amerikan ingilizcesi oldugu icin takip etmek zor olabilir o yuzden ingilizcesini yazdim boylece daha iyi okuyabilirsiniz.yine de turkcesi diyen olursa buraya yazarim.







Here we go again, I’m learning something every time I do one of these, for example it’s probably smart to mention that today is Sunday July 30th 2006.
Alright, Jeremy writes in, he says, ”Does Google treat dynamic pages differently from static pages”.
To a first approximation, we do treat dynamic and static pages in similar ways in Rank Queue, so let me explain that in a little more detail. Page rank flows to dynamic URLs in the same way they flow to static URLs so if you’ve got New York Times linking to a dynamic URL, you’ll still get the page rank benefit and you’ll still get the page link benefit. There are other search engines who in the past have said “we’ll go one level deep from static URLs so we’re not going to crawl from a dynamic URL but we’re willing to go into a dynamic space URL from a static URL.” So the short answer is page rank still flows just the same between static and dynamic. Lets go into the more detailed answer.
The example you gave actually has 5 perameters and one of them is like a product ID with like 2725, you definitely can use two mini-parameters. I would absolutely opt for two or three at the most, if you have any choice whatsoever, and try to avoid long numbers because we can think that those are session IDs. Any extra parameters that you can get rid of are always a good idea. Remember Google is not the only search engine out there so if you have the ability to basically say “I’m going to use a little bit of mod rewrite and I’m going to make it look like a static URL” that can often be a very good way to tackle the problem, so page rank still flows. But, experiment - if you don’t see any URLs that have the same structure of the same number of parameters, as you’re thinking about doing, it’s probably better if you can either cut back on the number of parameters or shorten them somehow, or try to use mod rewrite.

Alright, Mark writes in:
This is an interesting question, he had a friend who’s site was hacked and didn’t know about it for a couple of months because Google had taken it out or something like that. So he asks, can Google inform the webmaster of this occurrence, basically when your site gets hacked, within site maps? Inform them the maybe inappropriate pages were crawled?
That’s a really good question. My guess is that we don’t have the resources to do something like that right now. In general, when somebody gets hacked, if they have a small number of sites they are monitoring, they usually notice it pretty quickly. Or else the Web Host will alert them to it. So the site maps team is always willing to work on new things but my guess is this would be at the lower end of the priority list.

Ok, James M. writes in, he says:
“In the fullness of time I’d like to use geo-targeting software to deliver different marketing messages to different people in different parts of the world, so for example, discounted pricing structure. Are we safe to run with this sort of plain vanilla use of geo-targeting software? Clearly we want to avoid any suspicions of cloaking.”
That’s a really neat question. So let’s talk about that a little bit. The way that Google defines cloaking is very specific, it says, ‘showing different content to users than you show to search engines.’ Now geo-targeting by itself is not cloaking under Google’s guidelines because all you’re doing is saying, “take the IP address, oh, you’re from Canada, we’ll show you this particular page,” or “take the IP address, you’re from Germany so we’ll show you this particular page.” The thing that will get you in trouble is if you treat Google-bot in some special way. So if you’re geo-targeting by country, don’t make a special country just for Google-bot - Google-botistan or something like that. Instead, what you want to do is treat Google-bot just like a regular user, so if you geo-stat by country, we’re coming from an IP address in the US. So just give Google-bot whatever the US would see. So, Google for example does geo-targeting, we don’t consider that cloaking. I think I’ve explained the subtleties pretty well, but again; cloaking is ‘showing different content to users than you show to search engines.’ In this case you just treat Google-bot as you would any other user based on the fact that they’ve got this IP address and you should be absolutely fine.