On 11/06/07 11:18 PM, Chris Parrish was heard to say: > Short Answer - don't bet the farm on any "magic techniques" if they > don't make good common development sense. Over time, the engines adapt > to eliminate the sneaksters and ensure that those who aren't, aren't > penalized.
That's what I was thinking. I have a 2003 textbook that, among other things, is about crawler technology and even that uses information in the URL to boost the ranking of a page. Additionally, it's a known fact that respected search engine companies recruit only the brightest of the brightest and I am certain somebody there has thought about it. I just found myself confused as there are a few people who seem to be very convinced that a "flat" namespace is the better choice with focus only on SEO. Sure, if somebody is into link spamming and only cares about ranking, rather than providing search capabilities, then that might be the way to go, but if you actually want the search engine to find meaningful results to specific queries, I believe a properly structured content is more beneficial than without any structure. Just my €0.02. Oliver
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
