SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,243
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    One page websites

    I was trying to find a good solution for a customer of mine. He has a brand new company, no clear idea of what he wants of his website except that he wants it to be the coolest site in the whole world (like many... does this sound familiar to anyone?) and no time to create content or think about it.

    Therefore, until he has the time to think about this a bit more, he just wants a simple website: homepage, map and contact, list of dishes and prices (it is a resturant) and photo gallery.

    It has, of course, to look as good as it can. That doesn't change.

    So I thought that maybe the best solution for a web that has so little content could be a one page website and I started to research a bit.

    When I was googling around (can you say that? ) I found this article

    http://www.web-savvy-marketing.com/2...tes-templates/

    I basically agree with what she says. Most of it. Well, at least the SEO part

    But I don't agree with the whole thing. I mean, for sites that don't have much to say, concise and short... you can't really optimized that much, can you? So SEO is not such a big deal.

    Now, about confusing the user, I guess that goes with the UX and if you do it right, it doesn't have to be that way.

    I mean, "hate" is a strong word althoguh I guess you do need to have a title for your article...

    What about you? do you love them, hate them or think (like myself) that sometimes it is suitable to use a one page website?

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy PicnicTutorials's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, California, United States
    Posts
    3,657
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here is how I did a one page site http://www.websitecodetutorials.com/...r-website.com/ with jquery tabs. One page sites are bad for seo. Or not as good rather. You basically have three options. A long scrolling site. Which looks unprofessional in my opinion. Or a tabbed site. Or a horizontally tabbed site. With the later you have to hide the content which is t good for seo possibly. I would say just go for simple to the point multiple page site.

  3. #3
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,243
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PicnicTutorials View Post
    You basically have three options. A long scrolling site. Which looks unprofessional in my opinion. Or a tabbed site. Or a horizontally tabbed site. With the later you have to hide the content which is t good for seo possibly. I would say just go for simple to the point multiple page site.
    That's what I mean... is it really that bad? When you really don't have that much too say... is it really smart to create a regular site?

    I think that in cases like this a one page website is a good compromise.

    SEO-wise, it doesn't matter because there is simply not enough content for that

    Now, regarding the second point (the possible confussion of the viewers)... well, you do need to test your interface but if you do it right... why should they be confused?

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy PicnicTutorials's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, California, United States
    Posts
    3,657
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now days users are used to tabbed interface so I don't think confusion is an issue. If done right u can't even tell its one page. You could make a business card type site. Wordpress has many out of the box templates. Those are unique.

  5. #5
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,243
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PicnicTutorials View Post
    Now days users are used to tabbed interface so I don't think confusion is an issue. If done right u can't even tell its one page. You could make a business card type site. Wordpress has many out of the box templates. Those are unique.
    Sorry. I should have made myself more clear.

    This thread is not about what I will do with this customer. It is more about the article itself that I found while I was researching some info for the site that I will do

    I simply disagree with her radical attitude towards one page websites

  6. #6
    Galactic Overlord gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    HAWK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    12,550
    Mentioned
    958 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by molona View Post

    What about you? do you love them, hate them or think (like myself) that sometimes it is suitable to use a one page website?
    I have seen some really cool examples and some which don't work so well. For instance I think this one looks quite good but it's an example of one that I reckon should be a multi-pager.

  7. #7
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,243
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HAWK View Post
    I have seen some really cool examples and some which don't work so well. For instance I think this one looks quite good but it's an example of one that I reckon should be a multi-pager.
    That's a nice one. I'm not that sure that should be a multipager... except for a bit of text, it is kind of empty

  8. #8
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,378
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    @molona ;

    The only reason 'in my humble opinion' somebody would entertain a one-pager is his/her inability to pay for something worth while.

    One pages are hated by Google for a reason, they lack content. Any website can have content, you'd be amazed how much you can share and write about yourself. I personally feel that clients considering a one-pager are not worth your time. I've dealt with them in the past, and they don't see themselves in a serious light.

    The only time I can think it's professional to have a one-pager is if you're promoting a single product on a landing page and targeting users with an advertising campaign, traditionally however, those landing pages are linked to larger websites, as it might only be the single page within a website.

