Google Bot problems?

[Tim]

Re: Google Bot problems?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:23:50 -0600,
"me" <anonymous@_.co m> posted:
[color=blue]
> There's also a trailing slash after the word "ALL" in the tag you're using.
> I don't know if this will cause a problem but I would omit it just in case.[/color]

If the page really is the XHTML that it claims to be, the slash at the end
of the meta element belongs where it is, and should *not* be removed.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Steve]

Re: Google Bot problems?

Tim wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I recommend having a look through <http://www.google.com/webmasters/> for
> more information about the robots, as well as why Google might be ignoring
> the site. For instance, your wad of meta keywords might be doing you more
> harm than good.
>[/color]

Thanks Tim. I am going to slim down the meta keywords just as soon as I can get
the PR people to agree to this........I never wanted that many in the first place!

Have checked out the webmasters stuff from Google site. At the moment I do not
see anything that stands out as being a glaring error.

Regards,



Steve

[Steve]

Re: Google Bot problems?

Tim wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:23:50 -0600,
> "me" <anonymous@_.co m> posted:
>
>[color=green]
>>There's also a trailing slash after the word "ALL" in the tag you're using.
>>I don't know if this will cause a problem but I would omit it just in case.[/color]
>
>
> If the page really is the XHTML that it claims to be, the slash at the end
> of the meta element belongs where it is, and should *not* be removed.
>[/color]
It was set-up at XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Point noted.

[Steve]

Re: Google Bot problems?

> How many links on it, by the way?[color=blue]
>
> BB
> --
> www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon .co.uk
> Affordable SEO!
> --[/color]

Bill,

Its all links and page title information. Is that an issue?



Steve

[me]

Re: Google Bot problems?

"Steve" <pleasedonotspa mme@ireland.com > wrote in message
news:LneYd.4929 9$Z14.37585@new s.indigo.ie...[color=blue]
> Tim wrote:[color=green]
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:23:50 -0600,
> > "me" <anonymous@_.co m> posted:
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >>There's also a trailing slash after the word "ALL" in the tag you're[/color][/color][/color]
using.[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>I don't know if this will cause a problem but I would omit it just in[/color][/color][/color]
case.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> >
> > If the page really is the XHTML that it claims to be, the slash at the[/color][/color]
end[color=blue][color=green]
> > of the meta element belongs where it is, and should *not* be removed.
> >[/color]
> It was set-up at XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Point noted.[/color]

I'm curious, how does setting up that page as XHTML benefit you, what
specifically does it do?
Signed,
me

[Steve]

Re: Google Bot problems?

>>It was set-up at XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Point noted.[color=blue]
>
>
> I'm curious, how does setting up that page as XHTML benefit you, what
> specifically does it do?
> Signed,
> me
>
>[/color]
I am not sure - that is the way the guy before me had set the whole thing up in,
dare I say it, dreamweaver.

As I understand it XHTML 1.0 trans is just a reformulation of HTML 4.0 - but in
XML. This page explains....its been out for about 3 years now I beleive!

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#diffs

Steve

[Tim]

Re: Google Bot problems?

Tim wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I recommend having a look through <http://www.google.com/webmasters/>
>> for more information about the robots, as well as why Google might be
>> ignoring the site. For instance, your wad of meta keywords might be
>> doing you more harm than good.[/color][/color]

Steve wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thanks Tim. I am going to slim down the meta keywords just as soon as I
> can get the PR people to agree to this........I never wanted that many in
> the first place![/color]

They're mostly useless, anyway. None of the worthwhile search engines pay
any attention to them, now (so most people say). And search engines will
eventually get better at relating terms against queries (i.e. they'll have
a table of alternatives for the same things).

But really, keywords and descriptions should be about the page that
they're on, not about other pages within the website. Search engines will
find them, by themselves. And no matter what you do, people will arrive
via a search engine directly at the page that seems most appropriate to
the search, not the homepage.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Tim]

Re: Google Bot problems?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:28:21 -0600, me wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm curious, how does setting up that page as XHTML benefit you[/color]

It doesn't benefit anyone. XHTML offers nothing as an improvement at this
stage, except more authoring, webserving, and browsing problems.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Big Bill]

Re: Google Bot problems?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:36:45 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscap e.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:22:54 GMT, Adrienne <arbpen2003@sbc global.net>
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Big Bill <kruse@cityscap e.co.uk>
>>writing in news:18qv21doap 5jfnq8j7ekdnkam 38damfhb6@4ax.c om:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:01:36 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Steve" <pleasedonotspa mme@ireland.com > wrote in message
>>>>news:_mDXd. 49153$Z14.37683 @news.indigo.ie ...
>>>>> I have worked on a couple of sites which google's bot visits, partially
>>>>> lists and then goes away again.
>>>>>
>>>>> MSN and Yahoo are fine and working.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone please suggest what, if anything, is wrong with these sites?
>>>>> Frankly I am a bit baffled at the moment! I am wondering if there is a
>>>>> problem with the page headers and googlebot?
>>>>> All suggestions appreciated.
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> Sites & Google results are:-
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6tr2b
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5dj6w
>>>>
>>>>Place this in the head of every page:
>>>>
>>>><meta name="robots" content="ALL">
>>>>
>>>>IIRC bots may enter from any page so this may help.
>>>>Good Luck,
>>>>me
>>>
>>> It won't do anything. Robots ignore meta tags like that as they index
>>> what they can anyway by default. It would be useful if the relevant
>>> robots.txts were displayed here.
>>>
>>> BB.
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon .co.uk
>>> Affordable SEO!
>>> --
>>>[/color]
>>
>>1. http://www.barrabooks.com/robots.txt
>>
>>User-agent: *
>>Disallow: /picture_library/
>>Disallow: /Store/
>>Disallow: /CCS/
>>Disallow: /webstat/
>>Disallow: /plesk-stat/
>>Disallow: /php/
>>
>>2. http://www.stevenhenson.com/robots.txt
>>
>>User-agent: *
>>Disallow: /picture_library/
>>Disallow: /Store/
>>Disallow: /CCS/
>>Disallow: /webstat/
>>Disallow: /plesk-stat/
>>Disallow: /php/
>>
>>I don't see anything unusual do you?[/color]
>
>No but something's somewhere. I'll have to come back to this as I'm
>trying to download a windows update and watch Zev fron Lexx in the
>shower just at the mo.
>
>BB[/color]

