4 ms·
Yeah, the links in the wild are the problem. Users have a habit of copying URLs from the URL bar, unfortunately. I think Google could have done this better; th
by wanderr 16y ago
Yeah, the links in the wild are the problem. Users have a habit of copying URLs from the URL bar, unfortunately.
I think Google could have done this better; they could have made it so all ajax URLs are crawlable (standard robots rules apply) as long as your site opts in, then you'd only have to support pretty URLs, something you probably have to do anyway.
For example, now twitter needs to support twitter.com/#!/ev and twitter.com/ev and twitter.com/?_escaped_fragment_=ev
- aw3c2 16y agoUsers have a habit of copying URLs from the URL bar, unfortunately. How else are people supposed to bookmark or share an URL in your opinion?
- wanderr 16y agoThat was a joke. Our site and many others have explicit ways to get a non-ajax URL for sharing, but it is of course more convenient and more natural in a browser to just grab from the URL bar. It's unfortunate for us but not remotely unexpected.
- bilban 16y agoThis is where I'd expect the <link rel="canonical" href="blah" /> element to be used. With browsers using this as the preferred url for a bookmark - and maybe a service for sharing or copying urls from the browser that was easy to use.
- alanh 16y agoThat would break bookmarking a section of a long article.
- joelgwebber 16y agoAnd how, pray tell, would you expect a crawler to fetch the content at twitter.com/#!/ev, considering that the server doesn't even see the hash part of the URL? That's the whole point. The simple fact is that plenty of sites (like Twitter, Facebook, and lots of Google properties) are using client-side code to build fast interactive sites, and it necessitates this kind of infrastructure.