Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9xck-0003kM-Cc for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:06:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9xcj-0003KQ-OF for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:06:45 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9xch-0003KH-U2 for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:06:43 +0000 Received: from cronos.madness.at ([2a02:16a8:dc41::10]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9xcY-000136-Cy for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:06:42 +0000 Received: from mastermind.kaltenbrunner.cc ([2001:470:7a2d::22]) by cronos.madness.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9xcR-0003OM-CX; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:06:29 +0100 Message-ID: <54B13FF0.8000604@kaltenbrunner.cc> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:06:24 +0100 From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marti Raudsepp CC: Bruce Momjian , Antony , PostgreSQL www , Magnus Hagander Subject: Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs References: <04E4F5A6-6526-4DDC-A9E5-2991E3B2ED83@cantoute.com> <20140827150012.GM14956@momjian.us> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-www Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org On 10/07/2014 06:46 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Bruce Momjian 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 (pgsql-www@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www