SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 33 of 33

Thread: MVC and SEO

  1. #26
    SitePoint Addict webaddictz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kyberfabrikken View Post
    On the other hand, McDonalds serves 47 million customers per day, and I wouldn't take that as evidence of the quality of the meals served.
    I see your point. I can't show you any proof, besides the words of others who very well might be mistaken.Google, Yahoo or Lycos never told me this is a fact, so I guess you're right about not believing it 'till you've seen some kind of hard evidence. However, I chose to believe it because I too have seen the effects.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard Mike Borozdin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh, UK
    Posts
    1,743
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Look, index.php/variable1/value1/variable2/value2 isn't much better than index.php?variable=value1&variable=2value=2 just because such an url is a senceless for an end-user. While index.php/articles/some-interesting-article has much more sence for end-users and for search-engines. And as it was said above it doesn't matter whether you use MVC pattern or not, the key point is your implementation.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy kyberfabrikken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    6,157
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webaddictz View Post
    However, I chose to believe it because I too have seen the effects.
    The thing is, when you're doing SEO, you'd probably be changing multiple parameters at the same time. Since there is an (unknown) span of time from you make a change, till the effects shows, it can be hard to determine exactly what made the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Borozdin View Post
    Look, index.php/variable1/value1/variable2/value2 isn't much better than index.php?variable=value1&variable=2value=2 just because such an url is a senceless for an end-user. While index.php/articles/some-interesting-article has much more sence for end-users and for search-engines.
    Very true, but the thing, which I feel that is grossly overlooked these days, is that some times, a querystring is the most sensible choice. For example, search.php?query=foobar rather than /search/foobar

  4. #29
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Umm...

    > is that some times, a querystring is the most sensible choice.

    But is it? Personally I would disagree with you Kyber... But it depends on the purpose of the URL I suppose. I mean, is it the public face of a website or an administrative application. If the latter (application) which the public doesn't see I suppose there is little difference.

    Someone else though, thinks the query string is bad as well,

    http://lukewelling.com/2007/07/31/sh...e-more-secure/

  5. #30
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I read some where and I think it might have been webmasterworld that query strings in href's where not actually in the w3c spec. It was only because of dynamic web languages that people started usng query strings in href's.

    GET and POST methods are both generated when submitting forms. People just got used to using the GET method in PHP because its a global variable and easy to access. If you try to validate '&' in a html validator it comes up with errors telling you to use '&'.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy kyberfabrikken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    6,157
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Livingston View Post
    But is it? Personally I would disagree with you Kyber... But it depends on the purpose of the URL I suppose. I mean, is it the public face of a website or an administrative application. If the latter (application) which the public doesn't see I suppose there is little difference.
    I think you missed my point. I didn't say there was little difference. I said that querystring is sometimes preferable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Livingston View Post
    Someone else though, thinks the query string is bad as well,

    http://lukewelling.com/2007/07/31/sh...e-more-secure/
    I read the post, and he doesn't say that you should replace querystring with location. He says that URL's which are hard to read are worse than URL's which are easy to read. I agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by blueyon View Post
    If you try to validate '&' in a html validator it comes up with errors telling you to use '&'.
    That's because & has a special meaning in HTML. When you embed a URL in HTML, you must escape characters with special meaning. That's a limitation of HTML, and has nothing to do with URL's.

    Quote Originally Posted by blueyon View Post
    I read some where and I think it might have been webmasterworld that query strings in href's where not actually in the w3c spec. It was only because of dynamic web languages that people started usng query strings in href's.
    There are a number of RFC's describing URL's. In RFC1630 it's clearly stated that:
    SCHEME

    Within the URI of a object, the first element is the name of the
    scheme, separated from the rest of the object by a colon.

    PATH

    The rest of the URI follows the colon in a format depending on the
    scheme. The path is interpreted in a manner dependent on the
    protocol being used. However, when it contains slashes, these
    must imply a hierarchical structure.
    This is the important issue; If you use a path-like syntax, you imply a hierarchy, while a querystring is context free. If the information, you wish to represent, can indeed be understood as part of a hierarchy, then you can use the location to convey it, but if it's not part of the hierarchy, then the querystring is appropriate.

    There are lots of examples of URL's where parts - or all - of the querystring is better expressed as part of the location, but it's not always the case.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard stereofrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    4,324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Although I agree in principle, I wonder to see a realistic example on where query string is better. "search.php?query=foobar" is disputable because it implies the wrong semantic: "search" is something we as programmers know about, for end users it's rather "list of documents that contain specific keyword(s)", that is "/articles/keywords/foobar" or similar.

  8. #33
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What's rewarded by search engines? Clear and concise content provided in an easier manor, with no tricks right?

    What looks trickier?

    /index.php?page=i\'mawesome&id=4&name=mark

    or

    /imawesome/4/mark/

    All in all it won't matter for very much longer. Most spiders are adapting to Google's methods. There was a point in time where I would 100% agree that dynamic urls would not be indexed. For the most part, they won't. But right now Google is the monopoly of internet searching - so as long as google is crawling your site you are on the biggest search engine of them all.

    Google will crawl these types of urls, but last I heard it was 2-3 variables in.

    I'd much rather have clean cut urls, they are easier to read, easier to understand, easier to communicate, .... can't think of anything else .
    Mark A. Drake
    - Mark A. Drake
    - OnSlaught


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
  •