public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Marti Raudsepp <[email protected]>
To: 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: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:46:52 +0300
Message-ID: <CABRT9RA+ut5JvBqd6oSX9KJb0DEJcrTnvmzACYpZ6iiSfCfx+g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-www>
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.
----
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
--
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) latest in thread
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]
Subject: Re: [DOCS] suggestion about SEO on www.postgresql.org/docs
In-Reply-To: <CABRT9RA+ut5JvBqd6oSX9KJb0DEJcrTnvmzACYpZ6iiSfCfx+g@mail.gmail.com>
* 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