Thanks that clears things up a lot. I'll change them all to #!. I knew that if I used ? the user would need page refreshes, but this would only have been seen if the user has javascript disabled. I figured I could possibly use the search-engine crawlable version also has a "javascriptless" version of the site. I guess I can still do that..maybe if I use "#!" for the links when "_escaped_fragment_" is in the url, and "?" if it isn't, but javascript is disabled. (If JavaScript is enabled, ?'s can be changed to "#s" as long as _escaped_fragment_ isn't there). I think that will work.
I certainly dont want any crawlers treating the site as separate, as page-for-page the content will be the same. On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, Katharina Probst <kpro...@google.com> wrote: > That's right - you'll want #!. > > You don't want to use _escaped_fragment_ because that's just meant as a > temporary URL between the crawler and your site, not for the user (remember > that if your user would click on _escaped_fragment_, they'll get a rendered > snapshot, not a functioning JavaScript page, so none of the buttons etc > would be enabled). > > If you use ?, you'll always have to do a full reload of the page, rather > than with # or #!, in which case you can use XHRs (maybe GWT RPC in your > case) to reload only part of the page, which can make for a much better user > experience. > > If you use #, then the crawler won't interpret is as a JavaScript URL in the > scheme, which means it won't ask you for the _escaped_fragment_ version and > thus won't index your content. (all it'll see is some <script src ... tag, > not very useful). You also don't want # and #! versions of the same URL with > the same content floating around - unless you make sure the crawler knows > they're the same, the crawler could treat them as separate, which can't be > good for your search results. > > kathrin > > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:55 AM, RPB <robbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I always use the "#!meep" syntax, which when the google crawler sees > > it interprets as ?_escape_fragment. I seem to recall reading in the > > google documentation that this is the correct way to do it. > > > -Rob > > > On Jul 17, 8:12 pm, darkflame <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for both your help I'm almost there now. > > > The $param= $_GET['_escaped_fragment_']; worked fine, now the rest of > > > my php works. > > > > One other query, however; What should the links generated by this php > > > file return? > > > If my normal code set history to something like "#meep" (which would > > > now be "#!meep") should the static page have that link set to "#meep" > > > "#!meep" "?meep" or even "?_escape_fragment_" > > > > I assume I could use #! that googles crawler would automatically > > > change to "?_escape_fragment_" but wouldn't it be better to give it > > > directly? or would that not associate the links correctly? Of course, > > > if I stuck to just using ? then it would make the site browsable for > > > people with JavaScript turned of too. > > > > -Thomas > > > > On Jul 14, 10:05 am, RPB <robbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi darkflame, > > > > > Not sure I fully understand your second question, but you should be > > > > able to just use $param= $_GET['_escaped_fragment_']; and then process > > > > the code as normal. > > > > Also, the 'Fetch with googlebot' tool in Webmaster tools is very > > > > helpful, showing you exactly what google will actually be crawling. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Robwww.yournextread.com > > > > > On Jul 11, 12:07 am, darkflame <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > a) As my server doesn't support server-side java, I'll be using php > > to > > > > > generate the static/snapshot pages. How close do they have to be to > > > > > the proper/GWT ones? Is it good enough if the text and links are > > > > > exactly same....but not the images/layout? I dont want to be accused > > > > > of spoofing, but replicating the layout exact will prove a lot of > > > > > work. > > > > > > b) Is there an easy way to parse the new urls? I used to use just GET > > > > > in PHP to retrieve each expected key/value, but this doesnt work now > > > > > that _escaped_fragment_ has been added at the start. Is there a > > > > > recommended method? or do I just code my own parser? > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > > To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs > > cr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
