Tony, Tiddlywiki is AJAX site (if I understand, what I say:) Like all AJAX sites, It generates its content by javascript on clients side. Google and all other searching sites can index only final html code (WordPress generates it on server side and gives result to client) , they are not able to run js so file https://tiddlywiki.com/index.html will be not indexed. *BUT *we have very primitive "static" mechanism in TW5 . This page https://tiddlywiki.com/static/KaTeX%2520Plugin.html Google see very good, but this page has a very *low quality*. So we need to improve it = and right menu, add normal links, put static folder content to root directory AND make https://tiddlywiki.com/index.html "static" file too... it will look like now, but it will be indexed very good . It is not difficult, but for my sites I do it manually by node.js and filezilla. I dont know how to write desktop application for it :(
All my sites have sitemap.xml http://heeg.ru/sitemap.xml http://novye-podarki.ru/6_7_0/sitemap.xml Tiddliwiki generates it automatically by this tiddler http://novye-podarki.ru/6_7_0/heeg.html#%24%3A%2F_sitemap среда, 9 января 2019 г., 3:58:51 UTC+3 пользователь TonyM написал: > > Post Script, > > Actually I think we need to also Generate generate a XML Sitemap from our > Wiki to point to the static pages. > > *XML sitemaps* > *Main article: Sitemaps <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitemaps>* > > *Google <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google> introduced the Sitemaps > protocol <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitemaps> so web developers can > publish lists of links from across their sites. The basic premise is that > some sites have a large number of dynamic pages that are only available > through the use of forms and user entries. The Sitemap files contains URLs > to these pages so that web crawlers > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_crawlers> can find them. Bing > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing.com>, Google > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google>, Yahoo > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo> and Ask > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask.com> now jointly support the Sitemaps > protocol. * > > *Since the major search engines > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine> use the same protocol,[2] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_map#cite_note-Oreilly-2> having a > Sitemap lets them have the updated page information. Sitemaps do not > guarantee all links will be crawled, and being crawled does not guarantee > indexing.[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_map#cite_note-3> Google > Webmaster Tools allow a website owner to upload a sitemap that Google will > crawl, or they can accomplish the same thing with the robots.txt file.[4] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_map#cite_note-Google-4> * > *XML Sitemaps have replaced the older method of "submitting to search > engines" by filling out a form on the search engine's submission page. Now > web developers submit a Sitemap directly, or wait for search engines to > find it. Regularly submitting an updated sitemap when new pages are > published may allow search engines to find and index those pages more > quickly than it would by finding the pages on its own.[5] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_map#cite_note-5> * > > Regards > Tony > > On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 11:53:33 AM UTC+11, TonyM wrote: >> >> h0p3, >> >> Your way may be one way to look at Google, but when I put myself in their >> shoes, especially with search engine Optimisation, I just cant subscribe to >> your cynical view, although I do understand how the profit motive impacts >> what they do. The key problem for TiddlyWiki in this space is something >> that always has being. If I have a WebSite Driven by a database that an >> interactive user must login to access, and the result is dependent on the >> Queries made to that database not only cant Google index it, but it has no >> right to. If we want to make something searchable there is the robots file >> and practices you can follow, The WordPress Yoast plugin for WordPress is a >> great way to get to know how to improve search-ability even in already >> public websites. >> >> TiddlyWiki is by design somewhat personal in nature, interactive and >> dynamic in what it displays, and all its content is displayed in response >> to the users activity., and can be deployed as a single large file, how >> does a robot know how to extract from tiddlywiki.html the search strings?, >> all which can only point to the file, not within the file unless google >> understood how tiddlers are addressed. >> >> If we want the world and google to index our tiddlywiki content, It is >> simply a matter of supplying it in a form the robots can consume, this >> includes not hiding it behind authentication or