Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs)
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106171
interpreted = N
texte = Thanks, yeah, I already do that on many sites and it works great, and it's what I was doing on the webdna site up until last night. The issue isn't how to do it, it's what effect, if any, a URL like this might have on SEO: http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=152&topic=introduction -Dan -------------------------------------------------- From: "Terry Wilson"
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:06 PM To: Subject: Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs) > Nice to see so much action on the list! > > > Here's how I've been handling this for my sites for the past couple of > years. For the different pages of the site, I create an actual document, > and it contains the "has WebDNA tags" up top, then a text variable that > says what page it is (i.e. section=About) along with any other specific > variables (e.g. page title, meta tags and description), then an include > for the rest of the page (usually the include is the index.html page). > This include holds the top, footer, navigation, etc and showifs that > display, for instance about.inc. On my current sites, it's rare to have > any variables sent in a link, at least not on the public pages. (The CMS > is another story, but those aren't public pages.) > > > For your example below, the scheme would work like this. The document > introduction.dna would contain only this: > > > [text]numero=152[/text] > [include page.dna] > > > It's exactly the same thing as http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=152. This > would let you keep the existing db scheme and still have relevant text as > the page name. > > > Terry > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:42:55 -0800 > "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 >
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Thanks, yeah, I already do that on many sites and it works great, and it's what I was doing on the webdna site up until last night. The issue isn't how to do it, it's what effect, if any, a URL like this might have on SEO: http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=152&topic=introduction -Dan -------------------------------------------------- From: "Terry Wilson" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:06 PM To: Subject: Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs) > Nice to see so much action on the list! > > > Here's how I've been handling this for my sites for the past couple of > years. For the different pages of the site, I create an actual document, > and it contains the "has WebDNA tags" up top, then a text variable that > says what page it is (i.e. section=About) along with any other specific > variables (e.g. page title, meta tags and description), then an include > for the rest of the page (usually the include is the index.html page). > This include holds the top, footer, navigation, etc and showifs that > display, for instance about.inc. On my current sites, it's rare to have > any variables sent in a link, at least not on the public pages. (The CMS > is another story, but those aren't public pages.) > > > For your example below, the scheme would work like this. The document > introduction.dna would contain only this: > > > [text]numero=152[/text] > [include page.dna] > > > It's exactly the same thing as http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=152. This > would let you keep the existing db scheme and still have relevant text as > the page name. > > > Terry > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:42:55 -0800 > "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 >
"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:
Triggers and today's leap day? (2000)
Feature: TCPconnect via SSL (1999)
simple forum/bboard (2004)
2.0Beta Command Ref (can't find this instruction) (1997)
Nested tags count question (1997)
Sku numbers (1997)
Running 2 two WebCatalog.acgi's (1996)
WebCat2b12 CGI Mac -- Problems propagating the cart through frames...still (1997)
Sorting by date (1997)
Searching multiple dbs (1998)
Summing fields (1997)
Upgrade to WebCat2 from Commerce Lite (1997)
Banners (1997)
[SearchString] problem with [search] context (1997)
[WebDNA] Stores (2013)
searchable list archive (1997)
[WebDNA] SHA-512 How To Do It (2014)
emailer (1997)
PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997)
back button loses cart - ON SECURE PAGES ONLY (2000)