Javascript Links

jestep · #1 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 11:32 AM

Im looking for people's methods that they use to create no spiderable javascript text links on a web page?

If you have a good method of creating nonspiderable text links and would be willing to share please post your method.

flood6 · #2 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 12:33 PM

I haven't used this technique, but I thought I'd throw this out there:

Some googlebots have started requesting external javascript files. These has been a lot of speculation at webmasterworld (I think even GoogleGuy mentioned) that google is, or will soon, start determining if people are doing this on outbound links. A further speculation suggests that they will start penalizing sites that do this for the purpose of conserving PR.

Just thought it might be something to consider.

jestep · #3 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 01:00 PM

Yes, this is true that google does spider simple javascript links. That is mainly the reason that I am trying to figure out how people do make links unspiderable. My programming background is with html,php, but not javascript.

Quote:

A further speculation suggests that they will start penalizing sites that do this for the purpose of conserving PR.

I hadn't heard this yet, but I will definately take it into consideration.

Thanks

jgoddard · #4 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 02:10 PM

What reason should you be linking to pages from your site and not want google to know about it?

If you're thinking that, shouldn't you maybe just take the link off altogether?

Just curious... unless there is a reason for them.

flood6 · #5 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoddard

What reason should you be linking to pages from your site and not want google to know about it?

The two most common reasons are

1. You don't want any of your PR to flow to another site. You are hoarding your PR, this is what people are starting to thing google is going to start penalize for.

2. You are afraid or know that the link goes to a "bad neighborhood". Google has stated that linking to sites that participate in shady SEO can be detrimental to your site's health. Maybe a link exchange partner who doesn't know any better, but you want to keep an inbound link from them (admittadly poor manners, but effective). Or you want to refrence a site in an informational sense (you want to give an example of risky SEO) but don't want the consequences that come with linking the the previously mentioned "bad neighborhoods".

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the two most common.

jestep · #6 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 02:55 PM

Those about cover it. In this case the second one is the reason that I am looking. But, there are many people who use javascript to conserve Page Rank. There definately may be a shock for them in the near future if google starts to penalize them, because google can already spider through javascript. Google is almost to the point where they spider flash. They can do it, but it is not being implimented yet, still in testing.

jgoddard · #7 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 02:59 PM

I guess that makes sense...

About google spidering flash, if you check out the initial results they're pretty bad... there will need to be some way for flash developers to specify what is important within their flas... similar to setting titles, h1s and descriptions.

It will be interesting to see how the google flash spidering turns out.

jestep · #8 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 05:02 PM

I think Im going to go with a blank page meta refresh, and block spiders from the blank page. This will also make editing easier.

flood6 · #9 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jestep

I think Im going to go with a blank page meta refresh, and block spiders from the blank page. This will also make editing easier.

Why would that be better than just disallowing spiders from that with robots.txt or noindex, nofollow tag? Why the extra step of meta refresh? You would still end up with a PR0 on that page and people will still be able to see what you are doing to prevent indexing.

I'm not baiting you, I just don't understand.

Though I may be misunderstanding your intentions. If that's the case and you'd rather not elaborate I'll understand, lol.

jestep · #10 (**permalink**) 05-14-2004, 06:55 PM

Just a lot easier for me to use that a javascript.

That is what I am doing, just placing all of the pages that I dont want spidered in another directory and robots.txt blocking that directory. I think I may have worded it wrong in the earlier post. I also used a php header statement just vs. the meta refresh.

danbroughton · #11 (**permalink**) 05-18-2004, 07:41 PM

Interesting - I may be being a bit silly but would disallowing an html page in your robots.txt halt any PR drain to that page from links on other (allowed) pages?
--------------
4 Walls Website Design | Structural Insulated Panels

flood6 · #12 (**permalink**) 05-18-2004, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danbroughton

Interesting - I may be being a bit silly but would disallowing an html page in your robots.txt halt any PR drain to that page from links on other (allowed) pages?

I think the idea is to disallow spiders from the page where the link is. It will only "plug" that one page. It is agreed that outbound links on any other page of the site will still leak PR.