Microsoft Damned, AtW Praised

[oversteer]

Just because it says .HTML doesn't mean it's not something like php or asp generating it.

[NickFitz]

And with no php? or asp? but looks like a link to a static HTML page:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...praised-2.html

I guess a static HTML page that's often updated must rate higher than any kind of script generated content.

I think Google's algorithms used to draw some distinction between dynamic and static content on the basis of the URL some years ago, but it doesn't have anything like as much relevance now, as they've tuned things to use other heuristics for determining what's likely to change and what isn't.

For example, it used to be worthwhile avoiding URLs with a query string, but that advice fell by the wayside quite a long time ago.

FWIW, the vBulletin software powering CUK is written in PHP.

[Bunk]

Just because it says .HTML doesn't mean it's not something like php or asp generating it.

Yep, it's still a PHP page. The URL is being rewritten so that http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...praised-3.html actually hits something like (and I'm guessing here) http://forums.contractoruk.com/view.php?topic=51259. The "microsoft-damned-atw-praised-3" gets thrown away, the 51259 gets grabbed and used for the real URL. Have a look at Apache's mod_rewrite or something similar.

Edit: Yep, it's definitely not that URL but you get the idea hopefully.

[AtW]

That's a load of drivel...

[NickFitz]

That's a load of drivel...

Which bit?

[AtW]

Which bit?

All the bytes mate!

P.S. This post was made under the influence of Veuve Clicquot that was used in pre-celebration of upcoming imminent SKA news...

[Fred Bloggs]

I have been amazed at how quickly Google indexes threads from here within minutes of them first appearing. CUK must be doing something right versus Google.

[Sysman]

It appears that we are on something like a twenty minute refresh cycle at the moment, as my ten-minute search returned no results. EDIT: No, looks like twenty, not fifteen.

However the Daily Fail seems to be getting indexed as frequently as every five minutes

Nick,

What determines whether a site can be searched via the "site:sitename" construct? I ask because some sites don't give any results.

[Bunk]

Nick,

What determines whether a site can be searched via the "site:sitename" construct? I ask because some sites don't give any results.

I'm not the chimp, and he may be along soon to correct me, but as far as I know any site can be searched using site:sitename. If you're not getting any results then it's probably because Google haven't indexed the pages for some reason. Maybe they're hidden behind a form, maybe Google is blocked in the robots file (not sure why they would do that). Do the pages appear in normal search results without specifying the site?

[Drewster]

I think Google likes sites with lots of new posts, especially when they contain plenty of URLs pointing elsewhere.

All hail "One-a-day"