Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Server Side Includes
Posted 15 October 2003 - 01:47 PM
When you turn 'off' the border, FP removes the code for that border. It has nothing to do with the processing that occurs on a web server before a page is served to a requestor.
You are thinking more of libraries and not SSI.
Posted 15 October 2003 - 01:50 PM
FP borders are not SSI.
I stand (sit?) corrected - I meant to imply that they act like an SSI would inside of an editor in order to not frighten newbies who may be reading this.
FP is a strange hybrid at the best of times, with it's Themes (kinda like CSS) and Webbots (sometimes kinda like SSI and ocasionally Java) and so forth - it's not really a good example to use unless you are actually talking about FP to an FP user.
As a clarification - unless you are able to keep the name of the page, including it's extension, the same, then you are not keeping your backlinks.
I do like SSI because it tends to remove ugly URLS and replace them with nice neat ones on smaller sites. Obviously it's not useful on huge database results systems (since you'd need a LOT of static pages to do the includes into).
It works great for site maps, entry pages for main sections, start pages, news pages and sites with less than 20-50 pages in them, amongst other things.
Posted 15 October 2003 - 02:06 PM
That is why if a link goes to an index page in a folder I try not to use the file because /afolder/ instead of /afolder/default.htm means more work is required to change to a new platform and Google and possibly others treat /afolder/defalt.htm and /afolder/ as two different pages which can fragment PR or backlinks across the two pages even though in reality they are the same page.
IMO, the only safe way to preserve positions and backlinks is a 301 redirect to the .asp pages from the old pages.
Posted 15 October 2003 - 02:24 PM
BTW, I was looking for some IIS code for this (since IIS isn't great at a per page redirect) and came across this:
Smart 404 code
It's basically an error page replacement that redirects. I think it may cause problems because of the 2 hops, but the authors say it doesn't. Any comments? I'd hate to recommend a link and have it not solve the problem.
Posted 15 October 2003 - 02:37 PM
It is easy to force Apache to parse any extension you want. The file extension is not a problem. You can do it even without a file extension. Just add this in your .htaccess to parse html files as ssi.
In order to use SSI you have to change the extension which Google or any engine for that matter will treat it as a new page.
AddType text/x-server-parsed-html .htmlI would assume IIS offers something similar.
Posted 15 October 2003 - 03:48 PM
It sounds to me that all of your pages are going to get renamed, from name.htm to name.asp. That will break every link to your site except to the homepage.
I took over a site where this exact thing had been done. You'll need to put in redirects for all the old .htm named pages so that they redirect to the new .asp named pages.
If this is the only thing going on, then it shouldn't affect -- any more than just temporarily -- your search rankings. Just don't let those pages with inbound links give 404s.
Posted 15 October 2003 - 06:58 PM
oldpage.htm = #include newpage.asp
My only question is the asp page process prior to the inclusion to the .htm page.
This would create a duplicate page until the new pages are indexed and then drop the old ones.
As questioned earlier what is the need to transition to the dynamic pages. If content is not changing in the pages stick with .htm. If you are adding dynamic pages and other are not then just add the .asp pages. If you are hosting your own server it is possible to force .htm pages to be processed as an .asp page. Produces a little more server overhead though.
Posted 15 October 2003 - 08:00 PM
adavidson, I presuming that your programmer has proposed a content management system whereby you can administrate your website online and then the dynamic pages pick up the content from the database.
In this case why not have a content management system that publishes .html files on the server thus avoiding the need for dynamic pages and allowing you to keep the same/exact file names that you would rather not change.
This is easy to do, so don't let your programmer tell you its complicated and will cost more.
Posted 17 October 2003 - 08:37 AM
As csjavi pointed out you can instruct your web server to process SSI's under any filename extension you wish in Apache, and this also applies to in IIS. There's no need to change the filenames to .shtml or whatever the default server settings says they need to be, so the old filenames can stay the same, while dynamic elements are added in with SSI.
"Again, what this will do for us is to enable you to keep the long-established links to specific HTML pages alive by SSI'ing the content of ASP pages."
Posted 17 October 2003 - 10:35 AM
They have a nifty CMS system for all their links, but they don't use it to spit out dynamic pages. The CMS stores and organises all the URLs and content, and then spits out static HTML pages for the webservers.
This reduces the load on the directory by huge amounts, and I imagine increases security. It would be pretty simple for many CMS systems to spit out static pages every morning. If you did that then you would get to keep your static page names if you wanted.
Doesn't help with searches and other inherently dynamic processes, but the more static content you have on your site, the faster it is, usually.
Posted 17 October 2003 - 06:27 PM
I don't know guys, it seems like the programmer is on the ball with using the SSI's to make a page dynamic
Sure, it will work, but I wouldn't quite describe it as "on the ball", it's all a bit messy. This method is just a quick fix bolt on to the CMS. A good CMS should be well organized, tidy and efficient. What mcanerin and myself have suggested is a good solid method that will meet adavidsons needs
We have very high rankings (1st page on google) for our best keyphrases and we cannot afford to lose them. Initially I was going to maintain 5 of the old static pages to keep the filenames and pages and hopefully retain the rankings for them.
Posted 20 October 2003 - 10:36 AM
The problem was that files are currently being ranked high may have to be renamed and lose rankings. The programmer was suggesting SSI's, I believe in a capacity to add dynamic elements to the pages without having to change the filenames. From an optimization standpoint, keeping the file names seems to be the best course. There seemed to be a misconception that SSI's meant having to change your filenames, and I just wanted to interject that wasn't true. The filenames and rankings could be kept.
Posted 20 October 2003 - 01:24 PM
This is a lot of info to digest. I will discuss these options with out programmer and get clarification on exactly what he meant.
Thank you so much for all the discussion on this matter. I really do appreciate it. Hopefully, everything will go smoothly. Will check back later to see if anything else comes up.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users