    As for real-life business's, they need websites! If the client persists on a landing page I really feel you should not bother with them as they are likely to waste your time. From experience, tradesmen are the worse customers for this kind of thing, and yes, they are likely to ask you for a landing page (you might struggle trying to get them to settle outstanding invoices after their initial deposit, so yeap, I would stay clear of them).

    PS: I apologize for sounding pessimistic. I've experienced these kind of clients and know them only too well, this is why I am sharing this.
    follow me on ayyelo, Easy WordPress; specializing in setting up themes!

  9. #9
    SitePoint Guru glenngould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like one-pagers, if it's not way too animated, up to the point you are confused to focus on the content.
    Tweep List adds an avatar menu to Twitter (open source)
    Word Stats shows your most used words on Twitter

  10. #10
    SitePoint Mentor bronze trophy
    ronpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    2,534
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    This is a REAL topic about which people have opinions, take sides and defend positions? REALLY?

  11. #11
    SitePoint Mentor bronze trophy
    John_Betong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    1,840
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by molona View Post
    ...
    What about you? do you love them, hate them or think (like myself) that sometimes it is suitable to use a one page website?
    ...

    I think there is a case for a happy medium since I dislike having to wait for a new page to open; only to be shown an identical header, footer, sidebars and very little new content.

    I much prefer a list of say twenty questions and the answers hidden in an 'accordion' until the relevant question is clicked. Far better than scrolling through answers which are of no interest.

    Another case springs to mind of how to display numerous thumbnails and having the selected thumbnail showing a larger version rather than opening a new page.

    I think this site has a good UX

    Maybe there is a case for an intermediate "more..." such as hovering or clicking a sidebar link, having an Ajax summary appear in the content section and with a "more..." link to the full article. This should make navigating a site so much quicker than having to open a new page, glance at the content then returning to try another link.
    Learn how to be ready for The New Move to Discourse

    How to make Make Money Now with a *NEW* look

    Be sure to congratulate Patche on earning Member of the Month for July 2014

  12. #12
    SitePoint Enthusiast hypernovadesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would go for a multi-page website whenever possible, however by using the keywords in a clever way a single-page website can be ranked high but it depends what the key phrase is.

    I personally designed a single-page website for my client and it's displayed on the 1st page in Google above other multi-page websites offering same services. How strange that is

  13. #13
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,243
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sega View Post
    @molona ;]
    One pages are hated by Google for a reason, they lack content. Any website can have content, you'd be amazed how much you can share and write about yourself. I personally feel that clients considering a one-pager are not worth your time. I've dealt with them in the past, and they don't see themselves in a serious light.
    I know that if you make the effort you can find lots of content if you want to and I know that Google doesn't like them (I already stated that SEO-wise is awful but then... not having content is awful too in terms of SEO so basically, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter)

    I disagree that all customers that consider a one-pager are not worth though.

    Sometimes the reason that they do not have content or that they don't think about it is that the company is small, one or two persons, and lack the time (for both doing it and learning) and the understanding (simply, knowing how to use Google doesn't mean that you understand it)

    Sometimes they're aware that the need a website but they need time to build a strategy and plan the times to carry out that strategy but in the meantime they need to have something there.

    If you only want to show a few pictures, inform of your opening hours, where you are and a contact form just in case someone wants to send you a message... well, a full, multi-paged website may not be worth in my opinion.

    Of course, you can argue that you can add an "about us" section and a blog and so many more things but... that (especially the blog) requires planning

    I do think that there are situations where one-page websites are suitable.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy PicnicTutorials's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, California, United States
    Posts
    3,657
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Betong View Post
    I think there is a case for a happy medium since I dislike having to wait for a new page to open; only to be shown an identical header, footer, sidebars and very little new content.

    I much prefer a list of say twenty questions and the answers hidden in an 'accordion' until the relevant question is clicked. Far better than scrolling through answers which are of no interest.

    Another case springs to mind of how to display numerous thumbnails and having the selected thumbnail showing a larger version rather than opening a new page.

