Okay New Rant!

[CP/M User]

Hopefully, you've all finished hanging on the Great Wall of China! ;-)

I've got a new bone to pick! WOOF! ;-)

For my studies I want material - references for my reports from Credible Websites, but get this, some site has this unusual URL - one of those article.php?somethinghere=61&thisotherthing=1 which Google just happened to give a direct link to.
Okay maybe it's Googles fault for taking me there?
But I like giving people the direct links to whatever it is, a dead link or one which doesn't work when you type it in is very poor (one reason for hating the internet is someone who just gives you some site & you have to find it yourself). I tried doing a search using the Websites search engine, but even that couldn't find it - I ended up just dumping the site & doing one I could get a direct link for - easier for everyone.

CP/M User.

[carlsson]

I'm not sure what the rant is about. The kind of link you refer to indicates that the document either is created on the fly from several parts, or is located off-web and fetched by the web server. It will in most cases stay valid until the web site takes the actual document offline, rewrites the serving page or rearrange the website structure.

Sometimes you may find a serving page or documents that the site search engine is not aware of that it has. Therefore you may not find it internally, but the external spiders will still index it as soon as they know (from before) that it is supposed to be there. AFAIK, you have to post a link to somewhere to let the search engine find it. Often you link pages within your own site, or post links onto other web pages, forums, groups etc. The sections only a limited number of people should know of, can be told personally and as long as the path is not generic, to my knowledge the search engine will also not find it. Once it is known to exist and still exists, removing the link from another page will not make much difference?

[CP/M User]

"carlsson" wrote:

> I'm not sure what the rant is about.

It's about me trying to get references for a document I'm producing & having them as valid information for my research. You know like a book has a list of other books in the back for stuff it had reference to, or books which maybe of interest to other readers. The concept is the same except I'm using (hopefully reliable) websites for my research.

> Sometimes you may find a serving page or documents that the site
> search engine is not aware of that it has. Therefore you may not find it
> internally, but the external spiders will still index it as soon as they know
> (from before) that it is supposed to be there. AFAIK, you have to post a
> link to somewhere to let the search engine find it. Often you link pages
> within your own site, or post links onto other web pages, forums, groups
> etc. The sections only a limited number of people should know of, can
> be told personally and as long as the path is not generic, to my
> knowledge the search engine will also not find it. Once it is known to
> exist and still exists, removing the link from another page will not make
> much difference?

Well it's funny you should say that, because Initally to find the site, Google gave me a direct link to this site - which included the variables for which when I typed in myself - didn't work. Maybe I should be telling Google to search links I don't know, but it's just annoying that I couldn't get the site back from typing it in - nor having it as a reference (not that it matter - since I found the same information more consise on a more reliable link).

CP/M User.

[carlsson]

I still don't get what's bad with referencing this:
http://somesite.com/article.php?type=research&aid=26917&node=6

compared to:
http://somesite.com/research/article-26917.htm#node=6

Both documents can disappear over time, and while it is easier for somesite.com to completely take away the whole article library by deleting one serving document rather than several directories, it is nothing you can do anything to prevent.

Dunno about Google provided a link that when you retyped it, didn't work. Maybe the receiving web server would check referral site, but it sounds a bit odd. Are you sure you got everything correct?