Ashley Sheridan schreef: > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 00:58 +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote: >> Ashley Sheridan wrote: >>> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 01:17 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote: >>>> Nathan Rixham schreef: >>>>> Ashley Sheridan wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:54 -0700, Ryan S wrote: >>>>>>> quite a few sites seem to have a very neat way of implementing this >>>>>>> with (url rewriting?) something like >>>>>>> http://sitename/blog/tags/tag-comes-here/ >>>>>> As for getting those search terms, well a link in a page can contain GET >>>>>> values, such as http://www.somedomain.com/blog?tag=search_term . >>>>>> Alternatively, you could use mod-rewrite to rewrite the URL and turn the >>>>>> path into tag variables. This is the same as the above but with the >>>>>> added benefit that users can type in tags directly more easily, and >>>>>> there are apparently benefits for SEO with this method as well (but I'm >>>>>> not sure how true that is) >>>>> it's very true; from the google webmaster guidelines: >>>>> >>>>> If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" >>>>> character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic >>>>> pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and >>>>> the number of them few. >>>>> >>>>> previously it was text along the lines of "google doesn't index all >>>>> pages with query parameters, so avoid them where possible" >>>>> >>>>> additionally one of the weightier points in categorising pages within >>>>> the SERPS is the text in the url (especially if the page is actually >>>>> about /the_tag_in_the_url : see http://www.google.com/search?q=tags) >>>> ^-- some what >>>> ironic :-) >>>> >>> Yeah I saw that too... >>> >>> What always gets me is that forums always feature really high on search >>> results, and I've yet to see one of these forums use URL rewriting! I >>> really think this belief about query-less URLs being more search engine >>> friendly is outdated. >>> >>> >>> Ash >>> www.ashleysheridan.co.uk >>> >> a search engines main job is to send people to what they are looking >> for, not what an seo has determined they should be seeing, as such >> "content is king". >> >> Forums, lists and newsgroups tend to hold more specific content on >> exactly what the user is searching for, hence why google shows it high >> (as it's one of the few documents on the net which relate most directly >> to what was searched for [long tail search terms]); additionally all the >> aforementioned often have a trail of replies; sometimes this is a bonus >> as the replies repeat the keyword terms; however sometimes it's to the >> detriment, particularly when they wander off topic. >> >> It's also worth noting that sites which update frequently, especially >> those who update sitemaps and send out pings get crawled more frequently >> and thus indexed faster. On hot-topics this has a knock on effect, the >> posts get crawled by scrapers and content harvesters and re-published >> (often with a link back) - and this helps as the vote count for the >> original forum post goes up due to the link backs + the original source >> is detected as such and given prominence over the copies (most of the time). >> >> Further people take care to title their posts/messages correctly in >> order to attract answers quickly, this text is then repeated on the >> forum page in all the prominent places (title, permalink, heading >> tags..) and further still, the post/message is normally perfectly >> matched to the user specified title - so it's natural seo at it's best. >> (Worth having a read up on contextual and semantic analysis as well) >> >> Next up, the sites weight, as forums often have thousands (or hundreds >> of thousands) of pages/posts, and high volume traffic, the site is >> deemed more important and thus higher ranking, which brings in more >> traffic and so it spirals. On this note it's also worth considering that >> google track what you click on so if searchers continually click item 3 >> in the search results, over time they'll move it up as it's been classed >> as most accurate for that search (more.. obviously due to wide use of >> analytics and checking when a user comes back to the results to click >> another they can also harvest accuracy data by comparing bounce rates >> etc and adjust accordingly). >> >> so much more on this subject but that's about the top and bottom of it >> in this scenario. >> >> *yawn* getting late >> > You're preaching to the converted on this topic, I've already put > together a couple of articles on my site about it in the past. What I > was saying was that the sites that seem to feature so prominently on > listings were in fact using querystring URLs; the very thing that SEO > guides tell us not to use. I think it's just an outdated belief that URL > rewriting is better, as clearly it doesn't ever seem to be.
obviously the converted weren't listening. > > > > Ash > www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
