I have a site with over 100 pages. We need to go live with products that are soon available, however, many site pages will not be prepared at the time of release.
In order to move forward, I would like to reference a "coming soon" page with links to pages that are current and available.
Is there an easy way to forward a URL to a Coming Soon page?
Is this valid, or is there a better way?
Found this at:
http://www.web-source.net/html_redirect.htm
"Place the following HTML redirect code between the and tags of your HTML code.
meta HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" content="0; url=http://www.yourdomain.com/index.html"
Does this negatively affect you if the search engines crawl through your site?
Thank you!
The code you listed will work. However, I would never do this:
You could just show the page you wanted to show immediately, without a redirect. This will be faster for the visitor, as they don't need to load two pages.
If you must use a redirect, why not create it programmatically, for example by instructing your web server (e.g. Apache) to redirect certain pages?
I would not link to pages that don't exist yet. Most visitors will dislike that - clicking on something to find out "come back later" is a disappointment. We've all seen those coming soon pages, with the content never arriving, or only after months or even years. Either leave out those links (or perhaps put a "work in progress sign" without a link), or add the items only after they've been finished.
Search engines should work well with redirect pages, although it is unlikely your "coming soon" page will show up anywhere in the top the rankings anyway.
Perhaps a better or "more correct way" would be to do the redirection at the header level. Using PHP, you would call
<?php
header("Location: http://www.yourdomain.com/index.html");
There's also ways to do this in Apache (assuming you are using it) and .htaccess-files. See http://www.webweaver.nu/html-tips/web-redirection.shtml for more info about that.
Related
I have a website with a default home page of index.html, let's call the website: www.brianbauer.com ( that is my name BTW).
www.brianbauer.com operates something like a "treasure hunt". by clicking on various hot-spots on each HTML page access via brianbauer.com, you get redirected to the next html page. this continues for some period of user-clicks. One of the ideas is that on each visit, it is not obvious how the user reached a specific webpage. all they know is that they kept clicking and ended up at some final HTML page. but every click that brings up a new HTML page, still shows "http://www.brianbauer.com" in the Address bar. This is a game, nothing "wrong" going on here.
1. All of the HTML pages are owned by me, and I authored them all.
2. No illegal or unscruptulous activty of any kind going on.
3. all HTML pages in scope are under the root domain of brianbauer.com
the idea is that as users look at pictures and read a narrative, they make choices. a typical webpage might have 4 choices. depending on your choice, the next HTML page you see is determined.
I have created site maps that are basically decision trees.
think of it like a digital corn-maze. It's important that the full URL path to the current HTML page that they are looking at is masked, and should only show "www.brianbauer.com". it is true that someone more sophisticated could look at sourcecode, record their screen, keep notes, etc. but the mask will accomplish 90% of my goal.
as for being able to bookmark a certain webpage that they have "discovered"? the whole point is that they should not be able to....
I am NOT trying to mask my domain, that is easy. I am trying to simply maske what appears in the Address bar as users hit HTML pages which are children of that domain.
Thank you for the help.
Brian
There is something called CNAME cloak it might be one option.
Another option could be using ajax and replace content of the page.
Could anyone please tell how the site http://www.outsharked.com/imagemapster/default.aspx?what.html is working in such way? Modifying the url without loading/reloading the page. I think this is not done by html5. Because it works in IE6 which doesn't support html5.
I created that site. The commenter is correct, it uses Javascript to change the URL. There's nothing about how that navigation works that is different for IE6 - that browser supports the necessary client-side functionality to do this kind of thing. The basic functionality involves:
capturing click events on the nav, and loading the inner content via AJAX
update the URL to reflect a working direct URL to target.
