I'm on the way of creating a blog through ASP.NET MVC framework. All the articles I'm going to submit have the same layout only the main content differs. So I created a common view that dynamically loads the content from a physical file(contains only the particular article markup) in a section. So all the url requests send by users points to a same physical file that dynamically loads a particular section based upon the article. Is this the right approach? Is this create some problems in SEO? I'm eager to hear from you. [UPDATED] The urls of the articles look like http://myblog.com/blog/archives/2011/1/using_asp_mvc. All these kind of requests are received by a single page that loads the content of the article from another physical file in it.
I think you need to rewrite the url like in
http://www.cricandcric.com/Cricket-News/4182/Cricket-West-Indies-:-I-am-sure-that-West-Indies-will-bounce-back-,-said-Hooper.html
If you obesrve this I have done the URL Rewriting, which will be user friendly for the search engines.
You can find good references at following url
http://www.webconfs.com/url-rewriting-tool.php
http://corz.org/serv/tricks/htaccess2.php
To make it more understandable about the power of url rewriting
if you search for "I am sure that West Indies will bounce back , said Hooper"
in google, you can see our cricandcric.com in the first page
Related
I'm trying to make my site more SEO friendly and I' noticing that whenever I go to an product through either a tag or a different page (2,3,4 ect) that it adds it to the URL.
For example:
www.wisdomsurvival.com/Guardian-Survival-kit/culinary-can-of-preparedness-seeds.html?page=2
I would like to remove ?page=2 from the path
Opencart 1.5.4
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
EDIT: My main goal is to have one URL for each page instead of multiple paths. For example:
http://www.wisdomsurvival.com/person-guardian-preparedness-package-camping-bug-out
http://www.wisdomsurvival.com/camping-and-bug-out/person-guardian-preparedness-package-camping-bug-out
The first URL is a direct link, the second comes from clicking from a category, the third (not shown because I can only post 2 links) comes from clicking from a subcategory and the fourth (also not shown) from a manufacturer list.
I need to have them all either redirect to the first URL or just go directly to the first URL without redirecting, along with any other URLS such as the ones that have the page ID path or tag path.
I recognise that theme :-)
Where is the ?page=2 coming from as the link works perfectly without it. You need to trace the source of the link. First try the template views and see if it is a simple link edit in the layout that will accomplish what you need.
If not you may find the information is coded in the controller if it is being dynamically generated. Again you should be able to edit the code that generates the link there.
If not you may find that it is in a model that is being called. Again, just find the model and edit the link structure you find there.
The url on your page will only be a reflection of the url you generated somewhere else in order for the link to be followed in the first place.
Usually when I am building with opencart I find the theme modules are often not coded very well in terms of SEO. Fortunately with opencart these things are usually very easy to remedy.
Top trick -> I often stick additional bits into my urls that have no impact on the page generated but Google picks up on as keywords anyway.
If you post your code if you are having problems reformatting the link formats I will have a look for you,
Hope that helps,
Paul.
I am managing a website that has only about 20-50 pages (articles, links and etc.). Somehow, Google indexed over 1000 links (duplicates, same page with different string in the URL). I found that those links contain ?date= in url. I already blocked by writing Disallow: *date* in robots.txt, made an XML map (which I did not had before) placed it into root folder and imported to Google Webmaster Tools. But the problem still stays: links are (and probably will be) in search results. I would easily remove URLs in GWT, but they can only remove one link at the time, and removing >1000 one by one is not an option.
The question: Is it possible to make dynamic 301 redirects from every page that contains $date= in url to the original one, and how? I am thinking that Google will re-index those pages, redirect to original ones, and delete those numerous pages from search results.
Example:
bad page: www.website.com/article?date=1961-11-1 and n same pages with different "date"
good page: www.website.com/article
automatically redirect all bad pages to good ones.
I have spent whole work day trying to solve this problem, would be nice to get some support. Thank you!
P.S. As far as I think this coding question is the right one to ask in stackoverflow, but if I am wrong (forgive me) redirect me to right place where I can ask this one.
You're looking for the canonical link element, that's the way Google suggests to solve this problem (here's the Webmasters help page about it), and it's used by most if not all search engines. When you place an element like
<link rel='canonical' href='http://www.website.com/article'>
in the header of the page, the URI in the href attribute will be considered the 'canonical' version of the page, the one to be indexed and so on.
For the record: if the duplicate content is not a html page (say, it's a dynamically generated image), and supposing you're using Apache, you can use .htaccess to redirect to the canonical version. Unfortunately the Redirect and RedirectMatch directives don't handle query strings (they're strictly for URIs), but you could use mod_rewrite to strip parts of the query string. See, for example, this answer for a way to do it.
I am making a simple CMS to use in my own blog and I have been using the following code to display articles.
xmlhttp.onreadystatechange=function(){
if (xmlhttp.readyState==4 && xmlhttp.status==200){
document.getElementById("maincontent").innerHTML=xmlhttp.responseText;
}
}
What it does is it sends a request to the database and gets the content associated with the article that was clicked on and writes it to the main viewing area with ".innerHTML".
