backlinks...

[Blnt]

i wonder... how is it better to link sites direct liks or not direct links
what do you think? does it matter to search engines?

[Joe]

What do you mean by direct links? Javacript-encoded links, PHP ID links?

[Blnt]

sorry,
i mean hard coded links, direct (for me) means link from site A to site B and backwards site B to A and non direct.. just not Ab Ba, and the php thing...
how does spider see php on the server?
ie. php files on the server with <? include ?> and the include shows the links to others (user see the result of include = links, what does spider see? )

[Joe]

I prefer A to B, B to C linking structures (a method of non-direct linking). However, solid link exchanges (A to B, B to A), work just as well-- As much as people still like to discount it.

As for the PHP thing, Googlebot will follow most PHP URL Strings, but not strings like http://www.sitename.com/jump.cgi?=2435

I'd avoid any type of PHP linking to your link partners, as Google does not pass on PR through such linking methods (and apparently, link exchanges have gone so far as to depending entire upon PR).

[Blnt]

how about a->b b->c c->a linking? does it have any sense?

[Opti]

Originally Posted by Blnt

ie. php files on the server with <? include ?> and the include shows the links to others (user see the result of include = links, what does spider see? )

that looks like hard code to a SE spider.. its processed by the server before the page is delivered to a browser or spider or whatever reads it.


direct -v- indirect linking.. I'm not sure it's a particularly significant factor. And don't think doing any one thing too much is a smart strategy usually, so would prefer to have a mix of the two myself.

[Blnt]

Opti,
yeah, this is the thing i wanded to know. Hmm.. but i see that google caches page with include results, not with hard coded php script.. hm, thats interesting..

[Opti]

Originally Posted by Blnt

Opti,
yeah, this is the thing i wanded to know. Hmm.. but i see that google caches page with include results, not with hard coded php script.. hm, thats interesting..

Hmm.. suspect you misunderstood what I meant?

using something like Include(blah.htm);

will include the contents of blah.htm into your page so it looks like normal HTML code to a spider or anyone else.

[Blnt]

i undersant you
what you have written here tells me that spiders will see the content form include source not raw include code, am i right?

[Rocco]

Blnt - the spider sees what you see showing the source in the browser (plus headers). if you are talking about a regular include in php then this is the same as coded into the main document.

[AcidMaX]

Originally Posted by Blnt

i undersant you
what you have written here tells me that spiders will see the content form include source not raw include code, am i right?

It sees the same thing your users see. Completely formtted with the end result. PHP code is parsed on the server so everyone only see's the final result.

Andy