public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email protected]>
To: Marti Raudsepp <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Antony <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL www <[email protected]>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:06:24 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABRT9RA+ut5JvBqd6oSX9KJb0DEJcrTnvmzACYpZ6iiSfCfx+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CABRT9RA+ut5JvBqd6oSX9KJb0DEJcrTnvmzACYpZ6iiSfCfx+g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-www>
On 10/07/2014 06:46 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 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 at the context (referring)
> IRI. Authors who declare the canonical link relation ought to
> anticipate that applications such as 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.
I'm not sure how search engines really behave here - dont we have any
SEO experts on the list who can shed some light on this?
>
> ----
> 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?
I would actually strongly prefer to _NOT_ use even more absolute URLs on
the website for multiple reasons, one is that it will make moving the
website to https-only more difficult and the other one is that it makes
playing with your own copy of it (running under a different url) a pain.
I actually did a round of cleanups the other day (mostly on the
presskit) to remove some of the hardcoded urls.
Stefan
--
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www
view thread (6+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox