__/ [ Jim Carlock ] on Sunday 26 March 2006 15:53 \__
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Good points; and here is a third:
>
>> - full URL's add to the size of the page, which slows down crawling,
>> adds clutter, makes the pages in the site less 'portable' and reflects
>> unfavourably on the site (being less 'professional'), at least on the
>> surface of it.
>
> Hi Roy, the page size is valid, but the "clutter" issue is your own
> personal opinion and really doesn't affect search engines at all, except in
> one very limited special case. IF someone downloads a copy of the webpage
> and publicly displays the copy, ALL the links will point back to the proper
> site. This means that all the image references would need to be fully
> qualified as well. In some ways it could possibly help out but in the long
> run, though, it'll slow things down and I think the general consensus is
> that it's frowned upon (as far as opinions go).
>
> Jim Carlock
> North Carolina Swimming Pools And Spas
> http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com
Later in the day I thought about another possible impact. Could search
engines decide to calculate the markup/content ratio and then use that to
infer 'quality', as prejudiced as it may be? This could benefit bare-bone
pages, as well as pages that separate content from layout. How this ratio
can be used remains a riddle, but suppose that checking for JavaScript/CSS,
as well as using a renderer to 'see' the page, has true potential.
|
|
