SitePoint Sponsor |
|
User Tag List
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Thread: Google ban on ID
-
Oct 10, 2006, 12:07 #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 448
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Google ban on ID
I heard there is a Google ban on SEO and using URL's like http://www.company.com/product.aspx?id=1
Is this true? And if so, how do I approach doing something similar that is SEO compatible with Google? Thanks.
-
Oct 10, 2006, 12:29 #2
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- northern MI
- Posts
- 1,392
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Think about it... why would Google ban a url like that
Where did you hear it?
-
Oct 10, 2006, 12:35 #3
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 448
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Check this link out:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/googlebot-keep-out/
Apparently Googlebot has discouraged using "id" in querystrings for sometime. Weird.
So my question is how would you do indexing any other way?
-
Oct 10, 2006, 12:46 #4
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- northern MI
- Posts
- 1,392
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Nice link. But if you read it closely you'll see that Matt says it used to be true, but he's not sure what the status is now.
This URL example might clear things up:
-It's a Google page
-It contains ID in the url string
-The page is cached by the Google search engine
I remember having troubles getting pages with MANY variables set in the url. Switched to SE friendly url's and never looked back.
-
Oct 10, 2006, 13:21 #5
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Portugal, Lisboa
- Posts
- 947
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
As far as I know google doesn't cache pages with "random" query string values, like using session key in the url. So has long your urls are "static" you will not have problems.
I helped developing some websites that used a random generated "security-key" for almost every request in the url and only the home page shows up in google results. Smart thing I say!!
off-topic: Even funnier is that you could inject SQL by appending SQL statements to that query string value.
cheers,
ruiCiao, Rui...
-
Oct 10, 2006, 13:37 #6
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Portugal, Lisboa
- Posts
- 947
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
I looked for webpages of the websites I metioned above and some them return more than the home page in results.
But most links are broken because the key is not valid any more.
cheers,
ruiCiao, Rui...
-
Oct 10, 2006, 14:23 #7
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 10,653
- Mentioned
- 4 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
First, URLs are a bit of a red herring. Backlinking and age of site probably have alot more to do with search ranking than urls. Even within the site, the text you use for internal links probably has more bearing that query strings.
In any case, I nearly solely use ?id= in a few significant public sites and they definitely get deeply spidered on a regular basis. Now, having many variables in an uber long URL might well hurt you, but if you can keep it to one or two query string parameters you should be just fine.
Then again, I have a Mambo site running without URL rewriting and it is also getting decent search engine play.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 04:26 #8
If you're worried about querystrings in URL's, just use URL rewriting. It's easy to implement, user friendly, and takes care of this (possible) issue in one foul swoop.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 04:49 #9
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 448
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Yes I read about remapping in the Web.config file last night. Thanks for everyones help here.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 06:01 #10
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Slave I
- Posts
- 23,424
- Mentioned
- 2 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 1 Thread(s)
Google will limit the number of pages it indexes with id= in the query string. If you have a few pages with it you're fine. But if you have a lot you'll need to remove it if you want to get them all indexed.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 06:05 #11
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 10,653
- Mentioned
- 4 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Define alot--I definitely have had a couple of hundred indexed numerous times.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 06:11 #12
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Slave I
- Posts
- 23,424
- Mentioned
- 2 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 1 Thread(s)
My experience says thousands. Your mileage may vary.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 06:24 #13
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Posts
- 10,653
- Mentioned
- 4 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Gotcha. So it really is only stopping at things like, say, messageboards, rather than content sites.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 07:14 #14
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Slave I
- Posts
- 23,424
- Mentioned
- 2 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 1 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by wwb_99
-
Oct 11, 2006, 17:56 #15
Originally Posted by Wayward780
NumaNuma.com - Show us your funny side.
-
Oct 11, 2006, 18:34 #16
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Minnesota
- Posts
- 134
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Originally Posted by stymiee
My Blog Yakiji | Handmade Jewelry
-
Oct 12, 2006, 07:07 #17
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- northern MI
- Posts
- 1,392
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
The same with the Google Answers link I posted above. Google uses ID themselves and caches thousands of urls for that website alone.
-
Oct 25, 2006, 12:07 #18
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- northern MI
- Posts
- 1,392
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Vanessa Fox was so kind to clearify this issue today in the Google Webmaster Blog. It should put an end to some of the speculation.
Basically she's saying:
-Don't worry about using "&id="
-Be careful about using "a large number of parameters"
-Use search engine friendly URL's if you can
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...uidelines.html
Posted by Vanessa Fox
10/25/2006 07:41:00 AM
As the web continues to change and evolve, our algorithms change right along with it. Recently, as a result of one of those algorithmic changes, we've modified our webmaster guidelines. Previously, these stated:
Don't use "&id=" as a parameter in your URLs, as we don't include these pages in our index.
However, we've recently removed that technical guideline, and now index URLs that contain that parameter. So if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is. Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.
-
Oct 25, 2006, 12:13 #19
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Slave I
- Posts
- 23,424
- Mentioned
- 2 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 1 Thread(s)
Glad to see they've updated that page. Some of the information was so stale. Hopefully that will clear things up for the newbies who read it and take every word literally.
-
Oct 27, 2006, 09:01 #20
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Minnesota
- Posts
- 134
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Well done, JunJun. I read the same post and my first reaction was to revisit this thread.
My Blog Yakiji | Handmade Jewelry
Bookmarks