within interactive front >> ends that a robot can not and will not try and search. >> >> I believe it should be easy to "publish" static html in independent and >> crosslinked files in batch, or on every change, that contains a direct link >> into the interactive TiddlyWiki for user interaction. This is no different >> to adding a Post to WordPress, as they look like a html address even >> although the are served from a database. >> >> At first this suggestion may look like breaking the single file model, >> but it is not, the searchable content can always be generated again from >> the single file. All it would be is a smart facsimile the robots can read, >> and while we are at it lets generate a siteindex, and some metadata in the >> generated html. >> >> *Personally, I think we just have not done this yet.* >> >> Regards >> Tony >> >> On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 4:38:51 AM UTC+11, h0p3 wrote: >>> >>> * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/MhVsFURHpoM >>> * >>> https://philosopher.life/#2019.01.01%20-%20TWGGF%3A%20Google's%20Incentives >>> >>> I've waited a while to respond to this. I might as well join. >>> >>> Imho, Google's indexing isn't just poor for https://tiddlywiki.com/ but >>> for all TWs. I grant SEO can be improved for TW, but I am not convinced >>> this problem is going to be solved anytime soon (and most likely not at >>> all). >>> >>> I'm fairly cynical about the matter. Google has enormous incentives to >>> punish us for not channeling and packaging content into >>> mobile/cache-friendly formats, static tooling, oversimplified atoms of >>> content, and models which maximize their profits. Given their dominance, >>> they can force others to play by their rules, and you won't defeat them on >>> their own turf. They aim to optimize how we build their walled-garden for >>> them,<<ref "l">> track and model users efficiently, and control the masses >>> through a world-class advertisement machine.<<ref "t">> They don't want you >>> to own your identities except insofar as it benefits them. They don't want >>> you to have dynamic control over your data because it's not price efficient >>> for them (static is cheaper to handle) and they also want you to pay >>> (directly or indirectly) for the privilege of using services on or built in >>> virtue of their infrastructure instead.<<ref "a">> >>> >>> TW embodies the hacker ethic: it is antithetical to Google's ends (and >>> the means to those ends). They have no incentive to enable the >>> decentralization of information power except insofar as it has >>> asymmetrically disrupted their competition. I expect we will continue to be >>> punished for trying to own our data with a tool like TW. Perhaps that will >>> change one day; TW would need to become mainstream enough for them to find >>> it worth specifically parsing, mapping, etc.<<ref "p">> >>> >>> If SEO matters to you, you are likely relegated to using TW as a CMS or >>> development environment but never as the complete final product. It is >>> possible that TW still isn't the best pick there either. >>> >>> I hate to say it, but I think TW is the wrong tool for the job even if >>> that's not TW's fault. >>> >>> >>> --- >>> <<footnotes "l" "They want to be the sole lense through which you see >>> and use the internet (and more).">> >>> >>> <<footnotes "t" "~85% of their revenue is generated through >>> advertisement. I'm tinfoil-hat enough to believe that's only most of the >>> equation.">> >>> >>> <<footnotes "a" "Dynamic control over your data, which they are fighting >>> against, is a necessary condition to achieving several forms of digital >>> autonomy.">> >>> >>> <<footnotes "p" "PDFs are a fine example, but TW is radically more >>> dynamic.">> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 1:26:47 AM UTC-5, Siniy-Kit wrote: >>>> >>>> For example open Google and write "This plugin adds the ability to >>>> display mathematical notation written in LaTeX." >>>> >>>> I see tiddlywiki.com only on 7 position (not too good) in my national >>>> search it is on first position. if we click this position we will see >>>> this https://tiddlywiki.com/static/KaTeX%2520Plugin.html very nice >>>> static page with 2 links. First link to tiddlywiki.com and second link >>>> to 404 "file not find" >>>> >>>> TiddlyWiki is great, but "static" mechanism is very old. >>>> First of all this page >>>> https://tiddlywiki.com/static/KaTeX%2520Plugin.html must have right >>>> menu. >>>> And the second - all links in "static" pages must look like <a href= >>>> "https://tiddlywiki.com/static/KaTeX%2520Plugin.html"; onclick= >>>> "window.open('https://tiddlywiki.com/#KaTeX%20Plugin')"">KaTeX Plugin</ >>>> a> >>>> >>>> >>>> Google will index this link in a proper way, and people will see main >>>> tiddlywiki.com after click on any link. >>>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a33477df-d288-4b2b-8ec3-64f7667cc1a9%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
