Google and Yahoo! Working Together On Better Web Indexing 94
Karzz1 writes "In an exclusive video interview with WebProNews, Yahoo and Google announced a collaborative site called sitemaps.org. Yahoo!'s Tim Mayer states in the video, 'This is something we are announcing tonight at around 9 PM tonight (Las Vegas) Google and Yahoo have gotten together to provide webmasters and publishers a unified way to send their content... let our search engines know about new and existing content.'"
What About Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm confused--when Microsoft does something good, do we just ignore it? You know, I'm all for criticizing their evil plans for world domination in the software market but shouldn't news be subjective not objective even if it is only for nerds?
Side note, I'll bet this post hits rock bottom like any other post that says something positive about Microsoft [slashdot.org].
Spinning (Score:1)
Like if you were hosting a conference on global peace you might keep quiet about Dubya being a keynote speaker.
Re:What About Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
ahh, my hed asplode....
Lard Thunder 'n Jesus! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Like, the Office grammar check crapping out on
Re:What About Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re:What About Microsoft? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What About Microsoft? (Score:4, Funny)
Is that like being a little pregnant?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Source: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2
Re:What About Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, firefox market share is small.
Re:What About Microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What About Microsoft? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You got those backwards. Objective means without bias while the news you are complaining about is subjective, it is biased towards downplaying the good things Microsoft does.
Semantics, they'll get you everytime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes I get this petty little feeling that there should be a "-1, Martyr Complex" mod option. But of course, this only feeds said complex. And that's the problem with a lot of moderations - sometimes its more effective responding with why an opinion might be missing something.
Having said that - responding is also only so effective. The linked example works well to demonstrate it. In the
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. But claiming "I bet this gets down-modded" and then showing a previous example of a down-mod doesn't add anything to the point. Especially if that down-mod was shown to be accurate. Go back and re-read what I wrote.
It should be stressed that the "I bet I get modded" schtick applies to anything, not just the Slashdot-criticisms.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. One of the better mods should have been "off-topic" as most of the post was. The closest you seemed to come on that one was:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Understand genius?
Honestly, what did the above comments (or your own even) add to the fucking relevant discussion?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The Department Raises a Valid Point (Score:2)
As we learned a short while ago [slashdot.org], this initiative will make it that much easier for bots to detect what content a site has to offer. Is this good or bad for the end users of the internet--will it just increase the incentive for spiders and bots to crawl sites? What is the real purpose of this collaboration? To me it looks like an attempt for the search engines to get content providers to make the search engine's job that much easier.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes sense, though. The whole reason for the web is the content provided by content providers, and they need the search engines to know what they have to offer just as badly as the search engines need the content to search for. It's all symbiotic, and it is just logical that one side is willing to help the other do something
Re: (Score:1)
Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, and. .
KFG
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been using Google's Sitemaps program for quite some time. I don't want the spiders crawling old and pointless content when there is new and more relevant stuff available for them to display to end users. Why would it increase spidering when they are being specifically told what and how important something is to spider?
I have noticed a significant decrease in the overall spide
Re: (Score:1)
To me it looks like an attempt for the search engines to get content providers to make the search engine's job that much easier.
Which is wonderful. Web developers can use a standardized file to help optimize search engine support, makng their job that much easier, rather than developing these types of guidance or sitemap files separately for each search engine. Afterall, most of my clients, and I'm hazarding a guess here I know, but most clients want their site to be able to be found via a search engine
wow (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! That's MSGooHoo to you, bub!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because (Score:1)
Over compilicated!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice and easy. And usable by people and crawlers.
what about robots? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Subjective... (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it just me, or does the priority tag seem really objective and arbitrary? One webmaster's .5 could be another's .8...
Re:Subjective... (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results, only vs. other pages on your site. And if they're all 1, then you're telling the crawler that they're all equally important, just as if you had assigned them all a value of
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know.
Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Put it up to eleven.
Eleven. Exactly. One higher.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you sure?
If two pages from different site are determined to be of approximately equal relevance to the search, couldn't a search engine pick a favorite by using the internal priority ranking?
Wouldn't a page on widgets be more relevant coming from a widget-maker (who would give it a higer internal priority than his gadget pages) than a similar page coming from a gad
Sorry, LanMan04 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you could say it is very arbitrary but it is only used as a hint to show how the site owner would prefer his content to be spidered. If you had 10 million pages on your website but there were a few hundred you really wanted the spiders to be interested in then you would assign them a higher priority in your sitemap. It is relative to your own site only so it's ok that it works that way I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, I believe that's priority within the site. So, for example, your homepage might have a "0.8" your "Contact Us" page, might have a "0.5", your "News" section might be a straight "1.0", and your privacy policy a "0.2".
Invalid XML (Score:1)
GooHoo! (Since GooTube isn't YouGoo) (Score:1)
Text Browsers (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a <description> tag? I would take great interest in a sitemap specification that gives me enough information to navigate major parts of a site with a viewer plugin (of some sort) in a web browser.
There's nothing worse than fumbling around navigating page after page when the web server is slow, the pages are image- or ad-heavy, or the navigation on the page just plain sucks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How do I submit a sitemap to Yahoo/Microsoft? (Score:2, Interesting)
Lukasz
Hikipedia - free database of hiking trails [hikipedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and
Though I have no idea if they're actually going to process it...
I for one... (Score:1)
Parse error in example? (Score:2)
Are they missing a <url>
Why is this more than what robots.txt can do? (Score:1)
Many here ask why this is more than robots.txt. For one it offers to add URLs that are driven by databases and parameters. Thing that the SEs do not index too well. It also adds last updated stamps and priority for re-visit.
Why is that important? So if I have one page where I always post the latest news, I can have the spider revisit every hour, so it get indexed ASAP. However the spider can go easy on the rest of my site otherwise. I also can train that spider for a burst, if I have for example an ongoin
This is New? Django has supported this for a while (Score:1)
Re:This is New? Django has supported this for a wh (Score:1)
Not Valid XML! (Score:1)
http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html [sitemaps.org]
Re: (Score:1)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 ">
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/</loc>
<lastmod>2005-01-01</lastmod>
<changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Google Sitemaps (Score:1)
Google has had this for a while now [google.com]. I had noticed that development has been healthy recently. whereas before it was a relatively unnecessary tool, now it's actually useful.
if it's as useful as Google Sitemaps, then I'm happy with today's news. the protocol does look pretty similar (and by pretty similar, I mean the XML structure is virtually identical). I'm guessing porting Google Sitemaps over to this new one will be painless.
PHP Class for Generating SiteMaps (Score:2)
This may help AJAX apps to be more search-friendly (Score:1)