Thanks for your contribution msolution, the results have little or nothing to do with the templating, but of course the better the template the better google and other search engines can concentrate on content which is what this is all about. Read Yahoo's finding on this, there's a link on one of the earlier threads. It also doesn't have anything to do with a niche, although yet again your absolutely right, that it certainly can help. What people are missing, and I'm sure this is probably frustrating to minstrel who started the thread. Minstrel had EXACTLY the same niche directory including content with the other script esyndicat, nothing except the script and template design change therefore unless Google has changed it's algorythms dramatically its down to the power of the phpLynx script or it certainly looks that way. We aren't prepared to shout from the rooftops yet as we want to collect a lot more evidnce from this first, we can tell you that General directories using the phpLynx script have had massive improvements on indexing as well.
like i said ill have to wait a month to come to any conclusion, but the template has more to do with it than anything else,..... i have downloaded the pdf(if your refering to that) and will read it over the weekend, i mean lets say in a hypothetical scenario if i were to put up 3 sites with the three concerened scripts, with exactly the same template, spitting out exactly the same HTML tag by tag, i dont see any reasson why one script would out do the other. .......... google may ban 2 of three for dup content, but other than that google has no way of favouring any script in general. i put my bet on the template one for its html4.01 which directories rarely are, and the tag structure,..... something clicked with googlebot! well if im wrong and the script did have something ...guess we'll know in a month. more after i read the link. M.
The use of the word 'cloaking' in this thread made me laugh aloud. YMC, cloaking is when your visitors see one thing, and the search engines see another. When Something is linked on page, the visitors see it just the same as the bots it's not hidden, nothing is changed and thus it's not cloaking. Now with regards to things like the search being indexed, I see it as *spam* and nothing else.
precisely, and facts as per OP stand 1. increased marketing, 2. template change, 3. and script change, for argument sake we'll take #3 as the main, yet it is not substantiated with evidence the #3 is the main point!!! could be a combination of 3 or 2 or just the domain getting older. im not averse to the script or you, ... if the script is good then its good! i rather you proove me wrong rather than saying im wrong, .... and if i may be wrong then im wrong,.... im just betting not being firm! @JamieG : Please also report an error with the script http://directory.psychlinks.ca/Mental-Disorders/Tourette's-Syndrome/ found it on google! also more here: http://www.google.com/search?q=inte...inks.ca&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLJ_en___IN230&filter=0 Regards, M. PS: i was actually amazed as to why the thread had a rating 5 in the first place, as it does not in any way contribute to the directory industry as a whole. just a (good) observation from one member, on one script .
How is it *spam*? It's a search/listing of some of the directory content... Is a sitemap spam? That's not a script error but rather an error in the import. I've fixed it - thank you! I'm not sure what these are. They don't look like valid URLs for my directory, unless they are result pages for clicking on "more..." under a link??? They may also have been before I fixed some other import errors (there were a few, as is typical in importing from any script to another), but I'll keep an eye out for anything new along these lines. Thanks again.
It isn't spam minstrel, I see this as a sad and desperate attempt to try and undermine the efficacy of the phpLynx script. It's a shame really because some of the better minds in the directory industry shouldn't feel the need to be doing this.
This is my personal view on it. I feel it's spam and just clutter due to the inefficiency of how the searching works on these scripts; e.g. pulling up every single listing with [insert whatever word] being searched for. There is nothing sad nor desperate about my post. What you need to do is learn to accept how others' opinions will vary depending on their own personal view of things. It's my view, nothing more and nothing less and I've explained why in my post above. add-on: There are more things to consider when I start classifying it as spam, but I guess I'll see people start jumping the gun and start panicking and I will be able to come back and post about that as well...
If it is spam (which is not in this case) then it is a stupid spam, ballooning the indexed pages for the same content is not good for the site. you are leaking pr to those pages away from your important pages.
Only the misguided look for PR mhamdi, a real company/website selling tangable goods or services (not a PR chaser) would certainly be more interested in getting their product to market. If the descriptive content of a companies listing get's indexed which is the case with the phpLynx script then the 'real customer' is given far more presence. @Anon; You have every right to formulate an opinion, and although I don't agree with it still take it into account. I'm interested in part of your reply above which I've quoted below.. If the indexed page did not provide access to the relevant keyword indexed which provides the searcher with exactly what they are searching for it would be inefficent, but it does, so it's efficient. This fact is unescapable. If you think these scripts are so inneficient why are you using one? What would be your solution to this?
Ok, good that we can come to a agree to disagree but accept term here. It, to me, depends on the type of site. If the site is well maintained and edited, and such key terms aren't overflowing everywhere, and lead to precise and distinct results, I think it's beneficial. However, let us say for example we have a niche website pertaining to 'wood working and architecture'. I come to the site and search for 'nails' I get returned results about: 1. nail polish listings 2. a religious site about the crucifixion of christ 3. websites on nails that you hammer(which are the expected results) 4. a grooming site on pets. 3 of the 4 are irrelevant Do you understand what I am trying to convey here? Maybe that's because I already have made something more efficient and provide extensive testing prior to offering. hrmmm.....
Do remember that I haven't seen these searches indexed for my directories. As far as I know, only YMC and if I recall one other person at the Cantufind forums has reported this. I'm not sure what's different about the installations where Google is indexing the search results pages but it's easy enough to filter them using robots.txt - the only possible issue might be duplicate content, if you're someone who worries about that. As I said, I'm not inclined to go to great lengths to filter them even if they do start showing up for my directories - I can see them functioning as site maps and adding some "long-tail" benefits for the directory. Please, not that tired old "PR leakage" gag again... *sigh* That has no meaning and never did. Look, all this is smokescreen anyway. Where Google has indexed those "search results pages", I expect they must be coming from the cache, which means the spcific pages won't stay around very long, which means they won't remain in Google's index very long, which means none of the arguments advanced about them other than the sitemap argument (i.e., feeding some extra URLs to Googlebot) really matter a damn. The issue is still as stated in post #1: I made the observation that phpLynx pages are getting indexed faster and more throughly than phpLD or eSyndicat pages. We've had one confirmation of that from YMC. I've yet to see any contradictory evidence. Addendum: Okay, I just received a Google alert with a search result: Clicking on the link yields a "page not found" error. The cache on my server is empty, so that makes sense. See above.
This URL looks funny too... ....directory.psychlinks.ca/Education-_-Educational-Psychology/ There are much more like this or similar (eg. with double underscores, etc.)
I have no objection to agreeing to disagree an0n it makes the world go around. I think I understand that your on about relevancy but would be grateful if you'd let me know where your leading on this for the search we employ is as relevant as possible and it's pretty much impossible to search for non existant content. Guide me here, I'll work with you to explain and demonstrate if I can how relevant the search capabilites of the phpLynx script is. At this moment though we seem to be diverting from the index capability to site owner maintainance ability which are two entirely seperate things. It's the indexing of the script that's the subject matter here after all and we should not disrespect the OP by detracting from that. That's great, we've got one or two more tricks up our sleeve as well, and like you we like to make sure things work before offering.
Those again are a function of the import. The category name is Education & Educational Psychology. In the import, the "&" was converted to "_". I still have a few of those to track down. Thanks for finding that one!
Yeah, I know it's mainly user fault, however the script could use more protection against such things. Really it's easy to track double spaces, underscores, etc. Same errors you can find on many directories, no matter what script used. Whatever, it's always good to know it and correct.
1. If PR does not matter then why building links to your websites? I have never mentioned the green bar. 2. look at the simplistic formula of PR and you will know that outgoing links leak PR. 3. The number of incoming links to the website is limited and the resulting pr is shared between the pages. some of it is leaked to search pages that most of them are useless (e.g. search.php?q=red will lead to an irrelevent page due to the poor search systems) that's just my opinion.
Nonsense. PR may be passed on to other pages as a result of outgoing links. The page passing on the PR does not lose any of its own PR as a result. PR leakage is a myth, always has been a myth, always will be a myth.