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.dna http://webdna.us/75_ufnction.dna http://webdna.us/75_frogs-on-the-moon.dna All 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 PM To: 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.dna http://webdna.us/75_ufnction.dna http://webdna.us/75_frogs-on-the-moon.dna All 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 PM To: 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:
[append] and SSL (1997)
Is this possible, WebCat2.0 and checkboxes (1997)
JS version of this (2007)
WebCat2b13 Mac plugin - [sendmail] and checkboxes (1997)
Calculating Shipping charges for multiple items and qtys > 1 (1997)
FYI: virus alert (1996)
Formating found categories (1997)
off topic - dna snipets (1997)
Password protection (Was: Lost Password?) (2002)
REALLY need a hand (1999)
simple answer? [hideif] (1997)
Lookups (2000)
[WebDNA] website issues (2013)
Uh...can someone help me out with the b10? (1997)
WebCatalog for Postcards ? (1997)
Error Type 3 (1999)
Exists? (1997)
Help formatting search results w/ table (1997)
Separate SSL Server (1997)
Searchable WebCat (etc.) Docs ? (1997)