John Bokma wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I was worried about:
>>>>
>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check
>>>>
>>>> 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).
*smile*
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
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
