Linking Strategies / Robot abilities

 Hello, I'll admit from the begining that I did not know exactly where to submit this question, so here goes nothing! :)

I am currently in a very long discussion with several people about a subject that has probably been covered no less than a million times, but I still can not find a definative answer to my question. ...Then I remembered experts-exchange! Before I became an internet entrepenuer, I worked for a large insurance company, and everyone here was always able to help me with my Unix software development issues, so I though that maybe I would try the "experts" once more for a good, honest, indepth answer.

Here is the issue. What kinds of pages web and SE robots can and can not read. I know that it is different depending upon what companies robot you are talking about, but I think that they all generally work the same, in some ways. The page that I have in question is located here, please feel free to take a look at it: http//www.unique-wholesale-source.com/powerpartners.php

This page has a directory of links that loads via this script: http//www.unique-wholesale-source.com/powerpartners.txt
which is embeded in the middle of the page.

So when you look at the source in your browser, all of the links are there, but before the page loads (before the php script is executed) only the PHP code and the rest of my template is there. Now, I know that the Apache server executes scripts before the page is loaded and not the browser, so my question is, do you guys think that a bot would be able to crawl this page? If a bot sees the link on my homepage to this page, requests the page, and is presented the page by the Apache server, will all of the links be there for them to be crawled?

This issue, as you can probably tell from looking at the page, could become quite an issue with me. Because, if the links can be crawled, then it is a very good thing for all involved, but if they can not be crawled, then this guy is just ripping me off! Along with everyone else that uses his service.

I am sorry if I have confused the issue here, but basically I just want to know what a bot will be presented with when they request pages that have scripting on them such as this. It applies to linking here, but it could also apply to other parts of a web site as well. I am not referring to pages that are named *.php or *.asp or whatever, but I am referring to a regular page that may include scripting in addition to regular HTML.

Thank you for any advice that you may send my way. It will be greatly appreciated.

-Matt V
Wholesale Resources
j8vyAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

duzCommented:
Matt -

Participating in any automated linking service can be a recipe for disaster as it is very easy for Google to identify these farms and shoot them down which is what they do quite often.

Pages with scripting are fine normally because the search engine bots 'see' the rendered page but the way this is set up at the moment SE bots will not see the main body of links.

My advice - Stop looking for shortcuts because there aren't any and get someone to do a proper SEO job for you.

- duz
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
humeniukCommented:
"I am currently in a very long discussion with several people about a subject that has probably been covered no less than a million times, but I still can not find a definative answer to my question."

You could get a million more opinions and a million more hints, but the advice duz just gave you would still be the best of the lot.  At the top of Google's list of quality guidelines, you'll find this: "Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users, or present different content to search engines than you display to users" (source: www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html).

Like every search engine, Google's goal is to serve it's customers - the web users, not the webmasters - and they have made lots of money giving them what they want, access to good websites, not access to websites featuring the cleverest tricks.  Don't use shortcuts unless you think you can out-research and out-think their PhD's.  Make a quality website instead, it's much easier.
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
Nuf said ... I completely agree with you regarding the automated linking services. After posting them on my site, I started doing some research (yeah, yeah, why didn't I do it first...I know!) and I started realizing just what you have said.

I simply came here to confirm my fears, and I appreciate the help. You know, I have manged to obtain quite a few reciprocal links on my own, so I think that I will just keep doing the natural thing. Maybe I'll throw in some PPC ads to try to earn some money in the begining.

It just isn't worth the BS to me at the end of the day! After all, I am trying to make a living here, and I am sure that the people @ IndyMac Bank (they have my mortgage) will not give a s&^t whether I use FFA links or not! :-) :-) They just want their money, and they want it now! (all of it of course) or they take me little house! :)

Thanks again guys. By the time that you read this message, the links will be gone! Later ..

Regards,
Matt V
----------------------
Wholesale Resources
0
Keep up with what's happening at Experts Exchange!

Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.

humeniukCommented:
Glad to hear it.  Good luck with the website, Matt.
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
Thank you kind sir ...
0
duzCommented:
Matt -

>....I will just keep doing the natural thing.

Good move!

>the links will be gone!

The one on this page http://www.unique-wholesale-source.com/sitemap.html needs to go too http://www.unique-wholesale-source.com/powerpartners.html

Also I noticed a few 302s which need tidying up on the site, like these for example....

On this page:
http://www.unique-wholesale-source.com/sitemap.html
These links:
http://www.unique-wholesale-source.com/scams.html
http://www.unique-wholesale-source.com/wwb.html

And there are probably more 302s on other pages.

Also on the monitors I used to look at your site horizontal scrolling was required.

Hope that helps a little.

- duz
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
You know what, thank you! See, I use a 19" BENQ FP monitor, so I forget these things some times.

