js includes read by SEs?

On the site
http://www.irelandin1.com/ireland/CountyFermanagh.htm
there's a list of counties and each is a link with the words "Hotels in..."
prefixed so that, as well as the name of the county appearing on the page,
the word "hotels" is there, legitimately, 30+ times - which I'd approve.

I was interested to see, however, that the list isn't present in the html
but there as:
<script LANGUAGE="javascript" type="text/JavaScript"
src="../includes/IrelandMenu.js"> // Include County List
</script>

Do the search engines read this - I always use SSI for preprocessed includes
and so their contents are present in the source code. I wonder if the same
applies to this method? I'm doubtful because, although the links are there
on screen, they aren't there in the source.

BTW, no connection with the irelandin1 site - just using it as an example.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk>
writing in news:NL8qb.4714$lm1.28311 (AT) wards (DOT) force9.net:

On the site
http://www.irelandin1.com/ireland/CountyFermanagh.htm
there's a list of counties and each is a link with the words "Hotels
in..." prefixed so that, as well as the name of the county appearing on
the page, the word "hotels" is there, legitimately, 30+ times - which
I'd approve.

I was interested to see, however, that the list isn't present in the
html but there as:
script LANGUAGE="javascript" type="text/JavaScript"
src="../includes/IrelandMenu.js"> // Include County List </script

Do the search engines read this - I always use SSI for preprocessed
includes and so their contents are present in the source code. I wonder
if the same applies to this method? I'm doubtful because, although the
links are there on screen, they aren't there in the source.

BTW, no connection with the irelandin1 site - just using it as an
example.

I have an example at http://www.arbpen.com/usenet/testjs.htm using the
above method. If you have javascript enabled, you will see a menu,
without, no menu.

If the UA does not have javascript enabled, it will not process the script.
AFAIK, bots do not have javascript enabled, therefore cannot follow this
type of link.

I would definately stick with SSI.

--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share
http://www.arbpen.com

Adrienne wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "PeterMcC"
peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk> writing in
news:NL8qb.4714$lm1.28311 (AT) wards (DOT) force9.net:

On the site
http://www.irelandin1.com/ireland/CountyFermanagh.htm
there's a list of counties and each is a link with the words "Hotels
in..." prefixed so that, as well as the name of the county appearing
on the page, the word "hotels" is there, legitimately, 30+ times -
which I'd approve.

I was interested to see, however, that the list isn't present in the
html but there as:
script LANGUAGE="javascript" type="text/JavaScript"
src="../includes/IrelandMenu.js"> // Include County List </script

Do the search engines read this - I always use SSI for preprocessed
includes and so their contents are present in the source code. I
wonder if the same applies to this method? I'm doubtful because,
although the links are there on screen, they aren't there in the
source.

BTW, no connection with the irelandin1 site - just using it as an
example.


I have an example at http://www.arbpen.com/usenet/testjs.htm using the
above method. If you have javascript enabled, you will see a menu,
without, no menu.

If the UA does not have javascript enabled, it will not process the
script. AFAIK, bots do not have javascript enabled, therefore cannot
follow this type of link.

I would definately stick with SSI.

Thanks, Adrienne. I wasn't going to abandon my SSIs - basically I was
wanting to be forearmed in case I had to deal with a site that had this kind
of stuff. I was just wanting to be sure of my ground for when I say that it
wouldn't work.

I was surprised that the site mentioned used the js method since it's a
hotel directory and has passed up on an opportunity to have 30+ instances of
the word "hotels", as link text, read by the SEs. It's a shame to see an
opportunity missed, it's tragic to see someone go to such lengths to waste
it.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:11:04 -0000, "PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk>
wrote:

Adrienne wrote:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "PeterMcC"
peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk> writing in
news:NL8qb.4714$lm1.28311 (AT) wards (DOT) force9.net:

On the site
http://www.irelandin1.com/ireland/CountyFermanagh.htm
there's a list of counties and each is a link with the words "Hotels
in..." prefixed so that, as well as the name of the county appearing
on the page, the word "hotels" is there, legitimately, 30+ times -
which I'd approve.

I was interested to see, however, that the list isn't present in the
html but there as:
script LANGUAGE="javascript" type="text/JavaScript"
src="../includes/IrelandMenu.js"> // Include County List </script

Do the search engines read this - I always use SSI for preprocessed
includes and so their contents are present in the source code. I
wonder if the same applies to this method? I'm doubtful because,
although the links are there on screen, they aren't there in the
source.

BTW, no connection with the irelandin1 site - just using it as an
example.


I have an example at http://www.arbpen.com/usenet/testjs.htm using the
above method. If you have javascript enabled, you will see a menu,
without, no menu.

If the UA does not have javascript enabled, it will not process the
script. AFAIK, bots do not have javascript enabled, therefore cannot
follow this type of link.

