Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,403
    All sites with redirects and sites with same landing page are penalized by google. cj.com affilaite links are redirects, so all cj.com affiliate sites are penalized. Anything what we can do? Additional google ist not able to index php sites.

    carneol

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    99
    PHP wouldn't exist because nobody would use it if Google couldn't index it.

    Where are you getting your facts from about the CJ links getting penalized?

    You need to present facts when you make bold statements like these because there are a lot of people that will take it as fact and repeat it over and over again.

    I personally don't believe either.

  3. #3
    notary sojac Herb ԿԬ's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Central/Western NY State
    Posts
    7,741
    I have one site that is completely dot-php and no problem with google indexing it.

  4. #4
    Roll Tide mobilebadboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama
    Posts
    1,220
    I don't understand the whole thing about the CJ links, but as far as Google not indexing PHP sites, that's about as far from the truth as you can get.

    PHP is a SERVER-SIDE language, meaning all of the PHP is processed on the SERVER before ever reaching the CLIENT side (ie: your browser). Google views a website just as a browser does (more or less) and sees the same thing you do, nothing but regular (X)HTML. There is no way for a browser or Google to discern what server side language (whether it be php, asp, or anything else) that a website is using. They never sees it.

    Shawn Kerr (.com) | Disney World | SEC Football

  5. #5
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    More accurate would be this statement: Google (and other search engines) don't like computer-generated SE spam pages. Some might have CJ links. Some might have redirects. Some might be PHP. But those things aren't the reason Google doesn't like them.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  6. #6
    ABW Veteran Student Heyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,482
    I think Michael is right. It may be that google will inlude various tactics to determine how it classifies a page or site but overall it (google) does not penalize you for using links to affiliate programs or for using more complicated website building techniques. Google actually encourages progress and has said so at various times.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    59
    MichaelColey --- I AGREE_______
    More accurate would be this statement: Google (and other search engines) don't like computer-generated SE spam pages.
    ___________________________


    I don't know about Google...
    But I KNOW they are BAD for DMOZ...

    I had a site listed in DMOZ..
    Great listing -- but it was not an affiliate site.. just info..

    I put up one little banner in the footer (ALL PAGES)

    IT WAS TAKEN OUT - of the DMOZ list about a week later.. no other changes no other reason I just put a small "Micro Banner" in the footer..

    HERE's what Google says about "indexing" certain file types --

    _________
    Fiction: Sites are not included in Google's index if they use ASP (or some other non-html file-type.)
    Fact: At Google, we are able to index most types of pages and files with very few exceptions. File types we are able to index include: pdf, asp, jsp, html, shtml, xml, cfm, doc, xls, ppt, rtf, wks, lwp, wri, swf.
    _____________


    Now they do not list PHP but since most of us who use PHP use it to create HTML or other "INDEXED" file types... It stands to reason that they ARE Indexed.. at least mine are..

    GOOGLE INFO:
    http://www.google.com/intl/en/webmasters/



  8. #8
    Affiliate Manager Allen Nance's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Colorado River, Bullhead City AZ
    Posts
    1,604
    quote:
    Originally posted by SuZee:
    MichaelColey --- I AGREE_______
    _More accurate would be this statement: Google (and other search engines) don't like computer-generated SE spam pages._
    ___________________________


    I don't know about Google...
    But I KNOW they are BAD for DMOZ...

    I had a site listed in DMOZ..
    Great listing -- but it was not an affiliate site.. just info..

    I put up one little banner in the footer (ALL PAGES)

    IT WAS TAKEN OUT - of the DMOZ list about a week later.. no other changes no other reason I just put a small "Micro Banner" in the footer..

    HERE's what Google says about "indexing" certain file types --

    _________
    _Fiction:_ Sites are not included in Google's index if they use ASP (or some other non-html file-type.)
    _Fact:_ At Google, we are able to index most types of pages and files with very few exceptions. File types we are able to index include: pdf, asp, jsp, html, shtml, xml, cfm, doc, xls, ppt, rtf, wks, lwp, wri, swf.
    _____________


    Now they do not list PHP but since most of us who use PHP use it to create HTML or other "INDEXED" file types... It stands to reason that they ARE Indexed.. at least mine are..

    GOOGLE INFO:
    http://www.google.com/intl/en/webmasters/





    Google has my entire 26000 page php site indexed... with good to fairly good rankings.
    Signup Now for our KiteandWind affiliate program exclusivly at Shareasale.
    * 7% + Bonus - 365 return days
    * 2nd Tier Signup Bonus - Parasite Free - Auto Deposit Merchant
    * Free Datafeed - PopShops- Performance Cash Bonus

  9. #9
    Newbie Affiliate Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,540
    I am not that familiar with file types but what about .aspx? How would SE"s "figure out" these types where HTML is generated on the fly based on the browser you are using?

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,403
    I found that in the last axandra searchengine facts newsletter.

    carneol

  11. #11
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    quote:
    IT WAS TAKEN OUT - of the DMOZ list about a week later.. no other changes no other reason I just put a small "Micro Banner" in the footer..


