I am building a forum site where the post is retrieved on the same page as the listing via AJAX. When a new post is shown, the URI fragment is changed (ex: .php#1_This-is-the-first-post). Also the title and meta tags are changed.
My question is this. I have read that search engines aren't able to use #these-words. So therefore, my entire site won't be able to be indexed (as it will look like one page).
What can i do to get around this, or at least make my sub-pages be able to get indexed?
NOTE: I have built almost all of the site, so radically changes would be hard. SEO is my weakest geek-skill.
Add non-AJAX versions of every page, and link to them from your popups as "permalinks" (or whatever you want to call them). Not only aren't your pages available to search engines, they can't be bookmarked or emailed to friends. I recently worked with some designers on a site and talked them out of using an AJAX-only design. They ended up putting article "teasers" in popups and making users go to a page with a bookmarkable URL to read the complete texts.
As difficult as it may be, the "best" answer may be to re-architect your site to use the hash tag URL scheme more sparingly
Short of that, I'd suggest the following:
Create an alternative, non-hash based URL scheme. This is a must.
Create a site-map that allows search engines to find your existing pages through the new URL scheme.
Slowly port your site over. You might consider adding these deeper links on the page, or encourage users to share those links instead of the hash-based ones, etc.
Hope this helps!
Related
I have developed a website using angularjs and web api.
The problem is that the ajax rendered content is not crawable by google. And no one can find the website using google search.
After reading many articles regarding this issue, including:
This one with all links of explanation going out,
Google ajax crawling protocol, and also stack over flow question, I couldn't find the proper solution. Those that mention asp.net solutions, are talking about mvc, and I need only the simple REST by web api, other articles are not talking about asp.net.
Is there any simple explanation?
I'm the one who asked this same question long ago, so I will answer from my experience:
Firstly, if all your content are accessible via unique URIs (including the hashbang if you use it), modern search engines should index it just fine. In fact Google can index javascript generated content now. You can try that via the Google Webmaster tool and see how your site is indexed.
Secondly, there are libraries that help you to serve parsed content to search engines if you need to, but in my case I didn't bother much with it since Google is indexing js nicely.
I've seen others ask this question, and maybe I'm missing something or this is outdated, but I don't see why AngularJS needs to be an issue with SEO.
Say you have a landing page and it has a bunch of links. Assuming you're using html5 mode in AngularJS (and I'm not sure that's 100% necessary) and something like ng-route then the links on the landing page can work both as "angular" (JavaScript) links and "old school" (full page load) links.
If you're a human user you can click a link and it will do angular magic and adjust the content without loading the full page. Ok, all fine.
But if you instead copy the link and paste it in a new tab or new browser, it will still work - assuming you've set up routes correctly.
I'm not an SEO expert by any stretch of the imagination, but as I understand it, having links that load pages and having those pages have real and useful content is the core of SEO, and done this way, AngularJS should work fine. The key thing to check is if you copy and paste the link (not just click it) that it works.
I'm working on a Wordpress site which displays posts through a JSON api and AngularJS. I render all post thumbnails on a page and when one is clicked the post is rendered in an overlay on the same page. The post url becomes something like mysite.com/#!/post-name.
Here's the development page http://givakt.kund.griffel.se/blogg-jobb/
Since everything is fetched by AJAX calls none of this info is available to search engines. I have tried to figure out a good approach to make it indexable but it's all very new ground to me.
Would it be possible to get content from or redirect the search engine to a php-rendered (wordpress) page, say like mysite.com/post-name, while thinking it's getting the correct content at mysite.com/#!/post-name. Is it even allowed or even frowned upon? The actual content would of course be as identical as possible at both sources.
Not sure if this is legit approach however, or if it could even work. Is there any other easier or preferred approach that I'm missing?
BTW, I have read http://www.yearofmoo.com/2012/11/angularjs-and-seo.html and how to use PhantomJS and so on to provide indexable pages. So what I'm basically asking is if there's a way to utilize wordpress pages to serve the content instead.
I'm not exactly sure how to do it in terms of technicalities, but Google is usually not happy if you show one version of the page to search engines and something else to actually visitors. It's called cloaking. Just keep it in mind.
We have web applications elgifto.com, roadbrake.com in which we used AJAX at many places, especially to update major portions of a page. All the important functionality of elgifto.com was implemented using AJAX. Now we realize a few issues due to AJAX implementation.
All the content implemented using
AJAX is not available to the SEO
bots and it is hurting the page rank
of our site.
Users will not be able to bookmark
some of the pages as they are always
available through AJAX.
When we want to direct the user from
one page through an anchor link to
another page having AJAX, we find it
difficult.
So now we are thinking of removing AJAX for these pages and use it only for small functionality such as something similar to marking a question as favorite in SO. So before going ahead and removing, we want to know expert's opinion on this. Thanks.
The problem is not "AJAX" per se, but your implementation of it. Just as a for instance, you can fix the 'bookmark' problem like google maps does it: provide a generated link for each state of your webapp.
SEO can befixed by supplying various of these state-links to the crawlers, either organically trough links in your site, or by supplying a list (sitemap).
If you implement 2, you can fix 1 and 3 with those links.
In the end you must figure out if the effort is worth it, and if you are not overusing AJAX ofcourse, but the statements you've made are not set in stone at all.
