Adding static pages to get more SE Listings.

Borek wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:55:49 +0100, catherine yronwode <cat (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com
wrote:

illos = illustrations = pictures. But in order for the picture's alt
tag to count with google, the illustration must itself be a link to
... somewhere or something.

Illos can be links to bigger versions of themselves, or to catalogue
pages, or to a gallery page of a similar class of illos, or to a
text page -- anything. Google only counts the words in the alt tag
if (1) the words are parsed by spaces or hyphens (not
runtogetherwords) and (2) if the illos containing the alt tags are
clickable links.

Example:

center
a href=http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
img align="bottom" width="500" height="51" hspace="0"
alt=hoodoo-in-theory-and-practice-by-catherine-yronwode
src="http://www.luckymojo.com/blackcatbar.gif"
/a
/center

I think you are wrong.

Well, it sure wouldn't be the first time i was wrong!

I defer to you and Stacey, but i'd like to see some tests or proofs.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Curio Co.
http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:55:09 -0800, catherine yronwode
<cat (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com> wrote:

Example:

center
a href=http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
img align="bottom" width="500" height="51" hspace="0"
alt=hoodoo-in-theory-and-practice-by-catherine-yronwode
src="http://www.luckymojo.com/blackcatbar.gif"
/a
/center

I think you are wrong.

Well, it sure wouldn't be the first time i was wrong!

I defer to you and Stacey, but i'd like to see some tests or proofs.

Hi Cat,

Read the last two paragraphs of
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/anc...imization.html for two
tests, one for alt text of non linked images the second the title
attribute of text links.

Come to think of it I should add a link to the Google searches for
those two tests.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

"David" <seodave (AT) search-engine-optimization-services (DOT) co.uk> wrote

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:55:09 -0800, catherine yronwode
cat (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com> wrote:
snip

I think you are wrong.

Well, it sure wouldn't be the first time i was wrong!

I defer to you and Stacey, but i'd like to see some tests or proofs.

Hi Cat,

Read the last two paragraphs of
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/anc...imization.html for two
tests, one for alt text of non linked images the second the title
attribute of text links.

Come to think of it I should add a link to the Google searches for
those two tests.

Borek did announce this recently and put his image that was tested and
posted it here. I announced it a while back. Anyone could easily test it for
themselves with an image so they wouldn't have to take the word of another.

Stacey

On 8 Nov 2005 06:16:26 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Another trick might be to cap the number of
pages, and make it relate to pagerank (or the successor), e.g. you can
have at most 10 to the power pagerank (times a constant < 1 ) pages in
Google + some constant, i.e.

max pages = 10 ^ ( c1 * PageRank ) + c2

It's kind of like that now, as you add more pages the benefit is
spread further and so you can loose current traffic. All depends how
many new pages you add, how you link it altogether and what the new
content is.

If you have a site that has say 100,000 pages and it's doing well on
many SERPs, you add 900,000 more pages spreading any PR benefit much
further. Where the original 100,000 pages had X benefit from the links
now they might have only 10% of X. This could mean you loose a lot of
your original SERPs and since you've spread the PR 10X further your
new content might not have enough link benefit to gain more SERPs to
counteract the drop!

I've seen this happen on some of my sites where too many pages are
indexed, though fortunately the new contents traffic more than made up
for the loss.

Had I added low traffic content overall I could have seen a drop in
traffic, but many more SERPs, just not as high as before (so where
before you might have many top 5s, now you have many more top 10s,
overall less traffic).

Fortunately for most sites if you have a reasonable PR home page (PR5)
it can handle at least 30,000 pages indexed before getting into
'trouble'.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:26:56 -0800, catherine yronwode
<cat (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com> wrote:

So you have two choices: make static pages or use some coding tricks
to lose the session ID tags that alert google to the fact that you
are using dynamic pages.

It's not the dynamic pages per se that's the problem for the site,
Google will index dynamic pages, but it says it does it a little
slower to reduce too much bandwidth usage while spidering.

