Обсуждение: SEO
Anyone know anything about search engine optimization for our documentation? I get mixed, random, and outdated results for some elementary Google searches: - postgresql create table gives as #1 the PG 8.1 references page of CREATE TABLE and as #2 the PG 8.2 references page of CREATE TABLE AS - postgresql setval gives as #1 a link into the PG 7.3 static documentation and as #2 a link into the 7.4 interactive documentation - postgresql SQL tutorial leads to 8.0 and 7.4 documentation The main problem appears to be that it can't distinguish the various versions.
On 9/4/09 7:34 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Anyone know anything about search engine optimization for our > documentation? I get mixed, random, and outdated results for some > elementary Google searches: Unfortunately, the only people I know to ask are spammers. Will check Foundations. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com
>> Anyone know anything about search engine optimization for our >> documentation? I get mixed, random, and outdated results for some >> elementary Google searches: here?: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156412 -- Mike Ellsworth
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 19:41, Mike Ellsworth<younicycle@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Anyone know anything about search engine optimization for our >>> documentation? I get mixed, random, and outdated results for some >>> elementary Google searches: > > here?: > > http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156412 But we don't want to remove the old content, I think. It's still relevant for the old versions. So if you search for "something" plus "7.4", we want a hit. But if you just search for "something", you get /current/. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 9/4/09 7:34 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Anyone know anything about search engine optimization for our > documentation? I get mixed, random, and outdated results for some > elementary Google searches: Actually, we can hardly blame Google for this; our own internal site search returns hits on old docs ahead of current ones, often as not. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com
On Sep 4, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Anyone know anything about search engine optimization for our >> documentation? I get mixed, random, and outdated results for some >> elementary Google searches: > > Actually, we can hardly blame Google for this; our own internal site > search returns hits on old docs ahead of current ones, often as not. We should encourage those who link to the docs to always use the / current/ URI, rather than a versioned URI. That will help, I think. Best, David
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > But we don't want to remove the old content, I think. It's still > relevant for the old versions. So if you search for "something" plus > "7.4", we want a hit. But if you just search for "something", you get > /current/. You can create a sitemap and define priorities for pages. It's just a simple XML file with the list of pages and metadata for each page. See http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156184 http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34657 -- Guillaume
Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> But we don't want to remove the old content, I think. It's still >> relevant for the old versions. So if you search for "something" plus >> "7.4", we want a hit. But if you just search for "something", you get >> /current/. > > You can create a sitemap and define priorities for pages. It's just a > simple XML file with the list of pages and metadata for each page. > > See > http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156184 > http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34657 I was about to say "we already have that": http://www.postgresql.org/sitemap.xml but it looks like the script generating that is broken somehow... Stefan
David E. Wheeler wrote: > We should encourage those who link to the docs to always use the > /current/ URI, rather than a versioned URI. That will help, I think. If each of the old docs pages linked to the corresponding current page (where one exists), I imagine google "pagerank" points would "flow" to the current pages. Would that be a practical thing to try?
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 22:33, Stefan Kaltenbrunner<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > Guillaume Smet wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> But we don't want to remove the old content, I think. It's still >>> relevant for the old versions. So if you search for "something" plus >>> "7.4", we want a hit. But if you just search for "something", you get >>> /current/. >> >> You can create a sitemap and define priorities for pages. It's just a >> simple XML file with the list of pages and metadata for each page. >> >> See >> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156184 >> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34657 > > I was about to say "we already have that": > > http://www.postgresql.org/sitemap.xml > > but it looks like the script generating that is broken somehow... That's a static file, not a script :-( I've updated it. And yes, we should probably turn that into a script :-) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:41, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 22:33, Stefan > Kaltenbrunner<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: >> Guillaume Smet wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> But we don't want to remove the old content, I think. It's still >>>> relevant for the old versions. So if you search for "something" plus >>>> "7.4", we want a hit. But if you just search for "something", you get >>>> /current/. >>> >>> You can create a sitemap and define priorities for pages. It's just a >>> simple XML file with the list of pages and metadata for each page. >>> >>> See >>> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156184 >>> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34657 >> >> I was about to say "we already have that": >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/sitemap.xml >> >> but it looks like the script generating that is broken somehow... > > That's a static file, not a script :-( > > I've updated it. And yes, we should probably turn that into a script :-) Hmm, it would be good if somebody who knows more about it than me could confirm this, but it looks like the sitemap needs to contain *every URL in the docs* to be effective. The one we have now just contains the root path of each version, but it seems it doesn't apply to subpages? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Hmm, it would be good if somebody who knows more about it than me > could confirm this, but it looks like the sitemap needs to contain > *every URL in the docs* to be effective. The one we have now just > contains the root path of each version, but it seems it doesn't apply > to subpages? That's what the customer we have who knows SEO very well does: they even generate several sitemaps as they have too much pages for one sitemap. Note that the google webmaster tools let you upload sitemaps directly so that you can check they are well formed and taken into account. -- Guillaume
Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> Hmm, it would be good if somebody who knows more about it than me >> could confirm this, but it looks like the sitemap needs to contain >> *every URL in the docs* to be effective. The one we have now just >> contains the root path of each version, but it seems it doesn't apply >> to subpages? > > That's what the customer we have who knows SEO very well does: they > even generate several sitemaps as they have too much pages for one > sitemap. so we would have to include all urls in the docs to make it effective? > > Note that the google webmaster tools let you upload sitemaps directly > so that you can check they are well formed and taken into account. well it is well formed though I guess google cannot magically guess on what we really want to get as a result :) Stefan
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > so we would have to include all urls in the docs to make it effective? That's what our customer does and AFAICS it's required. -- Guillaume