Thanks. Let me put it this way. The methods we used were created by our team of developers at phpLynx and had or have never been used on any other software previous to this or since for that matter, hope that clears that up for you.
You should thanks minstrel - he did a good job to promote your script. I didn't know about it (and I have 6 directories) I am downloading the free script to give it a good test. one thing I can tell you is that the website usability is awful...
Minstrel simply pointed out some observations formula, I don't think he deliberately went out to promote the script; that was probably the last thing in his mind. It's opinions and views from people like minstrel that count a lot for us as they tend to be super straight, impartial and honest, and yes of course I thank him. p.s, The full script is streets apart from the free version and has more power built in it but I won't go into that as I'd get slated for over promoting. Thanks for coming over to the forum and at least trying the script, if there's anything we can help you with feel free to ask over there.
I'm not sure whether this question was directed to me or to Jamie. If it was to me, yes, the template changed. I had a custom template designed to my specifications by jojo at phplynxtemplates.co.uk. I heartily recommend her - she did an excellent job. Happy to do so. If I forget, feel free to remind me.
You got your name right I see. Toddle off back to the psych ward now there's a good lad. Or was this a cynical way of trying to hijack a thread?
forgot to pick up on the comment on the website. I know the website is absolutely crap but the script isn't which is the important thing. We're going to change the website to make it more usable. Hope you enjoy testing, although you won't see it all in the free version you'll get a good idea.
for now I get this error: Site error: the file /var/www/phplynx19/phplynx_free_withbacklink/index.php requires the ionCube PHP Loader ioncube_loader_lin_5.2.so to be installed by the site administrator I would like to covert my link2share how many templates do you have?
Asking on the relevant forum would be better formula, that's what its there for. It would be unfair on minstrel to hi-jack his thread so won't answer here. All your answers are on the forum.
Did you have google ads before? I know they will make sure to index your whole site if you have them due to the fact it needs to know what ads to place on each page.
I think I can answer that for minstrel simply by nipping over to the wayback machine for esyndicat, and wayback machine when he used phpld at his earliest stage. So the answer is YES he did use adsense prior to using the phpLyx script so I guess we can rule that theory out richos.
And the older phpLD version: http://web.archive.org/web/20060303194052/http://directory.psychlinks.ca/ Also, AdSense uses a different spider(s) than is used for site indexing.
I've used both eSyndicat and Lynx. I basically butchered both of the default templates to get rid of the excessive tables and make my own designs. I tried to tighten the code and get the content as high as possible within the code. Possibility 1: I've seen from other sites and the directories that there can be great benefits of content placement within the code. When I redid one of my sites and flipped all the nav menus after the content, I saw marked improvements in SERPs and indexed pages. Possibility 2: New content more indexing. I do think the Lynx site did get indexed a bit faster from the start but I don't see where more of the pages are indexed then on the eSyndicat site now after both sites have been up for a while.
I realize with a database port that the information being displayed on the displayed page content is the same. There has been much discussion that part of what the spiders see is the coding used to create each page. Don't remember if I saw that over on SitePoint or somewhere else. That was what I was referring to as to "new content". A lot of the conversation focussed on how 'hidden' the content was among the coding impacting how much of the content is actually found by the spiders. I've also seen to varying degrees conversations about Google's spiders only going through the first xx/xxx bytes of the files. (Again, have no idea where I saw this information, but it's out there.) As to URLs where flipping the content/nav around made a difference - Your Message Consultant - my business site for one. Though I must admit it still uses tables and could probably benefit from getting rid of those. I also redid my site Help For Web Beginners - another one where I saw a marked increase in search engine-based traffic after changing the template structure. Just took a look at it in wayback machine - wow, not my best work; glad I pitched that layout. Overall, it seems like whenever one of my sites got a major facelift (with and without major changes to the page content) I saw increased spidering and a spike in search engine traffic. It didn't always last but it did give the site new opportunities. Shoot, I recently changed my copyright notice on my sites (yeah, a bit slow on that, taken care of permanently now though) and there's been a jump in spidering. Seems ridiculous that such a small change would do anything but I won't complain about it - that's for sure.
That's not what I asked. I asked for the URLs for the directories where you claim you have more pages indexed with eSyndicat than phpLynx (i.e., the topic of this thread?). There may be many reasons of course why one site gets more pages indexed. In my example, the only thing that changed was the script and this had the reported effect within 2-3 weeks maximum (I hadn't checked prior to that time so it could have happened even earlier). I'd like to see the two directories on which you are basing your claim.
Haven't you even considered that it could be simply good coding that is the reason minstrel has reported his observations? It makes me wonder why people are so cynical toward phpLynx when it does nothing but benefit the directory community, green eyed monster from a lot of people for sure but from good posters like you I can't quite figure? ##Ref: Templates, content management systems, and the role they may play in the efficacy of indexing is a studied subject YMC, here's a link to a pdf that should give you an insight into what we at phpLynx already know. Hope it helps you get a clearer picture.
Unexpected results indeed... When I went to figure out what percentage of pages for each of my directories Crafty Tips (the eSyndicat one - paid version) and Pet Site Guides (phpLynx free version) were indexed, I found some unexpected results. While the craft directory had more pages indexed (makes sense, it's a bigger site) and somewhere approaching close to every page, the Lynx site had more than 100% of the site indexed. More pages indexed then there are pages? It would appear that I have quite a number of pages indexed that are search results. From what I can tell these are words that are contained as keywords and keyword phrases for the listings themselves. Interesting concept, not sure if I like it or not. At first I thought the search phrases were tied to my category names but I certainly do not have a category called "abusers" or "enthusiast" (one of the other of these indexed "pages"). I don't have any sort of word cloud set up on the site nor do I make use of the A-Z category listing. And I did not say that the Lynx site did not have as good indexing as the eSyndicat site. What I said was that the Lynx site did appear to be indexed faster but that I did not see where it outperformed the other directory long term. Of course if you count search result pages that really shouldn't be indexed then it would index better. Where that becomes part of a bash fest and being jealous is beyond me. I don't know how long you've been with the Lynx folks Jamie, but I suggest you do a bit of research of my previous posts, both here and in the Lynx forums, before you lump me with others around here.