thus increasing your chances
to be picked?

And list goes on.

BTW, you can cut the size drastically if you move any JavaScripts and CSS
definitions into separate files. I guess, it is truly basic stuff, but it
never hurts to re-iterate the basics ;-)

So why would you want to have 100K+ pages, anyways?

Sincerely,
Dmitri
http://www.1-script.com/install/
Check out my CGI scripts installation offer
-------------------------------------






##-----------------------------------------------#
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archiv
http://www.1-script.com/forum
no-spam read and post WWW interface to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 6670 messages and counting
##-----------------------------------------------##

Paul Burke wrote:

One of the sites I run is rather large (4500+ static html) and I have
two sitemaps.
One is 208kb and the other 217kb in size and both pages have been
cached, spidered etc by engines okay.

I have found some documents about 500K long that have been indexed okay
by Google.

-----------------
http://www.abcseo.com/

Big Bill wrote:

On 09 May 2005 13:33:25 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com
wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

Is the 'rule of thumb' 100K per page size still adhered to by the
major robots?

Last I saw, Google was still obeying it, but curious if MSN and
YAHOO >> are.

Google has been seen crossing the 100k limit recently. I blogged
about it but can't find the post right now.

What's this, Philipp, a recess?

I don't know what "recess" means and the dictionary is ambigous on it,
but if it goes in the direction of "intentional ommission to defend
weak arguments", then: no.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com