The links also are valid anchor links that, in the absence of Javascript, would go to the same page (but load the whole thing). This is your basic AJAX web site setup with one minor difference. It's common practice to use a URLs like this in AJAX/single page web sites:
http://mysite.com/home#somepage
or even just
http://mysite.com/#somepage
Where the hashtag part represents the actual page a user has navigated to. If someone accessed that url directly, e.g. from outside the site, the site would use Javascript to load the correct content based on the hashtag, after the page had loaded. This means that there might be a little delay for the inner content to reflect the correct page, since it has to run another request after the initial page has loaded from the browser to get the inner content via AJAX.
I was trying to avoid that by creating a setup that worked completely with and without Javascript. If you go directly to a URL within the site such as http://www.outsharked.com/imagemapster/default.aspx?faq.html you will notice it loads the content directly. This URL will work even if Javascript is disabled. You can't actually do this using hashtags, since hashtag content is not sent to the server. Only the client knows what's after the hashtag in a URL. That's why I was using query strings to represent inner pages.
This site architecture was sort of an experiment at the time. It works pretty well but the code isn't fantastic, I didn't really do anything else with it, and I'm sure there are other better-fleshed-out/tested/full-featured frameworks out there to do much the same thing.
But it might not be a bad example of the nuts and bolts of creating a basic AJAX navigation setup, as a learning tool, since it's pretty concise, and also does HTML5 history navigation (e.g. so the back button works on modern browsers).
Would be great if you guys could shed some light on this, has baffled me:
I was asked by a client if I could try and make the search term for his comedy night "sketchercise" put his website top of the Google ranking. I simply changed the title tag of the header for the whole site from "Allnutt and Simpson" to "Allnutt and Simpson - Sketchercise # Ginglik - Sketch Duo". It did the trick and now the site comes up top of the Google listing when typing in "sketchercise". However, it gives off this very strange link:
http://www.allnuttandsimpson.com/index.php/videos/
This is the link to the google search result too:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=sketchercise
This link is invalid, it doesn't make any sense. I guess it has something to do with the use of hash tags and the AJAX driven site, but before I changed the title tag, it linked to the site fine using the # tags. What is the deal with this slash?
The strangest part is that the valid URL for the videos page on that site is /index.php#vidspics, I have never used the word "videos" in a url!
If anyone can explain the cause of this or just help me stop it from happening, I'd be very grateful. I realise that this is an SEO question and I hate that stuff generally, but I hope you can see this is a bit of a strange case!
Just to compare, if you google "allnutt and simpson" it works just fine links to the site and all of it's pages absolutely fine as .php pages (and then my JS converts them to hash tags to keep things clean)
It's because there must be a folder called 'videos' under your hosted files, use an FTP client and check this.
Google crawls every folder and file unless you tell him not to do this, look for robot.txt files to learn how to avoid indexation.
Also ask google to remove that result when you solve this.
Finally that behaviour is not related with hash tags, these are just references to javascript in order to display the appropiate content in you webpage.
Not sure why its posted like this but the only way to stop that page from appearing is using a google webmaster account for this website and make sure the crawlers can't find this link anymore. The alternative is have the site admin put this tag, <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"> , in the header when isset($_REQUEST(videos)) is true.
The slash in the address is the parsed form of www.allnuttandsimpson.com/index.php?=videos. You can have the web server change all the php parameters into slashes to make the links look pretty.
Best option for correct results is to create a sitemap and submit it to https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ for that site. You will need access.
Oh forgot, the sitemap will make google see all the pages you want it to post, use this for the major pages like those in the main menu. To remove links you don't want requires a robots.txt in the main directory of the site.
I've just noticed that the long, convoluted Facebook URLs that we're used to now look like this:
http://www.facebook.com/example.profile#!/pages/Another-Page/123456789012345
As far as I can recall, earlier this year it was just a normal URL-fragment-like string (starting with #), without the exclamation mark. But now it's a shebang or hashbang (#!), which I've previously only seen in shell scripts and Perl scripts.
