'google' 2

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: 'google' 2

tatata9999@gmai l.com wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

>André Gillibert wrote:

>>It could get down to 600 bytes (you would have to remove that
>>JavaScript thing).

>>
>Do you mean the 22,050 bytes of urchintracker.j s ? :-)

>
The tradeoff of not knowing site usage would be huge unless spending
time to find an alternative, have to chew on that.

Your urchintracker did not register me when I visited your page. All the
google ads, google-analytics and urchin domains are in my HOSTS file.
However, your web host will have registered that I made requests to your
page.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[tatata9999@gmail.com]

Re: 'google' 2

On Oct 21, 12:38 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

tatata9...@gmai l.com wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

André Gillibert wrote:
>It could get down to 600 bytes (you would have to remove that
>JavaScript thing).

>

Do you mean the 22,050 bytes of urchintracker.j s ? :-)

>

The tradeoff of not knowing site usage would be huge unless spending
time to find an alternative, have to chew on that.

>
Your urchintracker did not register me when I visited your page. All the
google ads, google-analytics and urchin domains are in my HOSTS file.
However, your web host will have registered that I made requests to your
page.
>
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Yes, I know my web server has a log for user agent requests.
Initially I'll just read the plain log file, then find a tool that
organizes data for me. Thks.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: 'google' 2

tatata9999@gmai l.com wrote:

The first generation of web site search engine hands-down is google.
A majority of these web
sites are static page -driven html pages.
>
Now, I would think more and more web-based applications are coming
into the fray, my recent
experience with google's webbot (indexing engine, a part of the
google's search service) tells
me that its indexing algorithm does not consider a database-driven web
application as part of
a qualified 'web site'.

It does, but whether you get results depends on your URLs. If links to a
particular page always have the URL

http://example.com/generate.aspx?page=472

then Google should handle it as well as

http://example.com/staticURL.aspx

But take the case of Amazon, where successive searches produced the
following URLs for me for the same album:

http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Imagine-Much-Were-Having/dp/B000AMU0UI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/105-5106517-4834806?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1193066211&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Imagine-Much-Were-Having/dp/B000AMU0UI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/105-5106517-4834806?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1193066264&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Imagine-Much-Were-Having/dp/B000AMU0UI/ref=sr_1_7/105-5106517-4834806?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1193066274&sr=1-7

because Amazon includes session-specific information in the query string
(such as the query ID [qid]) and the position of the item in the search
results from which it was selected and the page encoding. Google will
come across each of these links exactly once, and never have any idea
that they represent the same album. So if Amazon didn't also produce a
unique canonical URL for each article to feed to the search engines,
Amazon items couldn't be effectively indexed and ranked. (Well, I
suspect Amazon actually has a special arrangement for feeding Google,
but that doesn't alter my point.)

[tatata9999@gmail.com]

Re: 'google' 2

On Oct 22, 11:23 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.rem ovet...@comcast .netwrote:

tatata9...@gmai l.com wrote:

The first generation of web site search engine hands-down is google.
A majority of these web
sites are static page -driven html pages.

>

Now, I would think more and more web-based applications are coming
into the fray, my recent
experience with google's webbot (indexing engine, a part of the
google's search service) tells
me that its indexing algorithm does not consider a database-driven web
application as part of
a qualified 'web site'.

>
It does, but whether you get results depends on your URLs. If links to a
particular page always have the URL
>

http://example.com/generate.aspx?page=472

>
then Google should handle it as well as
>

http://example.com/staticURL.aspx

>
But take the case of Amazon, where successive searches produced the
following URLs for me for the same album:
>
http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Imagine-M...B000AMU0UI/ref...
>
http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Imagine-M...B000AMU0UI/ref...
>
http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Imagine-M...B000AMU0UI/ref...
>
because Amazon includes session-specific information in the query string
(such as the query ID [qid]) and the position of the item in the search
results from which it was selected and the page encoding. Google will
come across each of these links exactly once, and never have any idea
that they represent the same album. So if Amazon didn't also produce a
unique canonical URL for each article to feed to the search engines,
Amazon items couldn't be effectively indexed and ranked. (Well, I
suspect Amazon actually has a special arrangement for feeding Google,
but that doesn't alter my point.)

But the thing is, my web app requires user account, so, probably I'll
have to create some gimick url like
http://www.mytata.net/SupportBotQuery?qid=1234 something?

btw, could you folks try my site, http://www.mytata.net/ ? I was told
it's not accessable about 10 minutes ago (my apologies for having to
post this particular request)

Thanks.

[André Gillibert]

Re: 'google' 2

tatata9999@gmai l.com wrote:

On providing public access to google for indexing my database, could
you elaborate a bit?

The user specific data (e.g. activity tables) is private. It's only
accessible when logged in.
This ensures privacy of the data, but prevents (thanks goodness) google
from crawling this data. Similarly, google doesn't access to your bank
account!
This is a Good Thing(TM).

Just keep it as it is. Google can still access the public pages (e.g. the
home page), but won't access to user's private data.

Like usually it's done via sitemap.xml?

Forget about sitemap.xml; It is useless as far as every page in your site
is accessible through regular anchors. sitemap.xml is useful for databases
for which there're no HTML indexes, but only a search feature.

--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at
<tabkanDELETETH ISnaz@yahoDELET ETHATo.fr>

[tatata9999@gmail.com]

Re: 'google' 2

On Oct 22, 6:16 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETH IS...@yahodelet ethato.frwrote:

tatata9...@gmai l.com wrote:

On providing public access to google for indexing my database, could
you elaborate a bit?

>
The user specific data (e.g. activity tables) is private. It's only
accessible when logged in.
This ensures privacy of the data, but prevents (thanks goodness) google
from crawling this data. Similarly, google doesn't access to your bank
account!
This is a Good Thing(TM).
>
Just keep it as it is. Google can still access the public pages (e.g. the
home page), but won't access to user's private data.
>

Like usually it's done via sitemap.xml?

>
Forget about sitemap.xml; It is useless as far as every page in your site
is accessible through regular anchors. sitemap.xml is useful for databases
for which there're no HTML indexes, but only a search feature.
>
--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at
<tabkanDELETETH IS...@yahoDELET ETHATo.fr>

Ok, thank you.