On Dec 16, 2007 2:16 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin McEvoy wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 18:01 +0000, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > >> 1. Search engines currently "ignore" TITLE on non-linking A. (Does > >> anyone has any clear evidence to confirm this? Does that evidence > >> hold > >> for all major engines, or only for Google? I can't find anything > >> solid.) > > > > this may help: > > go here http://www.webconfs.com/search-engine-spider-simulator.php > > copy and paste this url > > http://weborganics.co.uk/files/test.html > > > > the test consists of four anchor texts two with href attributes two > > without > > > > It isnt the definitive answer but I would say pretty accurate ;) > > That's a cute tool, but I certainly wouldn't rely on a search engine > simulator to be an accurate guide to the details of how real search > engines like Google and Yahoo! Search index and weight content. > > -- > Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis > > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss >
This is one of the reasons not to rely on what some of the agents are doing with the documents. Not only is it not reliable (because they all take a guess) but also there is no guarantee how the information will be extracted/perceived in the future with the actual search engines. As I mentioned before, the formats should steer clear from what these agents may be doing and instead focus on deriving solutions that is sound within the document. Jeremy Keith wrote: > If a design pattern is going to *mandate* that authors must use a > particular element, then the semantic meaning of that element needs > to be pretty solid. I totally agree with this. -Sarven _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
