John Patterson wrote:
On Thursday 09 Feb 2006 15:15, Gili wrote:
You misunderstood. I wasn't saying you should be removing parameters. I
was suggesting you canonicalize them. That is, if a user hits:
foo.html?a=1&b=2&c=3 but this is identical to foo.html?a=1 (because b=2
and c=3 are default values) than you need to issue a HTTP redirect from
foo.html?a=1 to foo.html?a=1&b=2&c=3.
I really don't understand what you are getting at here? When would you ever
want to pass default values to a page? I cannot see this situation ever
arising. Parameters are generally passed to the page for a reason ie they
affect what is displayed.
For example, if you have a multi-page image gallery, specifying page=0
would be optional, since it is the default page that gets viewed unless
you specify otherwise.
I'm saying that you should focus on ensuring
all BookmarkablePages expose canonicalized paths and redirect pages with
"equivilent" parameter values to those canonicalized paths.
That is exactly what does NOT happen when you pass parameters in the URL path.
Google assumes that they are different pages with similar (note: not
identical) content and punishes your ass.
Not if you use HTTP redirect. You can have multiple pages with
identical content if all duplicates redirect to the canonical URL. From
Google's point of view, it only sees one URL (the canonical one) and it
disregards any pages which redirect.
Gili
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
