Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs
От | Stefan Kaltenbrunner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54B13FF0.8000604@kaltenbrunner.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs (Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>) |
Список | pgsql-www |
On 10/07/2014 06:46 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> Are we using the rel="canonical" suggestion in our web docs now? > > Apparently not. I looked into this and I'm not 100% certain we should > do it. But if we decide so, I'm willing to code up a patch. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596 states: > ==== 8< ==== > The target (canonical) IRI MUST identify content that is either > duplicative or a superset of the content at the context (referring) > IRI. Authors who declare the canonical link relation ought to > anticipate that applications such as search engines can: > > o Index content only from the target IRI (i.e., content from the > context IRIs will be likely disregarded as duplicative). > > o Consolidate IRI properties, such as link popularity, to the target > IRI. > > o Display the target IRI as the representative IRI. > ==== 8< ==== > > We certainly want property 2, but property 1 suggests that older > versions of docs are dropped from search engines altogether. It's not > clear whether they are that strict in reality -- does anyone know? > > This would not be a problem if we also retained notes about earlier > supported versions in the current version, which would make our latest > version a "superset" of earlier > ones. > > But I believe we very rarely remove material from docs, so I believe > the upsides outweigh the cons. I'm not sure how search engines really behave here - dont we have any SEO experts on the list who can shed some light on this? > > ---- > Another question is whether we should make "interactive" point to > "static" -- again, actually the interactive one is the superset, since > static doesn't include user comments. But do we care about search > engines indexing comments anyway? They're not present in sitemap.xml > either and I've never landed on the interactive version when coming from Google. > > My proposal: > 1. Doc pages that are *older* than current, and exist in the current > version have canonical URL /docs/current/static/pagename.html > 2. If it doesn't exist in current, we link to the last version that > includes this page, like /docs/8.4/static/install-win32.html > 3. Newer versions (devel/beta) should perhaps point to itself and not > /current/? This would make new features googleable for testers. The > doc links use rel=nofollow when linking to them, so they're already > ranked lower by search engines. > > It appears there are already lots of places that hardcode the > http://www.postgresql.org/ URL, so it makes sense to use absolute URLs > for canonical too? I would actually strongly prefer to _NOT_ use even more absolute URLs on the website for multiple reasons, one is that it will make moving the website to https-only more difficult and the other one is that it makes playing with your own copy of it (running under a different url) a pain. I actually did a round of cleanups the other day (mostly on the presskit) to remove some of the hardcoded urls. Stefan
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Bruce MomjianДата:
Сообщение: Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs