Jacob, Do you have some example sites? I have still found this to be a problem. Are you submitting each dynamic page or are the seach engines finding them?
Thanks! Kevin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jacob Cameron Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Search Engine Friendly URLs I personally think that it has not been an issue this century, and find the effort an exercise in futility. I do a lot of SEO and have clients with top 3 ranking using Fusebox style sites on MSN, Google, and Yahoo. Jacob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jake Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 6:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Search Engine Friendly URLs Thanks for the history. That puts all the pieces together I've heard discussion about. So do you think it's really that big of a deal these days to make the /index.cfm/action/something syntax? Or is it just a legacy thing that people hold onto more for nostalgia than for necessity? Jake Daniel Elmore wrote: >The term "search engine safe" was coined in the early search engine >days because spiders would skip links with &'s and ?'s when indexing your site. >The reason, AFAIK, was because the search engines didn't want to store >pages with dynamic content. Thinking it would degrade the accuracy of >keyword searches. This became a ridiculous idea as the web matured. >Many static pages are generated dynamically and most pages that use >query strings are actually creating "static" content. A link to a >product description page for example. So to get around this people started writing links like so: >http://www.mysite.com/index.cfm/action/something > >and then using a filter to convert the link. This fooled the spiders >into thinking it's a link to a page with static content. There are >plenty of web filters for the various middleware languages that allow >your web server to translate that url into the actual url. > >Things have slowly changed though and the spider bots are starting to >allow query strings with more and more attributes. So the value of the >web filters and the work involved to code your links like that is degrading rapidly. > >So in a nutshell, (I just realized that this tangent has not specially >answered your question) a search engine safe URL is constituted by >having a URL with no query string syntax (& and = and &). > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Jake >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 2:07 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Search Engine Friendly URLs > >All, > >What is the consensus on what constitutes a "search engine safe" URL? >Would something like: > >www.mysite.com/index.cfm?action=something > >or > >www.mysite.com/index.cfm?action=something&ID=190 > >be SE safe? > >Jake > >---------------------------------------------------------- >To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: > http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberUnsubscribe.cfm >To subscribe: > http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberRegistration.cfm > > > >---------------------------------------------------------- >To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To unsubscribe: > http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberUnsubscribe.cfm >To subscribe: > http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberRegistration.cfm > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberUnsubscribe.cfm To subscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberRegistration.cfm ---------------------------------------------------------- To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberUnsubscribe.cfm To subscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberRegistration.cfm ---------------------------------------------------------- To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberUnsubscribe.cfm To subscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org/form_MemberRegistration.cfm
