|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/12/06 13:43
"d43m0n AT shaw DOT ca" <barryd.it@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160638963.339846.301420@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| What is it that you are rambling about?
|
| It might be simple just to say that it maybe possible to tell search
| engins to reset their content on existing pages, hell, what if they do
| apon re-examining a page that it may find in the future to return as a
| 404 error (thats file not found).
you CAN tell search engines to do this. now, which ones are we supposed to
tell? what happens to your customers' experience while all this updating is
happening? i'd not go back to a site that gave me a 404 error. i especially
wouldn't do business with a site that, to me, seemed to not care to update
its content. it is an indication of disorganization and lack of care. or,
that they gone out of business.
| However, what I was trying to say that apon not being able to do so,
| make this your advantage, if you were to build an online application,
| that displays apartments wether current or non existent, you should
| perhaps use md5, that way it wont be nessicary to remove your exisiting
| or prehistoric display of apartments, its simply 16 random hexidecal
| string, or 32 characters, that only preceive as digits 0-9 and a-f in
| random order, that mean appsolutly nothing, but it does look better
| then incrusive numbers that tend to get deleted, and somewhat
| unorderly.
since you're 'educating' me, let me return in kind. 'apon' is not a
word...you probably mean 'upon'. 'wether' is 'whether', 'wont' is "won't",
'nessicary' is 'necessary', 'preceive' is 'perceive', 'appsolutly' is
'absolutely'...i can't figure out what the hell 'incrusive' numbers are.
and wtf does this have to do with the price of bagels at starbucks?! whether
a number or string, the problem STILL doesn't go away.
| Take steve's one good idea and simple write that the apartment does not
| exsist, or not available, however, if you wish to not archive it, but
| simple change it, then do so, if the same place becomes avaible say 10
| years, change its status.
i have them from time to time. ;^)
| Btw...Steven, your ramblings were some what irrtable, however, I found
| it nessicary to educate you on urban talk... "alot" It's cyber-speak to
| indicate a huge quantity of something. For the prudish Queen's English
| users, it's equivalent to "a lot".
i get *really* 'irrtable' when i find it 'nessicary' to read someone's
drivel who *only* seems to be 'urban educated'. 'alot' is not the word you
want to use...'a lot' is a phrase denoting a large quantity. it is NOT a
word having ANYTHING to do with quantity. alot is a verb meaning to
set-aside or allocate. even then, you've misspelled it too...it is 'allot'.
when used as a substitue to 'a lot' it is clearly an indication of a poorly
educated person. 'a' is an article (an, the are as well) that indicates a
noun (person place thing or idea) follows. 'lot' historically is a parsel of
land. now you know.
| So lick me, ok?
sounds like you're begging...or asking very pensively. answer's no...get a
girlfriend.
| - Daemon
|
| /* No Comment */
| Steve wrote:
| > | To make it a hell alot simpler,
| >
| > a ....... lot
| >
| > | If search engins were to help use out, there would be no need for
| > | search engins.
| >
| > not true...the search engine in question may know where your crap is but
NO
| > ONE else does! AND, people/programmers pick and choose which engines to
keep
| > current, leaving a vast majority uninformed.
| >
| > |They exist more then too mearly look for exisiting data,
| > | but to archive it, make a point that it exsisted.
| >
| > not true. they already DO archive and they already DO validate whether a
url
| > exists and remove as needed. or, they go out of business. that's HOW
engines
| > 'deduct' from sites that have dead pages as noobgrammer explained in his
op.
| >
| > | Infact, perhaps using a post idea, then the page doesn't actually
| > | exist, just a mere request will show you that it does. Yes, search
| > | engines may discover it because of an exising post on a forum persay,
| > | but you need to answer to $_GET requests, infact, if you were really
| > | smart, would look at the date of the request, check when the last key
| > | was made, and for a table with an existing key, and tell the user,
this
| > | page is no longer valid...
| > |
| > | infact, a simple switch function would work,
| > |
| > | switch(search_database($_GET[])) {
| > | case "valid":
| > | echo "Its here";
| > | break;
| > | default:
| > | echo "Sorry, no longer there":
| > | break;
| > | }
| >
| >
| > oh, but the page IS valid...it's just that the unit is not currently
| > available to rent.
| >
| > | Now, I did have another idea, but asking the function first for the
| > | query, seemed a bit better. You even have other cases for other
| > | responces, or use if statments, which ever you prefor.
| >
| > what?
| >
| > | Alot of search engines will update the information, and some bots even
| > | include information about how soon to update, simple by using
| > | mysite.com/robots.txt
| >
| > a ...... lot
| >
| > why even continue this line of 'thinking'? it is rediculous to believe
| > updating a (not even all) search engines is the simplest solution when
the
| > solution itself is nothing close to simple, architecturally.
| >
| > | I don't personally know how far you can go with that... but check out
| > | google bots...
| >
| > enter nuke factory here.
|
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|