search

asah / footprint2009dev

original dev repo for AllForGood.org
http://AllForGood.org/
0 stars 1 forks source link

SEO concerns #263

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
A couple of things we should amend, in the timeframe that Karen puts forth.

1. The page titles are all the same.
2. The URLs for search queries look like, well, URLs for search queries.
For at least the canned searches (e.g. park, education, etc.) we should
have a URL that look something like afg.org/service/parks with a query
string appended after the URL for the location-based modifier (zip,
presumably.)
3. URLs don't match H1s.
4. Activity pages can be obfuscated with numerical values (because they are
less important from a page rank perspective), but it will be easier for
users if it looks like afg.org/profile/name. This can be modified by page
state, such that is looks like afg.org/profile/name/friends or /activity or
/events.
5. The footer links are well-constructed.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

Please provide any additional information below.
This is part of other SEO tactics such as footer links, but this covers the
main concerns as we optimize the site components for crawling.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by tya...@gmail.com on 17 May 2009 at 5:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Clarification on #1: the page titles should all be different, and in the best
situation, would map to the H1.

Original comment by tya...@gmail.com on 17 May 2009 at 5:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by kar...@gmail.com on 18 May 2009 at 10:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by adam.sah on 19 May 2009 at 6:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Given our heavy usage of ajax, and no degradation, our SEO is brutal. Just have 
a
look at the site through lynx (http://lynx.isc.org/) to get an idea of what a 
crawler
sees. At the moment, no crawler can get past the main page.
I think there is a lot of work involved in making the site degrade properly 
before
the 5 points above become really relevant.

Original comment by oansa...@gmail.com on 19 May 2009 at 9:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
OK. Moving to 1.5 since it sounds like a big fix, but raising priority. We 
should 
improve this for the June launch.

Original comment by kar...@gmail.com on 20 May 2009 at 5:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Is this still a goal for 1.5?  It looks like adding proper degradation will 
take longer 
than we have left for this release.

Original comment by ehysen on 10 Jun 2009 at 2:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
these are still important, but moving out from 1.5 i.e. super nice to have
for 1.5 but not necessarily realistic

Original comment by adam.sah on 11 Jun 2009 at 6:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by adam.sah on 28 Jun 2009 at 4:25