Big Bill wrote:
> http://www.example.co.uk/content.php?categoryId=28
>
> These are the same every time, ie, each page has its own specific id
> so while it would be my fussy preference to see them formatted as
> individual-page-name.php I can't see this as being a reason for the
> Googs not to index anything other than the index page,
> example.co.uk/content.php
> especially since MSN has happily indexed the lot.
>
> Hmmmm. I'm fishing a little here, case you're wondering.
Good question. I wondered about that myself...
Most CMS (content management system) packages choose this form for item
naming unless (or until) they have post slugs (identifiers) supplied. Such
slugs can form more meaningful permanent links that also make the URL
correlate to the content, as well as reflect on its date and orientation.
I suggest you read the following:
http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000058.php
However, such things require redirections (mod rewrites to be precise) at a
lower level, which is rarely trivial to do. Let us look at the popular
PHP-Nuke, for example:
The URL's in one PHP-Nuke-driven section are as follows:
http://www.schestowitz.com/Vision/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=37
http://www.schestowitz.com/Vision/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=39
http://www.schestowitz.com/Vision/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=38
This is not ideal. WordPress, a popular blogging tool, comes with such
numbering by default too. Have a look at Dvorak Uncensored:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2505
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2506
Every URL (even if added today) is said to have the same PageRank (5), which
is odd. I modified my WordPress installations to have a better structure,
e.g.:
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/08/10/bsd-on-the-desktop/
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/08/09/google-vanity/
In terms of SE referrals, all is well. PageRank varies across items though.
I hope my discussion gave some answers.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
