Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs
От | Marti Raudsepp |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABRT9RA+ut5JvBqd6oSX9KJb0DEJcrTnvmzACYpZ6iiSfCfx+g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on
www.postgresql.org/docs
Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs |
Список | pgsql-www |
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Are we using the rel="canonical" suggestion in our web docs now? Apparently not. I looked into this and I'm not 100% certain we should do it. But if we decide so, I'm willing to code up a patch. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596 states: ==== 8< ==== The target (canonical) IRI MUST identify content that is either duplicative or a superset of the content atthe context (referring) IRI. Authors who declare the canonical link relation ought to anticipate that applications suchas search engines can: o Index content only from the target IRI (i.e., content from the context IRIs will be likely disregarded as duplicative). o Consolidate IRI properties, such as link popularity, to the target IRI. o Display the target IRI as the representative IRI. ==== 8< ==== We certainly want property 2, but property 1 suggests that older versions of docs are dropped from search engines altogether. It's not clear whether they are that strict in reality -- does anyone know? This would not be a problem if we also retained notes about earlier supported versions in the current version, which would make our latest version a "superset" of earlier ones. But I believe we very rarely remove material from docs, so I believe the upsides outweigh the cons. ---- Another question is whether we should make "interactive" point to "static" -- again, actually the interactive one is the superset, since static doesn't include user comments. But do we care about search engines indexing comments anyway? They're not present in sitemap.xml either and I've never landed on the interactive version when coming from Google. My proposal: 1. Doc pages that are *older* than current, and exist in the current version have canonical URL /docs/current/static/pagename.html 2. If it doesn't exist in current, we link to the last version that includes this page, like /docs/8.4/static/install-win32.html 3. Newer versions (devel/beta) should perhaps point to itself and not /current/? This would make new features googleable for testers. The doc links use rel=nofollow when linking to them, so they're already ranked lower by search engines. It appears there are already lots of places that hardcode the http://www.postgresql.org/ URL, so it makes sense to use absolute URLs for canonical too? Did I miss anything? Regards, Marti
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: