4 ms·

I like to build my websites in COBOL but the browsers won't support it even though I'm more productive. You are not building this for yourself if you need to b

by wolco 7y ago

I like to build my websites in COBOL but the browsers won't support it even though I'm more productive. You are not building this for yourself if you need to be indexed by google. You need to build in a supported way. The bigger question is why you think an spa should rank well in general. It's only one page.

stackola 7y ago
>The bigger question is why you think an spa should rank well in general. It's only one page. Spoken like someone who hasn't used the web in 5 years.
- wolco 7y ago
  I hope my mailed letter will reach hn soon so I can reply. My work has powered some of the sites you've visited over the last 5 years. I hope you've enjoyed the experience. Still doesn't make a spa worthly of ranking well in general.. unless it's really a useful app with actual functionality instead of a shallow one page website. Reply with some sites you made that you feel should rank well. Let's see how they hold up.
  - stackola 7y ago
    No one is saying the should get a boost in ranking or rank well just by being an SPA. You're the one suggesting they should be penalized just for the fact they use client side rendering. You seem to suggest that a SPA can only consist of a single `view`, when in fact there's often no discernible difference apart from the underlying architecture. Maybe we need a new word, so people stop getting confused. SPA has nothing to do with the amount of content or views a website has. It's just as simple to create a shallow, useless website in PHP as it is in React.
  - buzzerbetrayed 7y ago
    You can’t just say something completely false, wait until someone corrects you, and then go off about how you’ve made websites that they’ve used in the last 5 years so you know more than them. That’s called appeal to authority. It’s a logical fallacy. Your statement was false, regardless of how “authoritative” you are on the subject. If you meant something else by your statement, you should have expressed it better.
hazz99 7y ago
Yes, I agree - server side rendering is likely better for SEO in most scenarios, and so I should consider it in a business context where SEO is essential. This isn't everyone. The comment I replied to said that Google should "delist client side rendered web pages", which is a terrible idea. Maybe I'm OK with the SEO hit? Maybe I've architectured my SPA so that it can be indexed? (At least to some degree) > The bigger question is why you think an spa should rank well in general. It's only one page. SPAs can have multiple pages (despite the name). Check out react-router [0]. Browser history can be manipulated to give the same "back button/forward button" functionality between logical pages. This is done for you by whatever framework you use. For my use case, having the browser reload every time a page is changed would severely interrupt UX. [0] https://reacttraining.com/react-router/web/guides/quick-start https://reacttraining.com/react-router/web/guides/quick-star...
- edoceo 7y ago
  But to a crawler it's one "page". To humans it's different, but not to robot. Crawler still (mostly) "page" == GET
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    Yet here we are discussing TFA that says otherwise, and crawlers are only going to be become better at it. This is a beautiful part of the new web: indexable applications.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Crawlers were suppose to have this down in 2012 (at least google),now they recommend a sitemap page.

by wolco 7y ago

stackola 7y ago

>The bigger question is why you think an spa should rank well in general. It's only one page. Spoken like someone who hasn't used the web in 5 years.

wolco 7y ago
I hope my mailed letter will reach hn soon so I can reply. My work has powered some of the sites you've visited over the last 5 years. I hope you've enjoyed the experience. Still doesn't make a spa worthly of ranking well in general.. unless it's really a useful app with actual functionality instead of a shallow one page website. Reply with some sites you made that you feel should rank well. Let's see how they hold up.
- stackola 7y ago
  No one is saying the should get a boost in ranking or rank well just by being an SPA. You're the one suggesting they should be penalized just for the fact they use client side rendering. You seem to suggest that a SPA can only consist of a single `view`, when in fact there's often no discernible difference apart from the underlying architecture. Maybe we need a new word, so people stop getting confused. SPA has nothing to do with the amount of content or views a website has. It's just as simple to create a shallow, useless website in PHP as it is in React.
- buzzerbetrayed 7y ago
  You can’t just say something completely false, wait until someone corrects you, and then go off about how you’ve made websites that they’ve used in the last 5 years so you know more than them. That’s called appeal to authority. It’s a logical fallacy. Your statement was false, regardless of how “authoritative” you are on the subject. If you meant something else by your statement, you should have expressed it better.

hazz99 7y ago

Yes, I agree - server side rendering is likely better for SEO in most scenarios, and so I should consider it in a business context where SEO is essential. This isn't everyone. The comment I replied to said that Google should "delist client side rendered web pages", which is a terrible idea. Maybe I'm OK with the SEO hit? Maybe I've architectured my SPA so that it can be indexed? (At least to some degree) > The bigger question is why you think an spa should rank well in general. It's only one page. SPAs can have multiple pages (despite the name). Check out react-router [0]. Browser history can be manipulated to give the same "back button/forward button" functionality between logical pages. This is done for you by whatever framework you use. For my use case, having the browser reload every time a page is changed would severely interrupt UX. [0] https://reacttraining.com/react-router/web/guides/quick-start https://reacttraining.com/react-router/web/guides/quick-star...

edoceo 7y ago
But to a crawler it's one "page". To humans it's different, but not to robot. Crawler still (mostly) "page" == GET
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Yet here we are discussing TFA that says otherwise, and crawlers are only going to be become better at it. This is a beautiful part of the new web: indexable applications.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Crawlers were suppose to have this down in 2012 (at least google),now they recommend a sitemap page.