canonical URL
Just came across these URLs
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fworldcatlibraries.org%2Foclc%2F65187392&btnG=Search
and
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fworldcat.org%2Foclc%2F65187392&btnG=Search
I was trying to compare same Worldcat pages with different URLs, by google backward link search features (http://www.google.com/advanced_search)
So http://worldcat.org/oclc/65187392 and
http://worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/65187392
are same page, however due to variants of these URLs, Google treats them as different URLs, and this certainly doesn't help moving up these pages up in Google search results, if we consider the inbound link factor in PageRank.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fworldcatlibraries.org%2Foclc%2F65187392&btnG=Search
and
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fworldcat.org%2Foclc%2F65187392&btnG=Search
I was trying to compare same Worldcat pages with different URLs, by google backward link search features (http://www.google.com/advanced_search)
So http://worldcat.org/oclc/65187392 and
http://worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/65187392
are same page, however due to variants of these URLs, Google treats them as different URLs, and this certainly doesn't help moving up these pages up in Google search results, if we consider the inbound link factor in PageRank.
1 Comments:
I was wondering about the same thing as I was constructing some URLs recently into the public WorldCat database. (For some reason I can remember the more recent "worldcat.org" versus the original "worldcatlibraries.org" -- perhaps I'm not alone and that is why the change is being made.)
I had heard that Google was having problems ingesting the shear number of "pages" that the WorldCat database would generate in the early days of this experiment. I can't imagine that they have a much easier time ingesting twice as many pages!
Post a Comment
<< Home