Google Chrome Pagerank plugin
- 24th Sep 2008
- 17 Comments
The Google Toolbar isn’t just for searching the internet, I will say that again the Google Toolbar isn’t just for searching the internet !”
SpellCheck, AutoFill, WordTranslator, AutoLink, Send with Gmail
and this is just the Google toolbar, what about greasmonkey support and all the other toolbars out there, so please stop emailing me things like “you just have to search in the big box, google cleverly added the 2 together” that advice SUCKS MONKEY NUTS and you surely have no clue what you are talking about !
hey Chrome user go check www.photosynth.net before telling me it works with everysite
DaveN
Why would Google allow me to add other peoples sites to my Webmastertools Dashboard and even thou I haven’t verified that I own or have access to that site they started sending me messages in my message center, It would have been nice if they had sent me a message about the penalties that my blog had picked up last week ! ;)
On Monday a post appeared on Google’s Webmaster Central blog that was so gobsmackingly strange I’ve had to let it sit for a few days to make sure my post-weekend reduced cognitive function wasn’t the reason I didn’t get it. I’m talking about Juliane Stiller and Kaspar Szymanski’s points on dynamic URLs vs. static URLs.
The post outlines a bunch of reasons why website creators shouldn’t create static versions of dynamic URLS (i.e. changing site.com/product.asp?id=99&brand=1 to site.com/sony/walkman). Among the reasons not to use static URLs they listed the following:
The hard to create and maintain part might be true of some webmasters but I think the majority would greet that statement with a hearty “What the?!”. Most developers will have at least one tool in their box for URL rewriting, typically mod_rewrite when developing on a LAMP stack, though ASP has ISAPI_Rewrite and just about any web scripting language you care to name has functionality to write static (or semi-static) files to the file system. Static seeming URLs have been recognised as best practice for years, it’s not like this is bleeding edge technology developers are just getting to grips with.
As for letting Google guess which parameters are most important, I don’t even know where to begin with that. Does the Google Search Quality team really think they know my site better than I do? They’re good, but until they plant that neural chip Sergey is no doubt working on and start indexing the content of my brain that’s just not going to happen.
As for creating a “static equivalent of your content”, isn’t “static equivalent” just another way of saying “duplicate content”?
If that wasn’t enough reason to be scratching your head at the article there’s also plenty of factors they don’t mention which make excellent reasons for using static-seeming URLs:
And the #1 reason we, and everyone else, should ignore this advice from Google:
Oh, and the URL the post appeared on? http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html.
Bizzare.