    I think this site has a good UX

    Maybe there is a case for an intermediate "more..." such as hovering or clicking a sidebar link, having an Ajax summary appear in the content section and with a "more..." link to the full article. This should make navigating a site so much quicker than having to open a new page, glance at the content then returning to try another link.
    That's true. I hate it so much I back click and find another page. Don't have the patients for it. Like a single article they split into 10 pages. They do that I assume because they think it's too much for a mobile to load. But loading ten pages is quicker? Right.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy PicnicTutorials's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, California, United States
    Posts
    3,657
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hypernovadesign View Post
    I would go for a multi-page website whenever possible, however by using the keywords in a clever way a single-page website can be ranked high but it depends what the key phrase is.

    I personally designed a single-page website for my client and it's displayed on the 1st page in Google above other multi-page websites offering same services. How strange that is
    Google prob thought it was a non optimized mom and pop shop. Equal rights. That's the new seo for ya. Seo is a bit and miss these days. There is not nearly as much rhym and reason. Just depends if you land on googles radar these days. For the same answer google awards forum discussion much more handsomely than websites who's answrers are dead on. The top 10 will always show forums.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One page website has more bounce rate.

  17. #17
    From Italy with love silver trophybronze trophy
    guido2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    9,500
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiarafernandes View Post
    One page website has more bounce rate.
    Really? Can you show us some source to back that up?

  18. #18
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy PicnicTutorials's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, California, United States
    Posts
    3,657
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiarafernandes View Post
    One page website has more bounce rate.
    I would agree with that. I don't even need documentation to confirm that. I know I always back click those. Prob because one page sites are usually associated with a long infomercial - usually just trying to sell something.

  19. #19
    From Italy with love silver trophybronze trophy
    guido2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    9,500
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PicnicTutorials View Post
    I would agree with that. I don't even need documentation to confirm that. I know I always back click those. Prob because one page sites are usually associated with a long infomercial - usually just trying to sell something.
    You are explaining why you feel that way, kiarafernandes didn't, she just posted a statement without any explanation or data to back it up. That's why I asked.
    Of course, your explanation might not be 100%. I don't backclick just because a site has only 1 page. So that makes our poll 50-50

  20. #20
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy PicnicTutorials's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, California, United States
    Posts
    3,657
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No worries I was just saying my view.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Mentor bronze trophy
    John_Betong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    1,840
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    I was under the impression that bounce rate is a ratio of the number of pages a user views on a particular site. If there is only a single page then the bounce rate will always be 100%
    Learn how to be ready for The New Move to Discourse

    How to make Make Money Now with a *NEW* look

    Be sure to congratulate Patche on earning Member of the Month for July 2014

  22. #22
    SitePoint Evangelist silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, see the Wikipedia definition.
    So the BR doesn't say much about the willingness of the visitor to click on the "inside pages"/tabs/calls to action in a 1 page site.
    - But I've some things about the topic in general.

    The points in the "One Page Websites and Templates: Three Reasons Why I Absolutely Hate This Design Trend" article are (5, not 3!):
    1. One Page Websites Can Derail SEO Efforts
    2. One Page Websites Can Confuse Users
    3. Website Owners Are Reliant on Coders
    4. You Are Not GM and You Are Not Selling Cadillacs in Morocco
    5. Know Who You Are and What You Need

    I should add a number 6:
    • 6. One Page Websites Can Be Not Accessible and Not User Friendly.
      While accessibility for a normal multi-page website is not too difficult, for a heavy scripted 1-pager it can be extremely complicated to make it accessible for all visitors. Apart from that: a one page site has the risk of a big file size for all parts together, slowing down the performance.


    ======
    PicnicTutorial: Here is how I did a one page site edit-your-website with jquery tabs.
    HAWK: For instance I think this one onetreegrill.co.nz looks quite good but it's an example of one that I reckon should be a multi-pager.
    molona: That's a nice one. I'm not that sure that should be a multipager... except for a bit of text, it is kind of empty.
    Let I compare these 2 one-pagers.

    edit-your-website
    1. (Derail SEO Efforts)
      In this case no problem: the site is made script-independent (unobtrusive javascript), everything can be indexed. In case of <noscript> the <iframe> fancyboxes for Testimonials, Contact and Login are leading to indexable separate pages; it's not 100% a 1-pager.
      There is no to much content, and no keywords competition in priority.
    2. (Confuse Users)
      Not in this case: the 1-page is mimicking a multi-page site, everything is clear. No long page, no long scrollbar: the other "pages" are invisible. The transitions are giving no movements or jumping jacks, but smooth faders: good for the eye.
    3. (Reliant on Coders)
      In this case no problem: you are the coder as well as the client.
    4. (You Are Not GM)
      In the cited november 2012 article of smashingmagazine is pointed to the Cadillac 1-page site ats-vs-world.cadillac.com/#!/home. - I note that in the meantime Cadillac has left the 1-pager, and the site is redirected to the multi-pager cadillac.com/ats-luxury-sport-sedan.html#!/home. - "No comment!"
    5. (Know Who You Are)
      In my opinion the "focus on what really matters to you and your website visitor" adage is good translated.
    6. (Accessibility)
      The page is good readable in a text only browser (though the menu-items and the video's don't work, and there are some problems with the forms).
      User Friendliness: easy to navigate. Small page size: Chrome Webdeveloper tool says 268 KB all-in. Fast loading.

    My general conclusion: the mentioned 1-page dangers in the article are for 99% avoided, well done!

    onetreegrill
    1. (Derail SEO Efforts)
      The site is script-dependent and no food for SEO. All items in the Menu/Cuisine tab are invisible if javascript is disabled, and also invisible for Google. So a Google on for instance "Venison restaurant in Auckland" can not point to the One Page Tree Grill website, for the "Wild venison tenderloin" (one of the Entrées) is in an AJAX part, due to the 1-page construction. In this way, lots of search words go lost.
      On the other hand, there are links to 4 pdf's with the menu's. Google can read pdf's. But these pdf's aren't SEO-optimized: the "One Tree Grill Restaurant" header is not text but an image, and nowhere else mentioned as text in the (MS Word to pdf) document. The pdf-filenames (=titles in the browser bar & browser tab) doen't say anything; no address of the restaurant or other important SEO-info, etc. - Besides, if Google finds the Venison in the pdf, the link in the Google search results goes to the pdf only, and not to the site itself. For me: if I have the choice between a restaurant in a pdf-result and a restaurant in a site-link, I take the last. - Anyway an inviting direct link in the pdf to the site is needed; but it's an extra click for the visitor (and extra clicks are losing visitors). And the pdf must have an attractive design before I go on (here: not, a pure text list without images).
      BTW: The direct neighbor of One Tree Grill is also a restaurant with a site: a multi-page site. More old-fashioned, with a simple dropdown menu; they don't have all these SEO difficulties.
    2. (Confuse Users)
      Yes, heavy. Opening the site, I get a huge slider of almost the whole screen size, and no textual information.
      I see captions at the slider, and think "that must be parts/pages of the site, displayed in the slider, which I will see as clicking trough the menu". So in general I don't click them. But now I'm checking the site, and I clicked. Brr, it are no captions but ... a slider inside the slider!!! - I take the "One Tree Grill Video: Take a quick look around One Tree Grill". First thing to see: "Sorry. This video does not exist".
      Then I went to the small triangle under the main slider, and I'm sliding (vertical slider this time) to the "CUISINE" part. The submenu's at the left hand are clear.
      After reading enough, my eye is attracted to the right scrollbar. So there is more on the page > I scroll down and see what the rest is.
      Now I'm curious about the top menu. Ah, well known stuff: no other pages, but auto-scrolling down again (I don't need to see what is between "page" I was and the "page" I want!). And: not only the desired "page" is visible (also the scrollbar and all other content, as mentioned).
      BTW: The word "Menu" in the top menu is 2 times confusing. (1) It is not a menu as webpage menu, but a link to the restaurant menu. It should read at least "Menu's". (2) The "Menu" link is going to the item with "Cuisine" as title.
      BTW-2: Everything here is called a "menu": the "whisky Menu" (DESSERT MENU > LIQUID DESSERTS > WHISKY > "WHISKY MENU") consists of 15 brands, I should be a bit dizzy after this menu.
    3. (Reliant on Coders)
      I'm afraid: yes. If I see the source code, I can make a mistake, but it doesn't look as CMS but as a tailored unique model. Then the restaurant has to go back to the coder for every small change in the (restaurant) menu or something else.
    4. (You Are Not GM)
      See above.
    5. (Know Who You Are)
      The "focus on what really matters to you and your website visitor." adage. Mmm, I wonder whether visitors are waiting for a visual experience as this site. Maybe the restaurant owner is happy with the 1-page design, but I think the visitor has more benefit from a straight forward multi-page website ("What, Where, When").
      The luxurious attractiveness of the restaurant (I suppose that is the desired image) can be given as well in a multi-page site.
    6. (Accessibility)
      Scriptless: the topmenu doesn't work. The Cuisine is empty.
      Text only (CSS disabled): if javascript enabled, the topmenu is clickable, but the items are not visual indicated as clickable links. Big amount of unordered lists of dozens items, without any "skip list" possibility.
      User Friendliness: the points under (2), and too much slider-movement when opening the site; no possibility to control the slider speed or to stop the slider. The same for the marquee's in the "caption" slider.
      File size: there has to be downloaded 4.9MB (!). Online Web Page Speed Report of websiteoptimization: "No Report. The size of this web page (3083972 bytes) has exceeded the maximum size of 3000000 bytes", no wonder. A lot of very big images (good for a minimal distance of 2.5m from the screen ), also big in filesize. Everybody has a fast internet connection?
      BTW: 3 images of the big slider (the chic glass, the wooden wine cabinet and the dish with a delicacy) are not of the restaurant itself, but shutterstock images.

