On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:39:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>Big Bill wrote:
>> 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,
>> 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.
Are you saying that these as they stand advertise that they are
temporary links? I was thinking something like that. They're kind of
half-done, although the technicalities of it escape me.
>I suggest you read the following:
OK I read it. Didn't understand it, but I read it.
>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:
>This is not ideal. WordPress, a popular blogging tool, comes with such
>numbering by default too. Have a look at Dvorak Uncensored:
>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,
>In terms of SE referrals, all is well. PageRank varies across items though.
>I hope my discussion gave some answers.
More like food for thought, which means more questions when I digest
things a bit. Ta.
Elvis does my SEO