    Commies
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  12. #12
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    quote:
    Originally posted by carneol:
    I found that in the last axandra searchengine facts newsletter.
    If that's the quality of information they have in their newsletter, you might as well unsubscribe.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  13. #13
    Just Lurking
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,263
    Google indexes lot of file types. From some of the interesting boo boos I found with Google, I think they pay attention to the "Content-type" header of http more than the filetype extensions. So as long as your PHP or Ian's .ASPX is outputting content-type "text/html" there should be no problem. That is just my personal theory which is baseless because Google ain't commentting on the subject.

    Hard thing about indexes like DMOZ is your not trying to fool a program like the googlebot but an actual human who 10 to 1 hates banners with a purple passion. As it says on the front page, "... the largest human-edited directory on the web."
    Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way!

  14. #14
    Full Member BrattyKitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    260
    quote:
    Additional google ist not able to index php sites.



    I'm fairly sure this isn't true.
    All my PHP pages get indexed within a few days of going live and usually get great traffic.
    Never argue with an idiot.
    The person watching, may not be able to tell the difference!

    :female: :star: :envelope: [url="http://www.bridalbasics.ca/"]:weddingca[/url]

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    27
    yes someone is giving you incorrect information

  16. #16
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    29
    These discussions always amaze me. If a link returns an html page, or even a pdf page, it's a good link. The file extension doesn't really matter, but for some reason, every few weeks a new thread pops up about some file extension being excluded or being impossible for SE's to follow. Spiders are just specialized browsers. If your browser can see the page, so can the spider.

    Ian, I have hundreds of pages with aspx extension. Google, yahoo, and msn all think they are just fine. So do lots of other spiders.

  17. #17
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,086
    Search engines sometimes have problems with query strings with multiple elements. They have big problems with sites that use a sid in a query id.

    Google, has some strange behavior with redirects.

    Google and other indexes have big problems with affiliate sites and other things which tend to create a great deal of redundant information.

    Redundant information causes problems for SEs.

    DMOZ allows ads on pages. There probably was something else going on. There is more than one DMOZ editor. So it was probably a different person who took the page out.

    It is possible that the change appeared to them as a bait and switch. I suspect DMOZ has widespread problems with people changing web sites after then get approved. I would not be surprised if they had an automated process that would pick up on addition of affiliate links to see how the page gets changed after approval.

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador mailman's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    mailordering.com
    Posts
    906
    Budaha :It seems you answered by question. Google is human- edited. I still find it hard to believe that all pages are checked manually. With so many irrelievent results from searches this seems impossible. I think Google needs some help cleaning up these results and what better people to help do it- we the affilates. If Google let us help I believe that we would all benefit. The searches would be more accurate and we could help . Go ahead Haiko, invite Google to answer some questions in a forum. I remember when Google started and was paying 2 cents per click thru CJ. The boys at Google have done well.

  19. #19
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,086
    DMOZ is human edited (and very proud of that fact). Google minimizes the amount of human editing as is very proud of that fact.

    Google often makes changes to its algorithm in response to what it perceives to be SEO garbage spam techniques. So it is entirely possible that there might be a penalty given for affiliate games.

    Datafed sites are a challenge for Google. As the things continue to replicate out of control, I would suspect that the effectiveness of the datafed sites will diminish.

  20. #20
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,797
    Some of this thread really makes me want to weep. I can't write any more right now as this is the kind of thread that was prevalent here when I first joined this forum and I thought we'd all moved past rubbish like "Google can't index PHP", "Google hates affiliate sites" and "Google is human-edited". I'm going away to cry for a little while.

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,403
    Marymark:
    if you are entering with your SEO site you should be more careful what you are saying.
    Google says itself:

    Google is able to index the folowing types of sites:

    pdf, asp, jsp, hdml, shtml, xml, cfm, doc, xls, ppt, rtf, wks, lwp, wri.

    I do not see that php sites are amongst them.

    carneol

  22. #22
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    carneol, MarkyMark knows SEO.

    But you can read this too:

    http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/23297-2-10.htm

    From GoogleGuy:

    "We give equal love to .php and .html, and even .asp. We normally dislike "&id=yyy" parameters though because they are normally session IDs. "

    So Google does index php.

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador qball0213's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,158
    Read the whole thing, it's not that hard,

    Fiction: Sites are not included in Google's index if they use ASP (or some other non-html file-type.)
    Fact: At Google, we are able to index most types of pages and files with very few exceptions. File types we are able to index include: pdf, asp, jsp, html, shtml, xml, cfm, doc, xls, ppt, rtf, wks, lwp, wri, swf.

    If you search for php there are 470,000,000 results.

    Maybe you should do more reading and less posting.

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    59
    qball© - I posted almost exactly what you posted on the first page...
    can't believe this thread is on it's second page - the mention of Google and everybody jumps.. LOL..

  25. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. New SAS Get Links Interface - Bad Text Links
    By dsharpie in forum ShareASale - SAS
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2010, 05:55 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 15th, 2010, 02:04 PM
  3. All Bad Links
    By virtualwhispers in forum PopShops
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 13th, 2008, 07:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •