[ic] Google and Scan Versus Search
prtyof5 at attglobal.net
Sun Jul 22 15:40:49 EDT 2007
> From: interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org
> [mailto:interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jon
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:03 AM
> To: interchange-users at icdevgroup.org
> Subject: [ic] Google and Scan Versus Search
> An interesting tidbit I've recently noticed/experienced.
> It appears google is more favorable to caching/indexing pages
> that are created using scan versus search. At least this is what
> I've experienced recently.
> href="[area search="se=
> href="[area scan se=
> -----Original Message-----
> Hi Jon,
> I've never paid attention to the URL constructed by [area], what is the
> difference? Don't they both appear as dynamic, something I was under
> the impression that Google would not index, which is why ActionMaps can
> be of such value?
> Barry Treahy, Jr
> Vice President/CIO
> Midwest Microwave, Inc.
> Emerson Network Power Connectivity Solutions
> E-mail: Barry.Treahy at EmersonNetworkPower.com
> Phone: 480/314-1320
> Cell: 480/216-9568
> Fax: 480/661-7028
> ... but it's a DRY HEAT!
I've heard that before :)
I had added some 1 click searches on a page a couple of weeks
ago and the ones that were created via 'search' are not cached
while the ones created using scan are cached. which I thought
was interesting because I know those URLs are not very google
friendly. And maybe it was the way I defined the search field which
I happen to make /sf=* versus /sf=prod_group,title .. for example.
I didn't play with a google simulator to see if anything
else shows up but I can if you like.
What I've historically noticed is the better your site is externally
linked the more likely you are to have less search engine friendly
URLs cached/indexed. In other words it is relative.
More information about the interchange-users