Phew! Well, they both validate ok.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon .co.uk
Affordable SEO!
--

[Big Bill]

Re: Google Bot problems?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:42:36 +1030, Tim <tim@mail.local host.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>"me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Place this in the head of every page:
>>>
>>> <meta name="robots" content="ALL">[/color][/color]
>
>Big Bill <kruse@cityscap e.co.uk> posted:
>[color=green]
>> It won't do anything. Robots ignore meta tags like that as they index
>> what they can anyway by default.[/color]
>
>Perhaps that particular example might be ignored, but some robots do pay
>attention to robot meta statements in the HTML head. Mostly about what
>they should ignore, in some way, rather than what they should look at.
>
>I recommend having a look through <http://www.google.com/webmasters/> for
>more information about the robots,[/color]

Have done. Every now and then though, out in the real world away from
what engines fondly imagine is determined by their guidelines, you
hear from reputable sources of instances where robots meta tags are
blindly ignored.

BB
[color=blue]
>as well as why Google might be ignoring
>the site. For instance, your wad of meta keywords might be doing you more
>harm than good.[/color]

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon .co.uk
Affordable SEO!
--

[Big Bill]

Re: Google Bot problems?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:28:15 +0000, Steve
<pleasedonotspa mme@ireland.com > wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> How many links on it, by the way?
>>
>> BB
>> --
>> www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon .co.uk
>> Affordable SEO!
>> --[/color]
>
>Bill,
>
>Its all links and page title information. Is that an issue?[/color]

How many though? Google doesn't seem too keen on monster links pages,
site maps or not.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ SEO@kruse.demon .co.uk
Affordable SEO!
--

[Tim]

Re: Google Bot problems?

Tim wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I recommend having a look through <http://www.google.com/webmasters/> for
>> more information about the robots,[/color][/color]


Big Bill <kruse@cityscap e.co.uk> posted:
[color=blue]
> Have done. Every now and then though, out in the real world away from
> what engines fondly imagine is determined by their guidelines, you
> hear from reputable sources of instances where robots meta tags are
> blindly ignored.[/color]

Since the question was about the Googlebot, it's probably going to be the
first place to look, though, to find out why Google mightn't be indexing
pages that it's apparently had the chance to (i.e. it's probably more to do
with the contents, e.g. bad HTML authoring techiques and search engine
scamming methods, than messing with robot instructions).

Yes, there's robots which ignore instructions to ignore parts of sites
because there might be something juicy there if the webmaster's trying to
hide it. But you've got Buckley's chance of inducing a robot to look at a
page that it'd already ignored, merely by putting tempting robot
instructions on a page.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[me]

Re: Google Bot problems?

"Tim" <tim@mail.local host.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.0 3.12.07.43.14.2 95695@mail.loca lhost.invalid.. .[color=blue]
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:28:21 -0600, me wrote:[color=green]
> > I'm curious, how does setting up that page as XHTML benefit you[/color]
>
> It doesn't benefit anyone. XHTML offers nothing as an improvement at this
> stage, except more authoring, webserving, and browsing problems.[/color]

Then why bother?
Signed,
me

[kaeli]

Re: Google Bot problems?

In article <113b84qr8bmok5 7@corp.supernew s.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > It doesn't benefit anyone. XHTML offers nothing as an improvement at this
> > stage, except more authoring, webserving, and browsing problems.[/color]
>
> Then why bother?
> Signed,
> me[/color]

To look cool? ;)


--
--
~kaeli~
Hey, if you got it flaunt it! If you don't, stare at
someone who does. Just don't lick the TV screen, it leaves
streaks.

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Tim]

Re: Google Bot problems?

me wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I'm curious, how does setting up that page as XHTML benefit you[/color][/color][/color]

"Tim" <tim@mail.local host.invalid> wrote
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It doesn't benefit anyone. XHTML offers nothing as an improvement at this
>> stage, except more authoring, webserving, and browsing problems.[/color][/color]

"me" <anonymous@_.co m> posted:
[color=blue]
> Then why bother?[/color]

Good question. Usually people do it without any real clue about why.

At this stage in the game few browsers support it properly, so it's bad
news to publish pages that are going to get mangled by some browsers even
worse than they're already mangling ordinary HTML. To minimise this,
people serve it out as if it were HTML, hoping that it'll work in more
browsers. As such, it holds no advantages over serving it *as* HTML.

In the future it holds the *potential* for better authored webpages, when
more browsers support it better. *BUT* it looks highly likely that
browsers will be kludged to bits to support badly written XHTML, so that it
doesn't hold any advantage at all. It'll be just the same mess as current
tag-soup HTML parsing.

And even if browsers did manage to use HTML properly, authors do not. Just
ensuring that you've put your li tags properly within your ul tags, and so
on, is only half the task. You've actually got to use HTML elements for
their proper uses so that user-agents can make full use of the information
contained in them. Until people do that, they're still writing gibberish.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.