hmm. seems that search engines are important and that it is important for many gwt-enriched apps to be found by search engines.
i think it would be cool to have some guidelines "do and don'ts for gwt to be found in search engines". maybe in a wiki and with an official approval from (at least) the google search engine team (what is cloaking and what not). is there any interest from the official gwt team? any connections between the official gwt team and the official google search engine team? if there is any support from the googlers i could write an article (together with anybody that wants to participate - this thread might be a good starting point) - or start writing a wiki page that can be easily changed according to new developments... just an idea.. r On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Alexander Cherednichenko<[email protected]> wrote: > > That's true; I was also thinking of redirect. > > Also, this is good for non-js browsers. Links users would see it OK, > which is really valuable for me. > > Although, does not google ban for <body onload='javascript: > widnow.location=http://newsite?aaa'/> ? > > This sounds pretty much like a doorway page. > I'm really interested in how searchers treat this. > > In official release what's they say about cloacking: > " > So what's an honest web designer to do? The only hard and fast rule > is to show Googlebot the exact same thing as your users. If you > don't, your site risks appearing suspicious to our search algorithms. > This simple rule covers a lot of cases including cloaking, JavaScript > redirects, hidden text, and doorway pages. And our engineers have > gathered a few more practical suggestions: > " > (taken from > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/07/best-uses-of-flash.html, > though it's old) > > Unclear moment for me is that what do they mean saying 'exact same > thing as your users. '. If it is same content (like compared by user) > - your method would work, as you load the SAME page as the one shown > to bot. > > But textually - the contents are different. Bot may think that you're > blindly redirecting the user to strange page with the only 1 > javascript file inclusion and no content at all. > > Maybe, something new has happened which allows more SEO methodics and > i missed this? > > Thanks for the point with redirect, > Alex. > > On Sep 9, 2:44 pm, Ian Bambury <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2009/9/9 Alexander Cherednichenko <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> > Problem in having static content and enriching it with gwt is that >> > you'll need to create application for each page (if they are >> > different) and app creation in GWT is fairly overheaded. Also, you'll >> > need to have gwt app bootstrap on each page load, which is no good. >> >> Not true. You can keep your content in HTML pages on the server and fetch it >> as needed. You then link these pages to create a non-JS site which is >> crawlable. If you name the pages after the history token you would use in >> the GWT site, then a) you can write a generic function to get the page and >> b) you can write a JS script to redirect JS-enabled visitors who click on a >> search link to the right place in the GWT app. >> >> E.g. of you search Google for 'GWT DockPanel' my site's link is ' >> examples.roughian.com/Panels__DockPanel.htm' but if you click on the link, >> you end up at 'http://examples.roughian.com/index.htm#Panels~DockPanel'. >> The initial payload for the site is about 30% of what it would be if the >> text were included, and I can update it without a recompile. >> >> Ian >> >> http://examples.roughian.com > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
