On 12/28/06, Kevin Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you have described is basic deep linking, but does not solve the
problem I have been attempting to articulate. Regardless of what goes on
on the server, if you enter some path info after the .com part of the
url, the server thinks it is
i see what you are saying in your words. when we go to a new state, say
foo.com/bar/ you want the url to change to
foo.com/bar/monkey
not
foo.com/bar/#monkey
correct? have a look at www.neave.tv. as you move the app the browser's
location bar is updated.
are we changing topics again or are we
Perhaps the easiest way to think about this is stuff before the hash, is
server side stuff, and after the hash is client side stuff. The client
portion can be changed on the client without reloading the client app,
but the stuff before the hash will cause the app to be reloaded if
altered by
What you have described is basic deep linking, but does not solve the
problem I have been attempting to articulate. Regardless of what goes on
on the server, if you enter some path info after the .com part of the
url, the server thinks it is getting its data from that location
(foo.com/bar/
dorkie dork from dorktown wrote:
One of the open source solutions I occasionaly use *cough* *cough*
*drupal* *cough* has a mod redirect / mod rewrite htaccess file (i'm
combining words). Any url that is entered into the site gets rewritten
or redirected. It is a dynamic system that allows
First, this structure already works for these content management / blog
sites. They have a single index page that shows content based on the url.
There is only one file. So we know it works.
#1 - yes. i am thinking at its most basic level, on that single catch all
index page, we have a function
I guess it isn't as large a problem as maybe I've been suggesting, after
having talked about it in this thread.
My whole problem is that I don't like urls that look like this:
http//domain.com/some/path/#other/path - which in all the examples, is
what you could end up with, if you try to
One of the open source solutions I occasionaly use *cough* *cough* *drupal*
*cough* has a mod redirect / mod rewrite htaccess file (i'm combining
words). Any url that is entered into the site gets rewritten or redirected.
It is a dynamic system that allows you to dynamically redirect to the
Thank Claus, I wah hoping you would pipe in on this!
Hank
On 12/20/06, Claus Wahlers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont think google needs to do much here. If we can get the server
product to easily allow XML to enhance the HTML response then googles
indexing will just work.
I'd love
Claus Wahlers wrote:
The Flash website was http://guipaganini.com.br/
It supports deep linking, eg. http://guipaganini.com.br/12/75
View source (or switch off JS) to get the idea.
The XHTML is loaded as is into Flash.
I'm using the Symfony PHP5 framework on the server side.
(Disclaimer:
Either way, it's reconciling the two urltypes that's the crux of the
problem as I see it.
Kevin,
You keep saying this, and maybe I am missing the big picture here, but I am
not clear why it is necessary to reconcile these two url types, or how
they relate to each other at all. It seems to
hank williams wrote:
Kevin,
I had a few inline comments on some of what you wrote since I had a
few differences of opinion.
On 12/18/06, *Kevin Newman* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that's great and don't necessarily think Adobe needs to
fix the
This it seems is not that interesting a question because it is the
easy part. Flash/Flex apps can easily read data in the URL and go to
the right place in the app which can then use remoting to get the data
in the right format for the app.
Yeah, but it has to run to do that, and then the
I dont think google needs to do much here. If we can get the server
product to easily allow XML to enhance the HTML response then googles
indexing will just work.
I'd love to see this work in a concrete example. ;-)
Again, I am not an HTML expert, (Claus is really the guy that has the
Admin:
Threads like that make a good start for a flexcoders wiki. This would also
free JD from having to watch flexcoders during the night and at the weekend
:)
Any chance we get one?
Cheers,
Ralf.
On 12/17/06, Mike Weiland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was told this same information a couple
I just wanted to chime in with some ideas, and to suggest that Claus's
answer is the right one.
First, this is a problem of standards. Adobe with Flex and Flash, try to
keep things as open ended as possible, and so you can build your
Flex/Flash apps in many ways to draw the data from some
Kevin,
I had a few inline comments on some of what you wrote since I had a few
differences of opinion.
On 12/18/06, Kevin Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that's great and don't necessarily think Adobe needs to fix the
problem, since I don't think it's Adobe's problem - I like the
AND, re: the potential problem that Google punishes websites which in
whatever way tweak the display of the indexed data (for example by
adding a Flex UI layer on top), it would be TREMENDOUSLY helpful if
Adobe would approach Google and once and for all clarifies what's
allowed and what's
I was told this same information a couple months ago by a Google VP and
engineer. Just keep the user experience in mind, that¹s not to say there are
those out there google bombing and trying to beat the system.
Mike Weiland
-
Mike Weiland
Aspen Tree Media
(877)659-1652 | FAX:
Adobe: Yes google will index your Flex app. It reads the text in the file
and keywords in the html page (basically etc). Flex is SEO friendly.
