At a conference I went to last year (PubCon) there was a SEO panel with Google guys and Yahoo guys on it. They said that easier to read urls resulted in better rankings. Of course, it all goes into massive algorithm that also calculates page rank, keywords, quality of content, incoming links and outgoing links, and other things like that. You can definitely get indexed and do well in the search engines (especially in a niche topic) but you'll do better by following all of the good practices such as clean urls, good markup, external CSS/JS, nice semantical markup, and things like that.
We may be good, but we can always be better. :) Jacob On 8/29/07, Jason Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not to be antagonistic or anything, and I didn't attend the SEO meeting > (although I would have loved to, quite honestly...), but.... > > I have created and run two completely non-business-like websites for > completely selfish purposes. Both sites contain a lot of dynamic content, > and they have horribly ugly URLs. > > Both sites have successfully been spidered by google as well as other > big-name search engines (although I only really care about google). > > This being said, both sites have URLs which can contain more than just one > or two $_GET variables. > > I completely understand and agree with the "human" portion of this thread > - > sites with ugly URLs being less appealing to humans - but, in my personal > experience, google couldn't care less how many variables are in the query > portion of the URL. Am I missing something? > > Does anyone else have any solid evidence that this is not the case? > > For those who want to verify, the two sites are www.ldscompanion.org and > www.ilovemyjournal.com . > > --Jason > > On 8/29/07, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 8/29/07, Scott Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 8/29/07, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > yeah they did. unhtmlentified ampersands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, for those of us who need it spelled out, there is no restriction > on > > the > > > number of GET variables. The XHTML problem that he was having is, more > > than > > > likely, the unhtmlentified ampersands. OK. Got it. > > > > > > > right. sorry. > > > > since a single GET variable is encoded in the query "?var1=foo", and > > two would be written "?var1=foo&var2=bar", he would only see > > validation issues (i.e. an unhtmlentified '&') when he uses two GET > > variables. > > > > lonnie's right though. GET variables are generally bad for both humans > > and search engines, which basically covers the target audience for > > most websites. > > > > justin > > -- > > http://justinhileman.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > UPHPU mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu > > IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > UPHPU mailing list > [email protected] > http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu > IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net > _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
