9 replies to this topic

[idrive]

Is there anything stopping Google from following a link that is part of an image map? The code looks like this:

<map name="Map" id="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="729,47,792,66" href="../site_map/site_map.cfm">
<area shape="rect" coords="666,47,720,66" href="../e_news/e_news.html">
<area shape="rect" coords="602,47,658,66" href="../sign_in/sign_in.cfm">
<area shape="rect" coords="537,46,595,66" href="../contact/contact.html">
</map>

Thanks!

[SearchRank]

Google can follow the links from image maps fine but you may want to make sure there are some text links to the same pages somewhere withing your site as well.

You can also enhance the image map by adding alt tags to each link. Something like this:

<map name="Map" id="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="729,47,792,66" href="../site_map/site_map.cfm" alt=Place your alt text here">
</map>

[Jill]

Yes, David is correct.



Jill

[idrive]

*argh* I am going to post my plea here - I have posted in the dynamic site issues forum earlier but haven't found the solution to my problem.
The site in question is www.journeysofdiscovery.ca/ AllTheWeb has indexed pretty much all of the pages on the site, but Google has indexed everything except the desired pages ;-)
Google has spidered the packages page but not an individual package from a streams page.

The team working on this site implemented a sitemap with direct links to the packages desired to be indexed. They do not want outside links directly to individual packages...

To see the previous posts, please view my profile and the most recent discussions I have participated in :-)

Edited by Jill, 17 November 2003 - 10:42 AM.

[compar]

The team working on this site implemented a sitemap with direct links to the packages desired to be indexed.  They do not want outside links directly to individual packages...

Do they also reject a site map? One of things they could do is create a site map page with text links to every page in the site and then put an invisible text link on each page to the site map. This would preserve the atheistics of the page that they seem to be worried about but give Google something it really likes to work with.

I'll be interested at reactions to my invisible link recommendation. But I think this is a case where it is justified and not spammy or manipulative.

[SearchRank]

One of things they could do is create a site map page with text links to every page in the site and then put an invisible text link on each page to the site map.

There is already a site map with a visible link at the top right hand corner of the site. I don't know if the site map contains links to every page on the site but it appears that it contains links to at least every area.

The question to ask - "Is the site map indexed?" and if not, you may want to place a "visible" text link in the footer of every page. A site map link will not mess up the atheistics of the page IMO. Having a invisible link may trigger an automated spam filter whether the intentions to spam are there or not and IMO are not worth the risk of being penalized.

[SearchRank]

The team working on this site implemented a sitemap with direct links to the packages desired to be indexed. They do not want outside links directly to individual packages...

How long ago was the site map launched or modified? It may take a month or two for Google to find and include the pages if the site map is new or has been recently modified.

I would also suggest placing a footer of text links to the main areas of the site at the bottom of your home page in the footer area so as to help spider crawling. In my experience it is good to provide not only graphic links but text links to pages as well.

[compar]

The question to ask - "Is the site map indexed?" and if not, you may want to place a "visible" text link in the footer of every page. A site map link will not mess up the atheistics of the page IMO. Having a invisible link may trigger an automated spam filter whether the intentions to spam are there or not and IMO are not worth the risk of being penalized.

I'm always changing the subject slightly, but I can show you a ton of pages that rank in the top ten on the SERP that are loaded with invisible text . Not necessarily links but just good old fashion keyword stuffing.

So if Google isn't finding and penalizing these pages I don't think there is any real jeopardy in a single invisible text link.

[Ron Carnell]

Mmmm. I started at the home page and clicked my way through to BON.1.03 and it only took two clicks. Certainly close enough to the home page as not to be a problem.

Google doesn't like to follow dynamic URLs from dynamic pages, but there are only static pages between the home page and BON.1.03. Again, shouldn't be a problem.

You're only passing one parameter, so that's not a problem. It certainly doesn't look anything like a session ID, so that's not a problem.

Examining the source code for the streams page, I couldn't readily see any malformed code that might stop a spider (like an unclosed table or script). The first dynamic link is buried pretty deep, but not so deep I would consider it a problem.

I can see only one even potential problem, and it's one I "thought" Google had fixed a long time ago.

A few years ago, in an attempt to turn dynamic URLs into seemingly static ones, a lot of programmers came up with links that looked a bit like this:

domain.com/folder/script.cgi/parameter1/parameter2/parameter3

Because of the way Apache handles these things, the link called script.cgi, which was then able to pull all the parameters out of an Environment string. It worked perfectly, but Google absolutely refused to index the pages. It turned out the period in the middle of the URL was creating what the spider saw as a malformed link. It was a bug in their program, one that has since been fixed, and it really is only peripherally related to your problem. But it does make me wonder?

Is it possible that Google's old period bug is surfacing in a new way? Maybe the spider is choking on periods it doesn't expect to see. I have never personally passed a dynamic parameter that included periods. Anyone else?

[idrive]

Ah ha! So it's not just me ;-) The site map is new - and it was indexed shortly after being put up. It would appear that the url of a package page is not troublesome as there is a url that looks similar but is for another part of the website.

I swear, it's everything except the package pages!

Compar - So if Google isn't finding and penalizing these pages I don't think there is any real jeopardy in a single invisible text link.

Compare I will try real hard to respect your opinon on this one *grin* But I choose not to employ such tactics. I have been quite successful over the long term sticking to good old fashioned building for the people.

Search Rank - There is already a site map with a visible link at the top right hand corner of the site. I don't know if the site map contains links to every page on the site but it appears that it contains links to at least every area.

The sitemap does indeed have links to each of the packages, which is what I am concerned about.

Anyone else have any ideas? I have always been successful in finding my answer here...and yet today it would appear that Google has stumped us all *grin*

Maybe Jill could help me win tickets to the conference in Chicago where I could become enlightened and then share my knowledge with the rest of you :-)