keitai-l@appelsiini.net writes:
>How you weight these tests is a try and error thing until it works.
sure
I am all for a "rag-bag" approach with a multitude of test - for now. And
I do not think 3rd parties should "promote their own tag".
But if google were to state something like "if your site has the chtml
meta tag we will definitely regard it as chtml - if it does not we will
TRY and work it out, we will do our best but we can make no guarantees"
then IMHO that would be "a good thing". People who do not use the tag
would still (mostly) get pulled in - people who did use it could
"guarantee" to get pulled in (as it were...)
I feel there should be a quick, easy, light, painless way to identify a
site as an imode site. The chtml meta tag (despite the fact that imode
uses an extension/modification of chtml, and despite the fact that it adds
weight to a page) is an obvious candidate.
The point is, the problem that google has is a real problem and while I
feel we should encourage a ragbag approach for tests on the google side -
we should also encourage a "preferred way" so that site designers know
that they will be picked up by the spider if they do xxxx.
As for adding weight to a page, yes, it does, but for a large subset of
sites there is no need to have it on EVERY page - one does not necessarily
want every page of a dynamic site indexing.
Nick
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu Feb 8 06:49:55 2001