The new Twitter URLs now also feature the #! symbols. A Twitter profile URL, for example, now looks like this:
http://twitter.com/#!/BoltClock
Does #! now play some special role in URLs, like for a certain Ajax framework or something since the new Facebook and Twitter interfaces are now largely Ajaxified?
Would using this in my URLs benefit my Web application in any way?
This technique is now deprecated.
This used to tell Google how to index the page.
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/
This technique has mostly been supplanted by the ability to use the JavaScript History API that was introduced alongside HTML5. For a URL like www.example.com/ajax.html#!key=value, Google will check the URL www.example.com/ajax.html?_escaped_fragment_=key=value to fetch a non-AJAX version of the contents.
The octothorpe/number-sign/hashmark has a special significance in an URL, it normally identifies the name of a section of a document. The precise term is that the text following the hash is the anchor portion of an URL. If you use Wikipedia, you will see that most pages have a table of contents and you can jump to sections within the document with an anchor, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Early_computers_and_the_Turing_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing identifies the page and Early_computers_and_the_Turing_test is the anchor. The reason that Facebook and other Javascript-driven applications (like my own Wood & Stones) use anchors is that they want to make pages bookmarkable (as suggested by a comment on that answer) or support the back button without reloading the entire page from the server.
In order to support bookmarking and the back button, you need to change the URL. However, if you change the page portion (with something like window.location = 'http://raganwald.com';) to a different URL or without specifying an anchor, the browser will load the entire page from the URL. Try this in Firebug or Safari's Javascript console. Load http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald. Now in the Javascript console, type:
window.location = 'http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald';
You will see the page refresh from the server. Now type:
window.location = 'http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald#try_this';
Aha! No page refresh! Type:
window.location = 'http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald#and_this';
Still no refresh. Use the back button to see that these URLs are in the browser history. The browser notices that we are on the same page but just changing the anchor, so it doesn't reload. Thanks to this behaviour, we can have a single Javascript application that appears to the browser to be on one 'page' but to have many bookmarkable sections that respect the back button. The application must change the anchor when a user enters different 'states', and likewise if a user uses the back button or a bookmark or a link to load the application with an anchor included, the application must restore the appropriate state.
So there you have it: Anchors provide Javascript programmers with a mechanism for making bookmarkable, indexable, and back-button-friendly applications. This technique has a name: It is a Single Page Interface.
p.s. There is a fourth benefit to this technique: Loading page content through AJAX and then injecting it into the current DOM can be much faster than loading a new page. In addition to the speed increase, further tricks like loading certain portions in the background can be performed under the programmer's control.
p.p.s. Given all of that, the 'bang' or exclamation mark is a further hint to Google's web crawler that the exact same page can be loaded from the server at a slightly different URL. See Ajax Crawling. Another technique is to make each link point to a server-accessible URL and then use unobtrusive Javascript to change it into an SPI with an anchor.
Here's the key link again: The Single Page Interface Manifesto
First of all: I'm the author of the The Single Page Interface Manifesto cited by raganwald
As raganwald has explained very well, the most important aspect of the Single Page Interface (SPI) approach used in FaceBook and Twitter is the use of hash # in URLs
The character ! is added only for Google purposes, this notation is a Google "standard" for crawling web sites intensive on AJAX (in the extreme Single Page Interface web sites). When Google's crawler finds an URL with #! it knows that an alternative conventional URL exists providing the same page "state" but in this case on load time.
In spite of #! combination is very interesting for SEO, is only supported by Google (as far I know), with some JavaScript tricks you can build SPI web sites SEO compatible for any web crawler (Yahoo, Bing...).
The SPI Manifesto and demos do not use Google's format of ! in hashes, this notation could be easily added and SPI crawling could be even easier (UPDATE: now ! notation is used and remains compatible with other search engines).
Take a look to this tutorial, is an example of a simple ItsNat SPI site but you can pick some ideas for other frameworks, this example is SEO compatible for any web crawler.