The problem with the session ids is each time a spider visits it's
treated as a new visitor and so is given a new id which is then added
to the end of all URLs.

This means each time a spider visits it doesn't get the same URLs as
it got last time, it gets the same content, but the spider doesn't
know these urls are the same page so it will index it X times (4 times
with the examples below)-

index.php?sid=12345
index.php?sid=12346
index.php?sid=12347
index.php?sid=12348

The biggest problem with this is each URL never gets a set of stable
links, so the next time they visit the page it's an island (has no
links to it) and over time will first give it a supplemental listing
an later remove it from the index. Whilst this is happening the same
pages are spidered and indexed again with a new URLs and the process
begins again!!

The site will get Google traffic but because of this it's unlikely any
hard SERPs will be gained (the type of SERPs that need links).

Most people here recommend the latter, but note that if or when
EVERYBODY learns to lose the session ID tags, google will still have
to come up with some way to avoid having its spiders get lost in a
maze of dynamic pages, so there will come a time when a google will
be forced to develop the ability to distinguish dynamic pages based
on some other quality -- or will have to choke trying -- or will
have to multiply its database by x-billion in order to index every
possible dynamic page on earth.

I'd go with the latter, there's the "we've got more pages indexed than
any other search engine" approach that Google seems to have.

I have a lot of dynamically created sites that use mod_rewrite to
change the dynamic URLs to static URLs and Google loves them, but it
would have still indexed the site with the dynamic looking URLs, just
slower.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

David wrote:

Hi Cat,

Read the last two paragraphs of
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/anc...imization.html for
two tests, one for alt text of non linked images, the second the
title attribute of text links.

Come to think of it I should add a link to the Google searches for
those two tests.

Great work. Thanks! I see that i missed the change in the google
algo in regard to alt text of non linked images, and that it
happened in 2005 (guess i wasn't following every post here ;-) -- so
thanks again for keeping me up to date.

By the way, when i ran the first test, a third page (not yours) came
up, and it looks like a scraper site. I'm guessing you're aware of
it, but ... if you were not, check it out.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:34:30 -0800, catherine yronwode
<cat (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com> wrote:

David wrote:

Hi Cat,

Read the last two paragraphs of
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/anc...imization.html for
two tests, one for alt text of non linked images, the second the
title attribute of text links.

Come to think of it I should add a link to the Google searches for
those two tests.

Great work. Thanks! I see that i missed the change in the google
algo in regard to alt text of non linked images, and that it
happened in 2005 (guess i wasn't following every post here ;-) -- so
thanks again for keeping me up to date.

Credit goes to Stacey, she spotted it first. I usually check my tests
monthly, so Stacey was quick to find the change (weeks from the
change).

I should make more of my tests public, I tend to keep the tests
private so no one can mess with them. PR tests in particular are prone
to 'damage' from someone linking to it as an example :-))

The alt and title attribute tests are repeated on various pages I own,
so if they get messed up doesn't matter to me (that test is very easy
to setup), I'll still know how the Google algo treats those
attributes.

By the way, when i ran the first test, a third page (not yours) came
up, and it looks like a scraper site. I'm guessing you're aware of
it, but ... if you were not, check it out.

Yeah I know, there are just so many of them you can't deal with them
all. Bill was moaning about a page of mine copied on another site that
mentioned SERPs he's targeted earlier today. That one has irritated
me, it's not a scraper per se, they have manually edited the pages so
going after that one.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 10:55:09 +0100, catherine yronwode <cat (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Illos can be links to bigger versions of themselves, or to catalogue
pages, or to a gallery page of a similar class of illos, or to a
text page -- anything. Google only counts the words in the alt tag
if (1) the words are parsed by spaces or hyphens (not
runtogetherwords) and (2) if the illos containing the alt tags are
clickable links.

I think you are wrong.

Well, it sure wouldn't be the first time i was wrong!

I defer to you and Stacey, but i'd like to see some tests or proofs.

Google bizotoon schemacitus

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
pH lectures - guide to hand pH calculation with examples