    My general conclusion: here the mentioned 1-page dangers in the article are for 99% true.
    I agree that it could be better a multi-pager, and disagree with "looks quite good " and "That's a nice one". It is quite trendy (for the trend loving insiders in webdesign), but that will not be the target group of the site. I guess the most website visitors (potential restaurant visitors) are not so happy, because of the lack of user friendliness. If they can find the site with Google!

    =======
    Back to molona's main question:
    What about you? do you love them, hate them or think (like myself) that sometimes it is suitable to use a one page website?
    • I don't see the benefits of a one page site. For instance I see no visual difference in an one page site with a constant header/menu and a more page site with the same header/menu. The surplus in loading time for a multi-pager is neglectable: a header image is already cached, and re-rendering of html/css is done in a fraction of a millisec.
    • If I can see it is a 1-pager design (with all the scrolling stuff and so), I hate it.
    • If I cannot see it is a 1-pager, it depends. But the "sometimes it is suitable" is for me "almost never".

    Francky
    ________
    Notes @PicnicTutorial:
    • It seems the edit-your-website.com domain (in <title>, footer and hidden h1) doesn't exist.
    • At arrival, a click on the Video-icon is doing nothing. Maybe you can give it a title "Home/Video", and give it only the animation and click possibility if one of the other "pages" is viewed (and then the animation/click of the other "page" icon can be stopped).
    • The page has The Jumping Page disease.
    • As you ask for confidential data (email address, password; FTP Address, Web Host Username, Web Host Password), I think the page has to be a secured https-page; also the Contact and Login page.

  23. #23
    SitePoint Enthusiast hypernovadesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, articles that spread into many pages or tutorials where you need to click on the next button all the time to see further steps are done on purpose. The webmasters want you to click as many times as possible to increase their stats.

  24. #24
    SitePoint Evangelist silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sure, among the multipagers is also chaff and wheat.

    ___
    (Once I made a kind of tutorial with 80 pages, so 79 clicks to "next". Purposes: not to much steps on 1 page, and 1 page not more content as 2 times screen height at 1024*780px for easy reading.)

  25. #25
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It works better if you first clearly articulate the notions involved.

    "One page websites" as new trend (and wrong terminology) describes AJAX heavy client-side centric websites, where the content is loaded while the user is "staying" on the same address: www.example.com. This type of content delivery Rebecca Gill is against, and for a good reason, since this type of mechanism describes the real new trend: SPAs, and not "one page websites". A different kind of animal.

    Classic websites, where the owner of the website is very concise, where it uses JavaScript just to enhance the UX, not to actively cycle 100 pages worth of content in one page, where the bulk functionality is not downloaded over to the client from the server-side, these are not hurting SEO, they are a natural solution for little, small one webpage content. I mean, what would you do? That's all there is. Nobody's gonna blame you, and certainly not SEO-penalize your small content.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •