Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs)
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106160
interpreted = N
texte = The only downside I see with that is if by chance an "alternate" URL for your page got indexed somehow, then you'd have duplicate content and could be penalized:http://webdna.us/75_function.dnahttp://webdna.us/75_ufnction.dnahttp://webdna.us/75_frogs-on-the-moon.dnaAll same content. Chances of this happening are probably slim, I'll admit, but the possibility remains nonetheless, no?-Dan--------------------------------------------------From: "Brian Fries"
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:00 PMTo: Subject: Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs)> For your consideration, one thing I've done in the past for dynamically > generated pages is to include the reference number as part of the virtual > page name, so you would get:>> http://webdna.us/75_function.dna>> Then my not-found trapping code knew to nab the "75" from the beginning of > the page name to look up the content, ignoring the rest of the page name. > This way the url has a human-readable name with appropriate keywords in > it, and there is no need to redirect. As a side effect, "75_function.dna", > "75_frogs_on_the_moon.dna", or any other page name beginning with "75_" > would get you to the same content, which results in fewer broken links if > you decide to change the label of the page from "function" to > "function_tag", or if some fat-fingered typist accidentally typed > "ufnction" in their link.>> Brian Fries> BrainScan Software>>> On Jan 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, William DeVaul wrote:>>> I tend to think it is more of a user experience issue. When a list of>> search results is viewed, does the URL help someone select the right>> link?>>>> For example, search Google for "WebDNA function" without the quotes.>> The titles you've used are pretty good, so for me, I know to select>> the second item in the result. The URL is just one more factor to>> confirm my selection.>>>> Note that the list did not return the first result I would have>> expected based on the optimization of title and URL so other factors>> were more important in this search. It gets hard to outsmart Google>> so time is usually better spent making great content and getting>> high-quality links.>>>> Bill>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dan Strong wrote:>>> I consider myself to be fairly SEO savvy, so I'm not asking this out of>>> ignorance nor am I looking for an exhaustive lesson on SEO, but I would >>> like>>> to get some opinions from the SEO experts on the list.>>>>>> Personally, I prefer friendly URLs, mostly for cosmetic reasons, but >>> back>>> around 2005, when I first started using them, the consensus was that >>> having>>> keywords in the URL was good for SEO and for my sites, it did seem to be >>> the>>> case.>>>>>> My impression these days is that, like always, relevant original>>> human-readable content is the key, and a google sitemap is a very good >>> idea,>>> but beyond that the typical SEO best practices (validated html/css,>>> descriptive title attributes in links, backlinks from authority sites,>>> etc.) while they don't hurt, don't necessarily help either. Is that a >>> fair>>> statement?>>>>>> Specifically, on the webdna.us site, the links are now like this:>>> http://webdna.us?page.dna?numero=152>>>>>> I'd prefer they were like this, but it's beginning to look like a >>> time-sink:>>> http://webdna.us/introduction.dna>>>>>> So, with everything above in mind, what are your opinions about URLs >>> like>>> this as they relate to SEO:>>> http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=152&topic=introduction>>>>>> Where "topic" is an unused variable with no purpose other than to put>>> descriptive words in the URL>>>>>> Thanks,>>> -Dan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------- This message >>> is>>> sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To >>> unsubscribe,>>> E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug>>> Reporting: support@webdna.us>> --------------------------------------------------------->> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>> the mailing list .>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
The only downside I see with that is if by chance an "alternate" URL for your page got indexed somehow, then you'd have duplicate content and could be penalized:http://webdna.us/75_function.dnahttp://webdna.us/75_ufnction.dnahttp://webdna.us/75_frogs-on-the-moon.dnaAll same content. Chances of this happening are probably slim, I'll admit, but the possibility remains nonetheless, no?-Dan--------------------------------------------------From: "Brian Fries" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:00 PMTo: Subject: Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs)> For your consideration, one thing I've done in the past for dynamically > generated pages is to include the reference number as part of the virtual > page name, so you would get:>> http://webdna.us/75_function.dna>> Then my not-found trapping code knew to nab the "75" from the beginning of > the page name to look up the content, ignoring the rest of the page name. > This way the url has a human-readable name with appropriate keywords in > it, and there is no need to redirect. As a side effect, "75_function.dna", > "75_frogs_on_the_moon.dna", or any other page name beginning with "75_" > would get you to the same content, which results in fewer broken links if > you decide to change the label of the page from "function" to > "function_tag", or if some fat-fingered typist accidentally typed > "ufnction" in their link.>> Brian Fries> BrainScan Software>>> On Jan 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, William DeVaul wrote:>>> I tend to think it is more of a user experience issue. When a list of>> search results is viewed, does the URL help someone select the right>> link?>>>> For example, search Google for "WebDNA function" without the quotes.>> The titles you've used are pretty good, so for me, I know to select>> the second item in the result. The URL is just one more factor to>> confirm my selection.>>>> Note that the list did not return the first result I would have>> expected based on the optimization of title and URL so other factors>> were more important in this search. It gets hard to outsmart Google>> so time is usually better spent making great content and getting>> high-quality links.>>>> Bill>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dan Strong wrote:>>> I consider myself to be fairly SEO savvy, so I'm not asking this out of>>> ignorance nor am I looking for an exhaustive lesson on SEO, but I would >>> like>>> to get some opinions from the SEO experts on the list.>>>>>> Personally, I prefer friendly URLs, mostly for cosmetic reasons, but >>> back>>> around 2005, when I first started using them, the consensus was that >>> having>>> keywords in the URL was good for SEO and for my sites, it did seem to be >>> the>>> case.>>>>>> My impression these days is that, like always, relevant original>>> human-readable content is the key, and a google sitemap is a very good >>> idea,>>> but beyond that the typical SEO best practices (validated html/css,>>> descriptive title attributes in links, backlinks from authority sites,>>> etc.) while they don't hurt, don't necessarily help either. Is that a >>> fair>>> statement?>>>>>> Specifically, on the webdna.us site, the links are now like this:>>> http://webdna.us?page.dna?numero=152>>>>>> I'd prefer they were like this, but it's beginning to look like a >>> time-sink:>>> http://webdna.us/introduction.dna>>>>>> So, with everything above in mind, what are your opinions about URLs >>> like>>> this as they relate to SEO:>>> http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=152&topic=introduction>>>>>> Where "topic" is an unused variable with no purpose other than to put>>> descriptive words in the URL>>>>>> Thanks,>>> -Dan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------- This message >>> is>>> sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To >>> unsubscribe,>>> E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug>>> Reporting: support@webdna.us>> --------------------------------------------------------->> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>> the mailing list .>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>
"Dan Strong"
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
emails sent via WebDNA 6.0a disappearing into thin air (2005)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - syntax to convert date (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
Size limit for tmpl editor ? (1997)
WebCat & WebTen (1997)
help with autenticate (1998)
[WebDNA] WebDNA autosuggest (2010)
Re:Listfiles (1998)
WebCat2: Items xx to xx shown, etc. (1997)
Opinion: [input] should be called [output] ... (1997)
Adding up line items. (2000)
Pithy questions on webcommerce & siteedit (1997)
WebCommerce: Folder organization ? (1997)
Rumpus/Typhoon modules included in Typhoon ... (1997)
BR (1997)
Help with Repost Data msg from form (1997)
Limit on nested [ShowIf]'s? (1997)
Forcing price recalculation in shopping cart (1998)
pc (1997)