Offering both...that sounds to me like duplicating development efforts? Or am
I overseeing something here?
Nick Jenkin-2 wrote:
>
> NB: "it's faster" is not a valid answer!
>
Why is it not valid? Because its not necessarily faster or...?
And what about user experience? Instead of needing to r
The solution is to offer both, and provide fallback for browsers that
don't support javascript (e.g. Googlebot)
I would also ponder the question "how does this ajax feature help my
users?". If you can't find a good answer to that, you should probably
just not use ajax. (NB: "it's faster" is not a v
Unfortunately its not online yet, but is there anything I can clarify in more
detail?
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Javascript-JSON-not-optimized-for-SEO-tp1751641p1758054.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
How can we see what each will do?
Dennis Gearon
--- On Fri, 10/22/10, PeterKerk wrote:
> From: PeterKerk
> Subject: Solr Javascript+JSON not optimized for SEO
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Friday, October 22, 2010, 2:59 AM
>
> Hi,
>
> When I retrieve data via javascript+JSON meth
