John Bokma wrote:
> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (www.1-script.com) wrote:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, the PR dilution would be the one negative effect I can think
>>>> of.
>>
>>> OTOH, how much PR are those feeds going to get? I use the same
>>> strategy
>>
>>> (temporary) and I am not worried about it.
>>
>> Well, not the feeds themselves, obviously, but it they will eventually
>> get picked up by a Web site or two,
>
> That I doubt, I hope webmasters are smart enough to understand that
> via_rss is just a hint to track rss feeds :-)
>
>> the bots will follow the links to
>> item001.htm?from_rss in the URL, whereas the direct internal link
>> would lead to item001.htm directly. So, you'll get your external PR
>> passed to item001.htm?from_rss and internal to just item001.htm hence
>> the PR is less than it could have been. OTOH, if all your strategy is
>> revolving around getting the feed picked up by some OTHER sites, then
>> you may not have to worry much about internal links and their PR, so
>> it's not an issue.
>
> Agreed. I do it, and I guess Roy too, just for tracking purposes of the
> feeds (how many readers read the feeds and how often). If a site ever
> makes a link to the via_rss I will email them to change it :-D.
No link has yet been made (as far as I am aware) that included the question
mark, but blog aggreagators pick up the ?from_rss, which I am not sure is a
positive thing. Also, if Google begins to return results with ?from_rss
appended, then I might begins to worry a bit. Based on one SERP, the
inusion of ?from_rss had me rise from second to first position, but it was
probably a fluke.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
