Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs)
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106159
interpreted = N
texte = 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Bill >=20 > 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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? >>=20 >> Specifically, on the webdna.us site, the links are now like this: >> http://webdna.us?page.dna?numero=3D152 >>=20 >> I'd prefer they were like this, but it's beginning to look like a = time-sink: >> http://webdna.us/introduction.dna >>=20 >> 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=3D152&topic=3Dintroduction >>=20 >> Where "topic" is an unused variable with no purpose other than to put >> descriptive words in the URL >>=20 >> Thanks, >> -Dan >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --------------------------------------------------------- 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:
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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Bill >=20 > 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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? >>=20 >> Specifically, on the webdna.us site, the links are now like this: >> http://webdna.us?page.dna?numero=3D152 >>=20 >> I'd prefer they were like this, but it's beginning to look like a = time-sink: >> http://webdna.us/introduction.dna >>=20 >> 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=3D152&topic=3Dintroduction >>=20 >> Where "topic" is an unused variable with no purpose other than to put >> descriptive words in the URL >>=20 >> Thanks, >> -Dan >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --------------------------------------------------------- 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
Brian Fries
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:
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
WebDNA version? (2007)
[WebDNA] Seriously what is wrong here? (2011)
Fed Ex Interaction (2003)
DON'T use old cart file! (1997)
path hierarchy notation (1998)
displaying New products (using [date]) (1997)
HUGE DATABASES (1998)
[WebDNA] Alert: Google webdna.us search - yields a page full of URLs with errors (2011)
[checkboxes] and webcat (2000)
OT: Browser based spell check (2002)
multi-paragraph fields (1997)
RFE: [include file=filename.inc&strip=t] (2002)
WebCat2 Append problem (B14Macacgi) (1997)
creates folders with AS (1997)
ShowNext problems (1998)
WebCat2b15MacPlugIn - [authenticate] not [protect] (1997)
2.0Beta Command Ref (can't find this instruction) (1997)
Almost a there but..bye bye NetCloak (1997)
Separate SSL Server (1997)