Paul Burke wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 08:27:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Burke wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:58:29 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes, I agree. Some pages with ~200 links get indexed just fine even
>>>>though I try to stick to 100. Remember that too many links in a single
>>>>page are a burden to a user with a dial-up connection or little RAM.
>>>
>>> It would have been pointless to have had them under 100 or less.
>>> I have two site maps. One for text pages. One for graphics pages.
>>
>>
>>Site maps are probably identified by search engines and get treated
>>differently. In fact, they should. They are very vital pages.
>
> I don't see why mine should be not treated as such.
> They have <h1> site map </h1> etc
>
> To have just one on my site would be too much, hence I had to split
> mine between graphic pages and text.
>
>>Imagine yourself a scenario where every pages links to all other 200 pages
>>in the Web site. This is tactless SEO. Have you ever reached one of these
>>pages that only contain a tonnage of barely links?
>>
>>
>>>>Aren't these very artificial pages though? Search engines might suspect
>>>>that these pages are "up to no good".
>>>
>>> Sorry, you have lost me on this one. Why should they be classed as
>>> artificial pages ?
>>>
>>> They are genuine site maps.
>>
>>
>>You're right. I had some of these scrapers in mind. If you want, I can
>>post an example to clarify.
>
> Please. As others would not doubt like to see one as well.
>
> Thank you
> plh
> Paul
Have a look at the following. I noticed it appearing in an MSN SERP:
http://www.successischildsplay.com/inspirationalpoemsuccess/
For a given term, it has been moving around the top 10 for quite some time.
This page is a linkbase with content that is ripped off other Web sites.
There are plenty of such sites, but they rarely appear among the top
results in good search engines.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|