I'm costantly developing ajax based websites, with no problems for SEO at all. You just have to use it in the best possible way.
For example, I have a website with normal links pointing to normal webpages (PHP pages), this for normal navigation if a user doesn't have JS enabled. But if a user has JS enabled, a script will change the links behavior, only fetching the content of the page needed.
This way you still have phisycal separated webpages with all their content, which will be indexed as normal.
I've played around with Google Sitemaps on a couple sites. The lastmod, changefreq, and priority parameters are pretty cool in theory. But in practice I haven't seen these parameters affect much.
And most of my sites don't have a Google Sitemap and that has worked out fine. Google still crawls the site and finds all of my pages. The old meta robot and robots.txt mechanisms still work when you don't want a page (or directory) to be indexed. And I just leave every other page alone and as long as there's a link to it Google will find it.
So what reasons have you found to write a Google Sitemap? Is it worth it?
From the FAQ:
Sitemaps are particularly helpful if:
Your site has dynamic content.
Your site has pages that aren't easily
discovered by Googlebot during the
crawl process—for example, pages
featuring rich AJAX or images.
Your site is new and has few links to it.
(Googlebot crawls the web by
following links from one page to
another, so if your site isn't well
linked, it may be hard for us to
discover it.)
Your site has a large
archive of content pages that are not
well linked to each other, or are not
linked at all.
It also allows you to provide more granular information to Google about the relative importance of pages in your site and how often the spider should come back. And, as mentioned above, if Google deems your site important enough to show sublinks under in the search results, you can control what appears via sitemap.
I believe the "special links" in search results are generated from the google sitemap.
What do I mean by "special link"? Search for "apache", below the first result (Apache software foundation) there are two columns of links ("Apache Server", "Tomcat", "FAQ").
I guess it helps Google to prioritize their crawl? But in practice I was involved in a project where we used the gzip-ed large version of it where it helped massively. And AFAIK there is a nice integration with webmaster tools as well.
I am also curious about the topic, but does it cost anything to generate a sitemap?
In theory, anything that costs nothing and may have a potential gain, even if very small or very remote, can be defined as "worth it".
In addition, Google says: "Tell us about your pages with Sitemaps: which ones are the most important to you and how often they change. You can also let us know how you would like the URLs we index to appear." (Webmaster Tools)
I don't think that the bold statement above is possible with the traditional mechanisms that search engines use to discover URLs.
We have members-only paid content that is frequently copied and republished without our permission.
We are trying to ‘watermark’ our content by including each customer’s user id in a fake css class, for example <p class='userid_1234'> (except not so obivous, of course :), that would help us track the source of the copying, and then we place that class somewhere in the article body.
The problem is, by including user-specific information into an article, it makes it so that the article content is ineligible for caching because it is now unique to each user.
This bumps the page load time from ~.8ms to ~2.5sec for each article page view.
Does anyone know of any watermarking strategies that can still be used with caching?
Alternatively, what can be done to speed up database access? ( ha, ha, that there’s just a tiny topic i’m sure.. )
We're using the CMS Expression Engine, but I'd like to hear about any strategies. They don't have to be EE-specific.
If you're talking about images then you could use PHP to add a watermark to the images.
How can I add an image onto an image in PHP like a watermark
its a tool to help track down the lazy copiers who just copy the source code as-is. this is not preventative, nor is it a deterrent. – Ian 12 hours ago
Going by your above comment you are happy with users copying your content, just not without the formatting etc. So what you could do is provide the users an embed type of source code for that particular content just like YouTube does with videos. Into that embed source code you could add your own links back to your site, utilize your own CSS etc.
That way you can still allow the members to use the content but it will always come out the way you intended it with links back to your site.
Thanks
You could always cache a version that uses a special string, like #!username!#, and then later fill it in with PHP based on which user is viewing it.
Another way I believe is to switch from caching on the server to instead let the browser cache it locally for a little. That way it is only cached per user, and it reduces the calls to your database. Because an article is pretty static, you could just let the local computer cache it, and pull in comments via javascript.
This last one is probably not one you are really looking for, but I'm gonna come out and say it anyway. You could not treat your users like thieves, and instead treat the thieves as thieves. Go to the person hosting the servers your content is on and send them an email telling them copyrighted premium content is being hosted on their servers without your permission. You can even automate that process.
How to find out what sites are posting your content? Put a link in the body content to your site, and do a Google Search/Blog Search for articles linking to that site. To automate it, use Google Blog Search because it offers RSS feeds. Any one that has a link back to your site could go into a database with a link to the page, someone could look at it, and if it is the entire article, go do a Whois and send them an email.
What makes you think adding css to something is going to stop people from copying it without that CSS? It's more likely that they are just coping the source of the content you are showing them and ignoring all the styling around it. For example, I use tamper data to look at all HTTP requests made by Firefox, if I can see it on the page, I can see it in the logs. Even with all the "protection" some sites try to put in place, they generally will never work. I can grab what I want, without using any screen capture/recording.
If you were serving flv's, for example, I would easily be able to grab the source of that even if you overlayed it with some CSS. I think the best approach would be to get the sites publishing your premium content and ask them to remove it. It's either that or watermark the actual content on the fly while sending it to the browser.