I have done two things as per your suggestions. I have decreased the page width to 950px and I rebuilt the CSS
file(s) so that the pages would be automatically centered on your screen. Obviously you will still need to use 1024x768
resolution settings, but I think that most do use this setting. I read somewhere that over 70% of internet users use this
setting. So I should be good.

Thanks a million for the sitemap advice as well. I have cleaned that up also.

Your advice has been much appreciated. Let me know if you stupid beating me over the head too much! :-) :-) That little
bastard catch my a#$ everyday almost!

....Peace
-Matt V

---------------------
Wholesale Resources

0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
That last sentence was supposed to read: "Let me know if you see stupid beating me over the head too much! :-) :-). That little
bastard catches my a#$ almost everyday!"

Anyway, you get it ...
0
humeniukCommented:
I think your 70% number is high.  According to www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp, 61% of visitors to their site use 1024x768 or higher, but you have to remember that most people who use their site are web dev professionals.  Therefore, the actual numbers are probably lower than that, ie. closer to the even split between 1024x768 and 800x600 that you see more often.  On top of that, a lot of people don't always maximize their browser windows when they're surfing - another factor to consider.

Regardless of this, I think that a fluid design that looks good in different resolutions (not to mention browsers) is preferable to a static design.  If you haven't seen it before, take a look at www.csszengarden.com and take a look at some of the different layouts there in different screen sizes and resolutions.  You'll see what I mean.  Anyway, that's just my two cents.
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
Your suggestion was a great idea, but before I go any further, I have two small request.

1. Would you take a look at my front page to confirm if this is the kind of design that you were talking about.
www.unique-wholesale-source.com

2. If you will notice, I am using javascript link cloaking to preserve future PR and the spidering of some of my pages.
   However there is a problem with that. It doesn't work if you open the page in a new window. Do you have any ideas
   on how to cloak a link that can be opened in a new window?
I ask because if you will also notice, I do not have a link to the W3C CSS validator, because I can't figure out how to cloak the link.

P.S. You have been so helpful to me, if you would like I could open a new question and give you some points as well. Just let me know what to do. Thanks again.

Regards,
Matt V
0
humeniukCommented:
Yes, that is the kind of design I was referring to :)  I should have checked the site again before commenting in reaction to your post about page width.  However, your page is not rendering properly in Mozilla Firefox (which a lot of people - including myself - use).  You may want to look into that - (it renders fine in IE).

"You have been so helpful to me, if you would like I could open a new question and give you some points as well. Just let me know what to do. Thanks again."
That is nice of you to say & offer, Matt.  There is a 500pt/question limit and these additional (off-topic) comments I've made don't really address your initial question.  If you post other questions that I can help with, I'd be glad to participate, but I think this one is fine as it stands.
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
Got anything else there partner?!?! Well, by god, bring it on ... LOL LOL LOL

No, that was good to point out aout FireFox. Should be good to go now, however.

I sure wish that damn thing had a little better built-in correction for those of us that are not
extrmely experienced in CSS yet! It works great, and "W/O" spyware, so I can't complain, .....
but the Gbrowser will be the sh^t if it ever comes out!

I can't wait. If you like my front page now, I'll move on to the interior pages next. Thanks again.

Regards,
Matt V
---------------
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
Hey, humeniuk, would you like to help me with link cloaking? If you would, I'll open another question and give it to you...

Regards,
-Matt V
0
humeniukCommented:
The home page looks good now.  There are still some related problems on the interior pages, but I guess you've got a handle on that.  I can relate, btw, as a fairly recent convert to CSS myself (many thanks to the geniuses in the CSS TA - if you want to further your education, post your URL there and ask for advice).

Sorry, missed the link cloaking bit.  If you want to use javascript for link cloaking, your best bet is to ask about it in the Javascript TA.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get the points, though, because you'd get better answers than I could give in there :)  There are other (simpler) ways of preventing sections or pages of your website from being crawled, though, if that's your primary aim.  If you post a question about that, I'd likely weigh in, but really, points aren't that important and I wouldn't want to get accused of point passing, so if you do, make sure you give the points to the best answer (or split if there are more than one).

And I also agree that I'd rather put my money on the Gbrowser being good than on MS search :)
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
Ok, one last cooment here ... I have updated all of my pages suppposedly, so if you wanted to take one last look,
that would be great. Look at it in IE too, if you don't mind.

C ya' on the flip side ...







Regards,
-Matt V
-----------------------
Wholesale Resources



0
humeniukCommented:
That looks better.  The only thing I noticed that is still a bit misaligned is the footer on some of you internal pages.
0
j8vyAuthor Commented:
Thank you!
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Internet Marketing

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.