John Bokma wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> What I was worried about:
>>>> PageRank 7
>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://google.com [ note
>>>> question mark ]
>>>> PageRank 6
>>> Which technically are 2 different pages with different content.
>> It means that we suffer from PR dilution.
> Yup, but I don't expect to get any links to ?via_rss except the ones in
> the index.rss :-)
The aggregators (Manchester bloggers and Linux Users Group) will not cope
with a change unless I tailor feeds for them, which exclude the
'?from_rss'. I am also thinking about users that come from their feed
readers and have '?from_rss' in the address bar when bookmarking a page.
Ranks are also based on spyware which picks up these key events. It seems
like a bad decision to have made in the long run.
>> In fact, given some
>> existing '?from_rss' inbound links that I have, it seems like a wise
>> idea to give it up altogether. Don't you agree? Nothing would be lost
>> in terms of validity of older links. Could you set up 301 redirects
>> that generalise to all cases?
> ^(.*)\?via_rss$ http://example.com/$1 [R=301,L]
> (from the top of my head, hence not tested).
You scared me right there... I'll leave the '?from_rss' as just an option,
which I will be able to re-enable one day shall I decide to track for a day
or two. I have never ever tracked anything yet.
Roy S. Schestowitz