Doug: Sure, google will show your link to your site for resturant review
but it does not index the dynamic data in that site. So if someone is
searching
from dorktown
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 2:01 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: SEO Compatibility
Adobe: Yes google will index your Flex app. It reads the text in the file
and keywords in the html page (basically etc). Flex is SEO friendly.
Doug: Sure
On 12/15/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm out of this conversation, sorry... if I say start with the search
terms you're trying to be found on and don't get acknowledgment, I'll
just bow out now.
Real problem, no solution. As the adobe rep... how arrogant.
Hank
On 12/15/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm out of this conversation, sorry... if I say start with the search
terms you're trying to be found on and don't get acknowledgment, I'll
just bow out now.
of E Coli myself, and that's not
the common type of things people are looking for
On 12/15/06, Doug McCune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, right, we were talking about two different things. Sorry if this has
caused confusion. I was talking about dynamic data being indexable by search
engines. You were talking about search engine optimization for static
content (sorry again if
This discussions hits the mailinglists and forums since forever. It
seems to me that Adobe still is five or more generations behind their
own technology with respect to SEO.
A while back i wrote an article about that very topic:
http://wahlers.com.br/claus/blog/seffs-to-flash-or-not-to-flash/
Claus,
You are of course right to suggest building an XHTML version first, as a
strategy, but there are two problems with this.
1. One of the issues is that good product design usual requires that you
develop the interface first. The interface drives the content and data
needed. What you are
Hank,
disclaimer: I didn't say that method works for everybody everywhere, nor
that execution is easy. It's also more targeted towards Flash websites,
not Flex.
I too think that it's Adobes job to provide a framework to make these
things easier for the developer.
I don't agree with your
Well of course we agree on most if this. And of course your general
thrust that a spiderable HTML underpinning is necessary for search
engines is right. But on the UI issue perhaps a slight divergence.
Perhaps you can do data and UI hand in hand, but my view is that you
dont know what
I just wished Adobe would actively approach and discuss the problem we
are facing. I don't even ask for solutions. Maybe a technote that
addresses this in some way would already be helpful.
AND, re: the potential problem that Google punishes websites which in
whatever way tweak the display
AND, re: the potential problem that Google punishes websites which in
whatever way tweak the display of the indexed data (for example by
adding a Flex UI layer on top), it would be TREMENDOUSLY helpful if
Adobe would approach Google and once and for all clarifies what's
allowed and
PLUS.. ;) I'd be interested in how Ajax applications handle SEO, as they
likely face the same, or similar problems.
Ok, Ajax apps probably don't face as much problems as Flex apps as the
displayed data is HTML and contains links that spiders can follow, so
disregard this.
Sorry for talking
On 12/17/06, Claus Wahlers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PLUS.. ;) I'd be interested in how Ajax applications handle SEO, as they
likely face the same, or similar problems.
Ok, Ajax apps probably don't face as much problems as Flex apps as the
displayed data is HTML and contains links that
I would like to say that I feel strongly that jd has been poorly treated and
wrongly insulted a number of times in this thread.
I'd also like to suggest that allowing link spidering to dictate the future
of content indexing may be shortsighted. It's convienient, but it gets worse
every year as a
dougmccune wrote:
While I know Adobe employees don't like to admit this, the answer is
very simple: It is often impossible, and if not impossible then at
least extremely difficult, to get your Flex content indexed by search
engines. That's the straight answer. No more no less.
A particular
On 12/15/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dougmccune wrote:
While I know Adobe employees don't like to admit this, the answer is
very simple: It is often impossible, and if not impossible then at
least extremely difficult, to get your Flex content indexed by search
engines. That's
How about this one as an example: the Adobe Restaurant Finder sample
app, with the Recent Reviews page in particular. The app is here:
http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/inproduct/sdk/restaurant/recentReviews.html
If you look at that app you can see user submitted reviews of
restaurants. For
I'm out of this conversation, sorry... if I say start with the search
terms you're trying to be found on and don't get acknowledgment, I'll
just bow out now.
(That restaurant sample applet, I have no idea if it's data-fed text or
internal text, and don't see mentions of E Coli myself, and
Saying you shouldn't use Flex for content-focused website is going a
little bit over the edge IMHO. I think we all definitely agree that for
100% content-focused sites, you should use HTML, and for 100%
data-focused sites, you should use Flex. However in between those
extremes, you can still
OK, right, we were talking about two different things. Sorry if this has
caused confusion. I was talking about dynamic data being indexable by
search engines. You were talking about search engine optimization for
static content (sorry again if I'm still misunderstanding).
I guess I never
I just wanted to pipe up with my opinion on this matter, because it
comes up a lot and the answers are always similar. And I get a little
frustrated because it seems like Adobe tries to say this isn't a
problem when it really is.
To reiterate this scenario: Someone asks Why isn't Flex content
that are born with the
RIA revolution.
Dustin Mercer
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of dougmccune
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:16 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: SEO Compatibility
I
41 matches
Mail list logo