The hard problem is to generate any (or selected) "AJAX page state" as plain HTML for SEO, in ItsNat is very easy and automatic, the same site is in the same time SPI or page based for SEO (or when JavaScript is disabled for accessibility). With other web frameworks you can ever follow the double site approach, one site is SPI based and another page based for SEO, for instance Twitter uses this "double site" technique.
I would be very careful if you are considering adopting this hashbang convention.
Once you hashbang, you can’t go back. This is probably the stickiest issue. Ben’s post put forward the point that when pushState is more widely adopted then we can leave hashbangs behind and return to traditional URLs. Well, fact is, you can’t. Earlier I stated that URLs are forever, they get indexed and archived and generally kept around. To add to that, cool URLs don’t change. We don’t want to disconnect ourselves from all the valuable links to our content. If you’ve implemented hashbang URLs at any point then want to change them without breaking links the only way you can do it is by running some JavaScript on the root document of your domain. Forever. It’s in no way temporary, you are stuck with it.
You really want to use pushState instead of hashbangs, because making your URLs ugly and possibly broken -- forever -- is a colossal and permanent downside to hashbangs.
To have a good follow-up about all this, Twitter - one of the pioneers of hashbang URL's and single-page-interface - admitted that the hashbang system was slow in the long run and that they have actually started reversing the decision and returning to old-school links.
Article about this is here.
I always assumed the ! just indicated that the hash fragment that followed corresponded to a URL, with ! taking the place of the site root or domain. It could be anything, in theory, but it seems the Google AJAX Crawling API likes it this way.
The hash, of course, just indicates that no real page reload is occurring, so yes, it’s for AJAX purposes. Edit: Raganwald does a lovely job explaining this in more detail.
I've just noticed that the long, convoluted Facebook URLs that we're used to now look like this:
http://www.facebook.com/example.profile#!/pages/Another-Page/123456789012345
As far as I can recall, earlier this year it was just a normal URL-fragment-like string (starting with #), without the exclamation mark. But now it's a shebang or hashbang (#!), which I've previously only seen in shell scripts and Perl scripts.
The new Twitter URLs now also feature the #! symbols. A Twitter profile URL, for example, now looks like this:
http://twitter.com/#!/BoltClock
Does #! now play some special role in URLs, like for a certain Ajax framework or something since the new Facebook and Twitter interfaces are now largely Ajaxified?
Would using this in my URLs benefit my Web application in any way?
This technique is now deprecated.
This used to tell Google how to index the page.
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/
This technique has mostly been supplanted by the ability to use the JavaScript History API that was introduced alongside HTML5. For a URL like www.example.com/ajax.html#!key=value, Google will check the URL www.example.com/ajax.html?_escaped_fragment_=key=value to fetch a non-AJAX version of the contents.
The octothorpe/number-sign/hashmark has a special significance in an URL, it normally identifies the name of a section of a document. The precise term is that the text following the hash is the anchor portion of an URL. If you use Wikipedia, you will see that most pages have a table of contents and you can jump to sections within the document with an anchor, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Early_computers_and_the_Turing_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing identifies the page and Early_computers_and_the_Turing_test is the anchor. The reason that Facebook and other Javascript-driven applications (like my own Wood & Stones) use anchors is that they want to make pages bookmarkable (as suggested by a comment on that answer) or support the back button without reloading the entire page from the server.
In order to support bookmarking and the back button, you need to change the URL. However, if you change the page portion (with something like window.location = 'http://raganwald.com';) to a different URL or without specifying an anchor, the browser will load the entire page from the URL. Try this in Firebug or Safari's Javascript console. Load http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald. Now in the Javascript console, type:
window.location = 'http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald';
You will see the page refresh from the server. Now type:
window.location = 'http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald#try_this';
Aha! No page refresh! Type:
window.location = 'http://minimal-github.gilesb.com/raganwald#and_this';
Still no refresh. Use the back button to see that these URLs are in the browser history. The browser notices that we are on the same page but just changing the anchor, so it doesn't reload. Thanks to this behaviour, we can have a single Javascript application that appears to the browser to be on one 'page' but to have many bookmarkable sections that respect the back button. The application must change the anchor when a user enters different 'states', and likewise if a user uses the back button or a bookmark or a link to load the application with an anchor included, the application must restore the appropriate state.
