On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 01/10/2013 10:59 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> Am 01/08/2013 09:37 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: >>> >>>> On 07/01/2013 Marcus (OOo) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 01/07/2013 09:54 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/mac/ >>>>>> So I'd recommend either keeping the page and updating it. Or >>>>>> replacing it with a page that says that the Mac port is now full >>>>>> integrated with our releases and then link to the download page. Or >>>>>> put in a 401 redirect from that URL to the download page. ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, then I prefer to use a redirect to the download area. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds good. Actually, we can redirect everything under >>>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/mac/ >>>> >>>> to the homepage, since links on the old page include support, >>>> screenshots, downloads... all resources directly available from the >>>> project homepage. >>> >>> >>> >>> Then I would like to volunteer to try this on Sunday. >>> >> >> Hi Marcus, >> >> I took a closer look at the data and I have some concerns from an SEO >> perspective. >> >> We get a large number of visits from users who query Google for terms >> like: >> >> openoffice for mac >> open office mac >> openoffice mac >> free office for mac >> download openoffice for mac >> >> Try these queries in your browser. See the porting page is the >> number one hit. For me the 2nd hit is CNet and then we start hitting >> malware sites. We don't get another openoffice.org web page until >> position #10 in the search results. >> >> If we redirect to the home page, which does not mention "Mac" >> anywhere, then the next time Google updates its index it will see that >> as the contents of /porting/mac and judge it to be far less relevant >> to queries like "openoffice for mac". > > > Does it help to leave some keywords on the "/porting/mac/index.html"? > The the Google indexing bot recognize it, redirects then to the new webpage > and we keep the search hits. >
If you do a redirect at the HTTP level then Google won't ever see the contents of the /porting/mac pages. It will only see the destination page's contents. You could possibly do a <meta http-equiv="refresh> style redirect from within the browser, but that can be a bad user experience. > >> So I think we should consider this carefully. > > > Of course. > > >> Is there anything >> >> actually wrong with the /porting/mac page as it is? > > > Ahm, besides totally outdated and no longer needed data not. ;-) > > When I look around there is nearly nothing that should be kept (links, > screenshots, X11 <--> Aqua, release news about older versions, FAQs). > OK. I am not a Mac person. Is there anything useful we could say about OpenOffice on the Mac? Any FAQ's? Any useful instructions? > >> Here's an alternative idea. If the issue is that this is no longer a >> "porting" project, then maybe we could do something like this: >> >> 1) Create a new landing page for users interested in OpenOffice for >> Mac. Maybe it is at http://www.openoffice.org/mac. Maybe it is based >> on whatever is relevant still from /porting/mac. It doesn't need tons >> of content, but enough to be relevant. >> >> 2) Redirect /porting/mac/* to /mac/index.html >> >> 3) Delete the old /porting/mac > > > Why does a Google search behave different here? Sorry, I don't see the > difference to just redirect. > The redirect would work the same way. The difference is in the contents of the landing page. If we redirect to the home page, or the download page, there is almost no discussion about Mac OpenOffice. The old page, even if the content is out-of-date, is still seen as relevant. > PS: > I want to get rid of the old content but of course not loose the Google > search hits. > Me too ;-) -Rob > Marcus >