Thus I don't have actual links to other articles. I know that I can use PHP to output HTML so that it forms a link like :
<a href=getcontent.php?q=article+title>Article Title</a>
But being slightly OCD I wanted my output to be as neat as possible. Although search engine visibility is not a concern for my personal blog I intend to adapt this to a few other sites which have search engine optimization as a priority.
From what I understand, basically search engine robots follow links to index the web sites.
My question is:
Does this practice have any negative implications for search engine visibility? Also; are there other reasons for preferring one approach over the other as I see that almost every site uses the 'link' method.
The link you've written will cause a page reload. In order to leverage the standard AJAX stuff you've got at the top, you need to write the links as something along the lines of
Article Title
This assumes you have a javascript function called ajaxGet that takes an argument of the identifier for the article you're searching for.
If you were to write your entire site that way, search engines wouldn't be able to crawl you at all since they don't execute javascript. Therefore they can't get to anything off the front page. Also, even if they could follow the links, they'd have no way of referencing the page they got to since it doesn't have a unique URL. This is also annoying for users, since they can't get a link to an exact story to bookmark, send to a friend etc.
I have a product page with options in select list (ex : color of the product etc...).
You accede to my product with different urls :
www.mysite.com/product_1.html
www.mysite.com/product_1.html#/color-green
If you accede with the url www.mysite.com/product_1.html#/color-green, the option green of the select list is automatically selected (with javascript).
If i link my product page with those urls, is there a risk of duplicate content ? Is it good for my seo ?
thx
You need to use canonical urls in order to let the search engines know that you are aware that the content seems duplicated.
Basically using a canonical url on your page www.mysite.com/product_1.html#/color-green to go to www.mysite.com/product_1.html tells the search engine that whenever they see www.mysite.com/product_1.html#/color-green they should not scan this page but rather scan the page www.mysite.com/product_1.html
This is the suggested method to overcome duplicate content of this type.
See these pages:
SEO advice: url canonicalization
A rel=canonical corner case
At one time I saw Google indexing the odd #ed URL and showing them in results, but it didn't last long. I think it also required that there was an on page link to the anchor.
Google does support the concept of the hashbang (#!) as a specific way to do indexable anchors and support AJAX, which implies an anchor without the bang (!) will no longer be considered for indexing.
Either way, Google is not stupid. The the basic use of the anchor is to move to a place on a page, i.e. it is the same page (duplicate content) but a different spot. So Google will expect a #ed URL to contain the same content. Why would they punish you for doing what the # is for?
And what is "the risk of duplicate content". Generally, the only onsite risk from duplicate content is Google may waste it's time crawling duplicate pages instead of focusing on other valuable pages. As Google will assume # is the same page it is more likely to not event try the #ed URL.
If you're worried, implement the canonical tag, but do it right. I've seen more issues from implementing it badly than the supposed issues they are there to solve.
Both answers above are correct. Google has said they ignore hashtags unless you use hash-bang format (#!) -- and that really only addresses a certain use case, so don't add it just because you think it will help.
Using the canonical link tag is the right thing to do.
One additional point about dupe content: it's less about the risk than about a missed opportunity. In cases where there are dupes, Google chooses one. If 10 sites link to your site using www.example.com and 10 more link using just example.com you'll get the :link goodness" benefit of only 10 links. The complete solution to this involves ensuring that when users and Google arrive at the "wrong" on, the server responds with an HTTP 301 status and redirects the user to the "right" one. This is known as domain canonicalization and is a good thing for many, many reasons. Use this in addition to the "canonical" link tag and other techniques.
I would like to hide the webpage name in the url and only display either the domain name or parts of it.
For example:
I have a website called "MyWebSite". The url is: localhost:8080/mywebsite/welcome.xhtml. I would like to display only the "localhost:8080/mywebsite/".
However if the page is at, for example, localhost:8080/mywebsite/restricted/restricted.xhtml then I would like to display localhost:8080/mywebsite/restricted/.
I believe this can be done in the web.xml file.
I believe that you want URL rewriting. Check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewrite_engine - there are many approaches to URL rewriting, you need to decide what is appropriate for you. Some of the approaches do make use of the web.config file.
You can do this in several ways. The one I see most is to have a "front door" called a rewrite engine that parses the URL dynamically to internally redirect the request, without exposing details about how that might happen as you would see if you used simple query strings, etc. This allows the URL you specify to be digested into a request for a master page with specific content, instead of just looking up a physical page at that location to serve.
The StackExchange sites do this so that you can link to a question in a semi-permanent fashion (and thus can use search engines with crawlers that log these URLs) without them having to have a real page in the file system for every question that's ever been asked (we're up to 9,387,788 questions as of this one).