Google’s Got’s Back

  • wrencelot

    would somebody please tell that the reason why their pages wasnt indexed by google is because they are using dynamic pages. instead of using black hat yabado dabadoo seo trick of hiding multiple keywords, they can opt to use mod rewrite to re write their URL (i.e., into something like looks better in the eye, its shorter, easier to type and remember, and because it has no “?” in the URL search bot and google bot will crawl it, index it, and spit it out in their search result.. on second thought, i might probably cash something out of this if i tell them myself..

  • I don’t think they care about indexing those pages. The 744 they have indexed is good enough. And as Marc pointed out earlier, they probably don’t rely on search engine traffic anyway.

  • Wrencelot, having a “?” in the URL doesn’t stop Googlebot from crawling/indexing a site. Check out all the WP blogs with permalinks turned off.

  • wrencelot

    i guess youre right migz, i do too think they dont care.. hey, why did they take off those hidden keywords again..?

    there you go..

    im not into how blogs work, but i do know that if a dynamic page has a “?” in its URL search engine dont index it.. besides, where did you see an e-commerce site built in the foundation of blogs..? and while we’re at it, not all netrepreneur relies on blogs, you know what i mean..?

    here is what google said about dynamic pages:

    Reasons your site may not be included: Your pages are dynamically generated. We are able to index dynamically generated pages. However, because our web crawler can easily overwhelm and crash sites serving dynamic content, we limit the amount of dynamic pages we index.

    (Source –

    How, Earth’s Biggest Bookstore, coped with the issue of indexing of dynamic URLs?

    A search in Google for internet marketing books, yielded a result that takes you directly to the appropriate dynamic page at Amazon:

    Since the above URL does not contain any query strings(?), all search engines can index’s products. uses this method to get its product selections indexed by search engines. This is very important for Amazon, because being an online bookstore, it is very natural for them to adopt dynamic URLs yet it was equally important for them to make their dynamic URLs search engine index friendly.

    like what i said, not all netrepreneur blogs..

  • Wrencelot,

    You say and I quote:
    “if a dynamic page has a ‘?’ in its URL search engine dont index it”

    What exactly do you mean by “index”?

    If “indexed” = “cached” then “internet marketing books” isn’t a very good example. The #1 result is indeed from and it has a “?” in the URL.

    I also think you misread your Google Webmaster Guidelines quote. It’s stated plainly there that Google IS able to index dynamically generated pages.

    It doesn’t matter whether a page was dynamically generated by say, the PHP engine or hand coded in Notepad. Spiders still see the page as plain HTML.

    URL rewriting is the way to go now, but to say that a site can’t be crawled because it has a “?” is just plain careless.

    It’s true that search engines once had a difficult time crawling/indexing dynamic sites, especially those heavy in Session IDs. But the search engines have made some improvements in that area.

    Do a G search for [digital rebel]. The third ranked page out of 7,530,000 has both “?” and “&” in the URL. To rank in Google, you first have to be crawled or “indexed”. It follows then that a single “?” does not stop bots from crawling an error-free page.

    A single instance of “?” in your URL is not a death sentence. Now if your dynamic site had pages with 15 or so parameters that’s a different story.

    I’ll be glad to show you more examples if you want.


  • wrencelot

    ill make this short and sweet:

    i ddnt misread, i post it there myself ddnt i..? obviosuly i know..

    now since youre the “internet marketing specialist” in this room, tell me, how will you optimize a dynamic page to be included in a search result given that google clearly stated that they limit themselves on indexing dynamically generated pages..?

  • Wrencelot,

    You can’t group all dynamic sites in one basket. A dynamic site executed correctly can still be crawled and indexed, even without URL rewriting. Again, it depends on how many parameters you have in the URL. If your dynamic site is having crawl-problems, it may be because of something else 😉

    I offer you again another example. Are you familiar with Do a in G. Notice that G has indexed over 930,000 dynamic product pages and guess what, these pages have “?”.

    URL rewriting is just a tool. You can have the prettiest URLs, but that won’t convince people to visit, let alone stay.

    BUT….we’re straying from the crux of the matter.

    I’m interested to know if you still think the statement you made below is correct, even when shown evidence to the contrary.

