|
|
|
|
|
gid
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2007, 01:00:46 PM » |
|
Just the one. The directory is not very big so the 176 seems about right. As far as the supplemental goes I have stopped worrying about it as of late. Rightly or wrongly what I have started looking to see if the directory page I am posting to has been cached recently. If it is being cached regularly then I take the chance. Seriously if google thinks the page is important enough to spider regularly then it is worth having a link on.
If a page has never been cached or if it has not been cached in months then i move on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BabyChicken4u2
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2007, 02:26:55 PM » |
|
Cached visits are not the same as spidered For example My backgrounds site was last crawled 7/30 by Google bot, listed in Webmasters tools andverified in my logs. but this sup page result has a cache of 7/29...but you can check my logs...Googlebot was not there on 7/29...and there is no cache for 7/30 which is the last crawl date. Caching is not crawling for the purpose of indexing, its more like link checking. Supplemental pages can go monthssssssssss without being crawled. Check your site, those cache dates, regular or sup do not coincide with any Googlebot visits. Just food for thought. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gid
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2007, 02:39:04 PM » |
|
Cached visits are not the same as spidered
Are you sure? I did not think there was a cache bot. Either way I know I have read in multiple places that the cached version of a page is the one that is being used by the engine to make up its index. And, it is not until the page has reached the cached stage that it changes the SERPS. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ash
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2007, 02:39:13 PM » |
|
Links from supplemental pages still count as inbound links....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BabyChicken4u2
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2007, 05:21:46 PM » |
|
Yes they do, but they have reduced value
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BabyChicken4u2
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2007, 05:23:41 PM » |
|
Cached visits are not the same as spidered
Are you sure? I did not think there was a cache bot. Either way I know I have read in multiple places that the cached version of a page is the one that is being used by the engine to make up its index. And, it is not until the page has reached the cached stage that it changes the SERPS. Yes, but the cache date has nothing to do with a crawl...and if its just a cache, and no crawl...then how is your site to get a IBL or crawled itself from the connection? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daniboy
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2007, 07:45:25 PM » |
|
Yes, but the cache date has nothing to do with a crawl...
I'd say the cache has to be related to crawling. They have to crawl to get the info to build the cache. How else can Google make a cached page and get the information? The way I see it is: 1. Google may spider/crawl a certain with 1 hit and maybe take info like the header only on this one hit. You have a date for this crawl, but Google won't cache as they don't have a complete page yet. 2. They may take another handful of visits until they visit that page again, maybe 3 hits this time and they've got a complete page, this will give you another date. 3. Now Google may take another day or two putting the pieces together, probably determined by some sort of priority algorithm, to give a cached page. This will give you a cached date which is maybe different to your stats crawl dates. Only my humble view on how they do it.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BabyChicken4u2
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2007, 08:53:53 PM » |
|
right but a cache is a snapshot....not a crawl I wouldn't think they are cataloging or following links
But we will test it, I have pages in the sup I can set a link and watch.
The thing is you ask anyone and sup pages sometimes only get crawled like 2x a year. But those pages are clearly cached...so we need only to determine if Google catalogs links when I caches a page.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daniboy
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2007, 10:29:34 PM » |
|
right but a cache is a snapshot....not a crawl I wouldn't think they are cataloging or following links
But we will test it, I have pages in the sup I can set a link and watch.
The thing is you ask anyone and sup pages sometimes only get crawled like 2x a year. But those pages are clearly cached...so we need only to determine if Google catalogs links when I caches a page. I see where you're coming from here, but a recent cache date to many people would indicate that BIG G has crawled part of the page info recently to piece together or update it's cache, and therefore it's possible their algorithm may suggest to revist soon (just to recheck and not necessarily re-cache). The experiement may be a difficult one to prove. The "where you link to school of thought" (which I think carries weight) may pull the "Bingo Balls" out of the supplementals before you can see the result, also putting the experiment urls in this topic could also pull it out the supps, so you may see the IBL a little quicker than you thought. I don't honestly see the problem getting an IBL from a supplemental page because one day, - tomorrow or in 6 months it may not be supplemental. On my digital Tv blog site I've recently had a few pages changing between the indexes in a yo-yo effect, so the supplementals don't matter to me too much as they are always changing - well some are. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BabyChicken4u2
|
|
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2007, 01:08:24 AM » |
|
I really don't know, thats why the experiment I guess.
But I do know the my site with the "bingo balls" page was penalized and Google will NOT crawl it. 80 % of the sup pages are redone with all new information they have some nice backlinks, but there is little hope as this has been the situatuion for nearly 3 months now. That pages shows cache but server logs show last Googlebot crawl for that page in April.
So from what I read the answer is rewriting the URLs, which I won't bother with because the site is perfoming very well.
Yahoo has no problem with this site anymore, nearly fully indexed now...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daniboy
|
|
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2007, 01:16:45 AM » |
|
I've been watching the stats since I put up my last post on this topic to see how quick the bots will crawl back to my site, but unfortunately there is no conclusive evidence.... I did notice hits on robots.txt within 2 minutes of reply on 2 of my sites in signature.... This leads me to believe that bots follow - hit robots.txt - then possibly wait for another signal to steam in.
They could be telekinetic? :lol:
Let us know how this goes.... But if one man has the closest answer, I'd put my money on Tim. (He doesn't let on all he know's) :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BabyChicken4u2
|
|
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2007, 01:23:31 AM » |
|
Yep, and where is Tim when we need him?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
