Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
I Am About To Commit A Cardinal Sin.
Posted 23 November 2004 - 04:34 PM
I am rewriting much of my shopping cart for SEO reasons.
My cart/store does something like
If you look for red widgets you get …
If you want to see blue widgets you get…
I store the query string in a session object. (ASP)
As long as only one page is shown it works fine, but if you go to page 2, 3, 4, etc. then you get an error if you are not excepting cookies.
This causes quite a bit of problem for spiders. Plus every page that I serve up is always the same URL.
So now I have
Every page is in fact pretty small. It just has the normal meta tags, plus the sql statement needed to call an included page that formats and displays the product pages.
People without cookies and spiders can now cruise those pages. Plus it does give me a chance to put a little bit better ad copy on those pages.
If I could just get rid of cookies and session objects to store the cart items with out incurring the added overhead of SQL calls then I would be gold.
OH Yeah does pages off of the root really rank better then pages in sub-directories?
Posted 23 November 2004 - 04:42 PM
And no, pages closer to the root don't rank better than subdirectories. It's more of a question of number of clicks from the home page.
Posted 23 November 2004 - 05:25 PM
I've designed the admin panel to create a folder when the end user adds a category, it builds a default doc on the fly in the folder with some variables that set up the category ID and a few other constants, that then includes the cat display page, so there is never any querystring for the categories. If there is a parameter it must be a product so it uses server.transfer to display the product information. All totally transparent to users and spiders.
So domain/shop/ will bring up all the active products in the database, domain/shop/?item=123 will display one product. then for domain/shop/blue-widgets/ will bring up all the blue widgets and domain/shop/blue-widgets/?item=123 will display item No 123. Absolutely everything on the page comes out of the DB so the end user is in total control of the content.
Spider friendly URLs with no components and hopefully an idiot proof admin panel. The client testing it couldn't spell SQL a few months ago but he's soon got the hang of it.
So if it's a cardinal sin I'd better join you in the box
Posted 14 December 2004 - 02:21 PM
I noticed your post that is of great interest to me. :learn:
Could you answer my following questions?
We are developing a big web-site, that heavily uses database quering and we need to find out the best structure for it.
Now we think of doing the following:
1. major sectors are in their own directories, like
2. every sector (directory) got dynamic content:
- - index.php by default pulls some data out of db (like "hotel business news")
- when passed parameters like $country_id or $search-string etc. it creates a page with 50% different design = a list of records matchins a query.
So the questions at last:
1. Is that scheme OK (bearing SEs in mind)? If "no", what is to be changed?
2. (about you quote) what page address is "better" for SEs: (in root) /?page=site_map or (in root) /site_map.php or (in directory) /site_map/ ?
3. If we place content from these sectors/directories in their own subdomains, like hotels.oursite.com instead of www.oursite.com/hotels/, will that make the site "better" for SE?
4. Sounds stupid.....but, is there any difference for SEs between WWW.hotels.mysite.com and hotels.mysite.com
Edited by chrishirst, 14 December 2004 - 03:05 PM.
Posted 14 December 2004 - 03:32 PM
Not Jill but I'll give my 0.10GBPs worth.
1/ It sounds ok provided the content is pretty unique and not simply the odd word changed here and there and 90% duplicate. Many sites (directories) have done this and are now seeing major problems because of it.
2/ None. it doesn't matter what the page name is for SEs but I think that using sitemap.php or /sitemap/ is better for visitors to understand.
3/ again here you are thinking wrong, Visitors first. make it best for them, the SEs will also like it. Using subdomains (hotels.mysite.com) does confuse visitors when typing in addresses. www.mysite.com/hotels/ is a more "normal" approach.
4/ same as 3 mainly. But yes, www.hotels.mysite.com and hotels.mysite.com are different URLs. hotels is a subdomain of mysite.com and www is the a subdomain of hotels.mysite.com. again this is confusing for visitors.
from a programmers perspective using sub-folders (www.mysite.com/hotels/ ) is a much simpler proposition than using many subdomains. Includes, transfers and redirects can be used much easier than parsing hostnames and subdomains and only needs one hosting setup, where subdomains may well need a seperate virtual host for each one used.
The other point of using subfolders is that you can switch server technologies with no problems at all from the SE and traffic aspect.
Posted 14 December 2004 - 05:29 PM
Not Jill but I'll give my 0.10GBPs worth.
Thank you for your time!
You really put my thoughts in order.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users