    “if a dynamic page has a ‘?’ in its URL search engine dont index it”

    I guess you really don’t owe me an explanation, the same way you can’t compel me to explain SEO 101 to you. Good luck on your “Web 2.0” project 🙂


  • wrencelot

    ahhh, the goodluck card.. never thought youre going to use it..

    oh well, you have your own beliefs, i have mine, ill stick with mine.. and goodluck to you as well man (i feel like im breaking up with someone) you believe what you want to believe and you stand by it.. (salute)

    oh by the way, have you tried searching google using seo and mod rewrite as keywords..?

  • W, you’re still free to answer the previous question. It is a free world. So what will it be? Can G index pages with “?” or not?

    BTW, when searching in G, you can drop the “and” operator 😉

  • wrencelot

    when you asked me that question, i gave you this answer:

    “ill make this short and sweet:

    i ddnt misread, i post it there myself ddnt i..? obviosuly i know..” (THIS IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. IF YOU CANT READ BETWEEN THE LINES, THEN I CANT HELP YOU ANYMORE)

    youre the one who ddnt answer me question me amigo.. HOWEVER, i would like to think myself as a gentleman so i will not retaliate by asking you the same question again..

    with all of this conversation we are having, you know you are suggesting right..? you are suggesting that amazon obviously wasted their time, money and effort re writing their URLs because google can index pages with a “?”.. i find it rather interesting..

    why not blog about it, how stupid should have not re write their URLs for search engine sakes because obviously its useless and instead should have opt to sticking to pages with “?”, then probably ill digg it..

    just in case, i know you ddnt say, i said you are suggesting..

  • Amazon has been around long, long before Google, and they have had those URLs since the beginning as far as I can remember. Spiders like Altavista, Lycos and Excite weren’t as smart as today’s state of the art.

  • W, with the level of personalization and number of product categories/types, it’s only right for Amazon to invest in that. If it didn’t, it would be one monster URL, and it’s just SEO common sense to have it rewritten.

    The opposite example would be your typical mom-and-pop site with 30 or less products in a CMS-enabled catalog. If done correctly, you don’t need to rewrite URLs. You can (I would recommend it) but it’s not a requirement to getting crawled/indexed/ranked. You’re saying it is.

    The fact remains, G can crawl sites with a “?” in the URL. It even ranks sites with a “?” in the URL. I’ve done it and I’ve seen others do it. I’ve shown you examples to prove those two points, but that’s something you’re still rejecting outright. Huuuwaaaay!?! 🙂

    Sorry if I’m starting to sound like a broken record. I usually don’t bother trying to convince people online. But I must admit, I miss these types of threads. It helps to have healthy, albeit lengthy dialogues once in a while. If the other party should convert, great. If not, well it is a democratic Web.

    If you want, maybe you can share the URL of your dynamic site, the one with spiderability issues. There might be SEOs willing to help you identify/fix the problem.


  • wrencelot

    well yeah, you do sound like a broken record, you keep fixating on the issue of “?” while im trying to paint a bigger picture for you to see..

    i think you would agree with me if i say that internet is more of an american game since they dominate cyberspace right..? now how will you beat them in their own game if you will not play the way they play their game.. unlike most people i will not just sit around with my dynamic page and pray to anything that is holy and sacred and hope that google would index some of my pages.. not if i can do anything about it..

    as for my URLs, you dont have to worry about it.. who needs an SEO if you have the world at your fingertips..?

  • W, was just trying to open your eyes to the truth about “?” that’s all 😉 and congrats on having the world at your fingertips 🙂

  • wrencelot

    just for the record, this is not about you nor me; this is about how NOT KNOWING the importance of not having a “?” in their URLs.. they are already in the field, they are dancing in google’s music, why not dance all the way..? and dont lecture me marc about the truth about “?” and the “and” operator thing, im not gonna take lessons from someone runnin around with a blog claiming that he is an internet marketing specialist who by the way doesnt even know the difference and importance of having a “?” in the URL in the first place..

    sorry , occupational humor..

  • Easy man no need to get all emotional about it 😉 it’s just a “?” 🙂

  • has a lot of ?’s in its URLs, and it’s a PR5 with PR3 front page links.

  • yeap, it is something that is not new; it is something that is better.. because no one dares to do so..

    peace out..