Re: [WebDNA] To be or not to be friendly (URLs)
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106156
interpreted = N
texte = 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 l= ike > 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=A0ha= ving > keywords in the URL was good for SEO and for my sites,=A0it did seem to b= e 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 id= ea, > but beyond=A0that the typical SEO best practices (validated html/css, > descriptive title attributes in links, backlinks from authority sites, > etc.)=A0while they don't hurt, don't necessarily help either. Is that a f= air > statement? > > Specifically, on the webdna.us site, the links are now like this: > http://webdna.us?page.dna?numero=3D152 > > I'd prefer they were like this, but it's beginning to look like a time-si= nk: > 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=3D152&topic=3Dintroduction > > Where "topic" is an=A0unused 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 unsubscri= be, > 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:
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 l= ike > 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=A0ha= ving > keywords in the URL was good for SEO and for my sites,=A0it did seem to b= e 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 id= ea, > but beyond=A0that the typical SEO best practices (validated html/css, > descriptive title attributes in links, backlinks from authority sites, > etc.)=A0while they don't hurt, don't necessarily help either. Is that a f= air > statement? > > Specifically, on the webdna.us site, the links are now like this: > http://webdna.us?page.dna?numero=3D152 > > I'd prefer they were like this, but it's beginning to look like a time-si= nk: > 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=3D152&topic=3Dintroduction > > Where "topic" is an=A0unused 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 unsubscri= be, > E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug > Reporting: support@webdna.us
William DeVaul
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:
[searchstring] (2000)
I am dumb. No see [variable] (2003)
[Shownext] [whynot] (2000)
RE: [BULK] RE: [WebDNA] [BULK] Webdna 6.2 and Windows Server 2012 (2020)
Anyone have an invoicing system? (2000)
[WebDNA] Off topic: ImageMagick (2008)
Frames and WebCat (1997)
Add htmlarea 3 to SiteBuilder (2004)
Command Line reference (2005)
[cart] not being interpreted inside [founditems] (1997)
[WebDNA] Successful, working WebDNA7/CentOS install? (2013)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997)
[WebDNA] Test 3 (2009)
PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997)
Writefile doesn't work, which permissions to use? (2005)
[WebDNA] Styling search results [using css] (2009)
Databases inside [SHOWIF] (1998)
Creating a back button (1999)
Search Engine bots (2002)
Can I invoke an ssi plugin from within a webcat page (1997)