I would definately stick with SSI.

Thanks, Adrienne. I wasn't going to abandon my SSIs - basically I was
wanting to be forearmed in case I had to deal with a site that had this kind
of stuff. I was just wanting to be sure of my ground for when I say that it
wouldn't work.

I was surprised that the site mentioned used the js method since it's a
hotel directory and has passed up on an opportunity to have 30+ instances of
the word "hotels", as link text, read by the SEs. It's a shame to see an
opportunity missed, it's tragic to see someone go to such lengths to waste
it.

Er, no, it's potential good business for us.

BB

Google seems to have been able to follow the JavaScript links on
http://www.sansecurity.com

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2...e=off&filter=0


On the other hand Google seems to NOT have been able to follow the
JavaScript links on http://www.gsmsecurity.com

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2...e=off&filter=0

Truly maddening.

Will

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 04:36:34 GMT, Will Spencer
<will.spencer (AT) sansecurity (DOT) com> wrote:

Google seems to have been able to follow the JavaScript links on
http://www.sansecurity.com

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2...e=off&filter=0

Hi,

Do you mean links like these-

<div align="left"><a href="faq.shtml" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore()"
onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('Image3','','images/san_nav_faqb.png',1)"><img
name="Image3" border="0" src="images/san_nav_faq.png" width="120"
height="25" alt="FAQ"></a></div>

If so they aren't javascript links, they have javascript within them,
but google can easily read the link by ignoring the script-

<div align="left"><a href="faq.shtml" {{{{This bit ignored by
Google}}}}><img name="Image3" border="0" src="images/san_nav_faq.png"
width="120" height="25" alt="FAQ"></a></div>

This leaves a standard image link (which I should add has no keyword
rich ALT text!!).

On the other hand Google seems to NOT have been able to follow the
JavaScript links on http://www.gsmsecurity.com

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2...e=off&filter=0

It's got the same format, so should be picked up. I take it this is a
relatively new site? It has no PR.

If you do an allinurl:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...msecurity.com+

You can see the links are being slowly picked up and indexed. I would
expect most of the main links to be indexed for the next update
(assuming you have some links to the site).

The ones with no cache-

www.gsmsecurity.com/faq.shtml
Similar pages

are the latest links to be indexed by Google and they are so new
Googlebots, not got around to indexing the page yet. So google knows
the page exists, but hasn't looked to see what's on it (or it has, but
not got around to adding the info to the cache). This assumes you
haven't used the no cache option.

Truly maddening.

Will

Have patience and they will be indexed.

David
_
Free Search Engine Optimization, SEO and
Search Engine Placement Tips (updated 10/10/2003)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123...-optimization/

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:11:17 +0000, SEO Dave
<ooar123SP (AT) AMntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

If so they aren't javascript links, they have javascript within them,
but google can easily read the link by ignoring the script-

That's good... but... it still leaves me confused, because....
<continued below>

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2...e=off&filter=0

It's got the same format, so should be picked up. I take it this is a
relatively new site? It has no PR.

GSMSecurity has been online since late 2002 and is listed in the ODP.

I have no idea why the site is PR0.

I get more traffic from MSN than I do from Google.

I get more than half my traffic from "Direct Address / Bookmarks"



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...smsecurity.com
says I have no links.

I have a PR4 link at http://www.nsai.net/publications.shtml and a PR4
link at http://www.hackfaq.org/mobile_telephony-12.shtml. Both of
those links have been online for several months.

I cannot correlate those last two paragraphs.

Have patience and they will be indexed.

2002 was a long time ago in net-years.


Thanks for your advice! That JavaScript stuff was worrying me.

Will

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...smsecurity.com
says I have no links.

I have a PR4 link at http://www.nsai.net/publications.shtml and a PR4
link at http://www.hackfaq.org/mobile_telephony-12.shtml. Both of
those links have been online for several months.

Also, I forgot the PR6 link at
http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/security.html that was created in
March.

Will

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:46:07 GMT, Will Spencer
<will.spencer (AT) gsmsecurity (DOT) com> wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...smsecurity.com
says I have no links.

I have a PR4 link at http://www.nsai.net/publications.shtml and a PR4
link at http://www.hackfaq.org/mobile_telephony-12.shtml. Both of
those links have been online for several months.

Also, I forgot the PR6 link at
http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/security.html that was created in
March.

Will

And hey... also the PR5 link at
http://dmoz.org/Science/Technology/E...obile_Systems/

But still the page is PR0.

Will

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:11:17 +0000, SEO Dave wrote:

It's got the same format, so should be picked up. I take it this is a
relatively new site? It has no PR.

Dave:

As this site has been around since last year and has PR4, PR5, and PR6
links, and other ideas why it is PR0?

Thanks!

Will