So there you have it: Anchors provide Javascript programmers with a mechanism for making bookmarkable, indexable, and back-button-friendly applications. This technique has a name: It is a Single Page Interface.
p.s. There is a fourth benefit to this technique: Loading page content through AJAX and then injecting it into the current DOM can be much faster than loading a new page. In addition to the speed increase, further tricks like loading certain portions in the background can be performed under the programmer's control.
p.p.s. Given all of that, the 'bang' or exclamation mark is a further hint to Google's web crawler that the exact same page can be loaded from the server at a slightly different URL. See Ajax Crawling. Another technique is to make each link point to a server-accessible URL and then use unobtrusive Javascript to change it into an SPI with an anchor.
Here's the key link again: The Single Page Interface Manifesto
First of all: I'm the author of the The Single Page Interface Manifesto cited by raganwald
As raganwald has explained very well, the most important aspect of the Single Page Interface (SPI) approach used in FaceBook and Twitter is the use of hash # in URLs
The character ! is added only for Google purposes, this notation is a Google "standard" for crawling web sites intensive on AJAX (in the extreme Single Page Interface web sites). When Google's crawler finds an URL with #! it knows that an alternative conventional URL exists providing the same page "state" but in this case on load time.
In spite of #! combination is very interesting for SEO, is only supported by Google (as far I know), with some JavaScript tricks you can build SPI web sites SEO compatible for any web crawler (Yahoo, Bing...).
The SPI Manifesto and demos do not use Google's format of ! in hashes, this notation could be easily added and SPI crawling could be even easier (UPDATE: now ! notation is used and remains compatible with other search engines).
Take a look to this tutorial, is an example of a simple ItsNat SPI site but you can pick some ideas for other frameworks, this example is SEO compatible for any web crawler.
The hard problem is to generate any (or selected) "AJAX page state" as plain HTML for SEO, in ItsNat is very easy and automatic, the same site is in the same time SPI or page based for SEO (or when JavaScript is disabled for accessibility). With other web frameworks you can ever follow the double site approach, one site is SPI based and another page based for SEO, for instance Twitter uses this "double site" technique.
I would be very careful if you are considering adopting this hashbang convention.
Once you hashbang, you can’t go back. This is probably the stickiest issue. Ben’s post put forward the point that when pushState is more widely adopted then we can leave hashbangs behind and return to traditional URLs. Well, fact is, you can’t. Earlier I stated that URLs are forever, they get indexed and archived and generally kept around. To add to that, cool URLs don’t change. We don’t want to disconnect ourselves from all the valuable links to our content. If you’ve implemented hashbang URLs at any point then want to change them without breaking links the only way you can do it is by running some JavaScript on the root document of your domain. Forever. It’s in no way temporary, you are stuck with it.
You really want to use pushState instead of hashbangs, because making your URLs ugly and possibly broken -- forever -- is a colossal and permanent downside to hashbangs.
To have a good follow-up about all this, Twitter - one of the pioneers of hashbang URL's and single-page-interface - admitted that the hashbang system was slow in the long run and that they have actually started reversing the decision and returning to old-school links.
Article about this is here.
I always assumed the ! just indicated that the hash fragment that followed corresponded to a URL, with ! taking the place of the site root or domain. It could be anything, in theory, but it seems the Google AJAX Crawling API likes it this way.
The hash, of course, just indicates that no real page reload is occurring, so yes, it’s for AJAX purposes. Edit: Raganwald does a lovely job explaining this in more detail.