3 ms·

I'm quite puzzled there too. In what sense is using a hash as part of the address a hashbang? Hashbang refrers to #!, #!, and only #!.

by dedward 15y ago

JeremyBanks 15y ago
Google published a specification [1] for "Making AJAX Applications Crawlable" which uses #!. This has been widely adopted; it's plausible that the majority of web apps that store their state in fragment identifiers use this convention. That is why people are using the term "hashbang" to refer to the practice in general. http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/specification.html http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/specification.h...
- Isofarro 15y ago
  Once of the reasons Gawker moved away from hashbangs is that they weren't well supported by Google, despite this being a "Google specification". Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker, has some interesting tweets about the use of hashbangs over the past few months: Nick Denton: "Dip in uniques largely because of drop in Google refers. Pageviews (which are driven more by core audience) less affected." -- http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61152134929981440 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61152134929981440 Nick Denton: "Google does not fully support "hashbang" URLs. So we're eliminating them rather than waiting for Mountain View." -- http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61465859079671808 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61465859079671808 Nick Denton: "Yeah, I'd advise against hashbang urls. Will kill search traffic -- even if you abide by Google protocol." -- http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/62595141927583745 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/62595141927583745 So here's a high-profile failure of hashbangs when it comes to being indexed by Google. Which means if it's search indexability you want, hashbangs isn't it. The Google spec just isn't mature enough, or well supported by Google search itself.

I'm quite puzzled there too. In what sense is using a hash as part of the address a hashbang? Hashbang refrers to #!, #!, and only #!.

by dedward 15y ago

I'm quite puzzled there too. In what sense is using a hash as part of the address a hashbang? Hashbang refrers to #!, #!, and only #!.

JeremyBanks 15y ago

Google published a specification [1] for "Making AJAX Applications Crawlable" which uses #!. This has been widely adopted; it's plausible that the majority of web apps that store their state in fragment identifiers use this convention. That is why people are using the term "hashbang" to refer to the practice in general. http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/specification.html http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/specification.h...

Isofarro 15y ago
Once of the reasons Gawker moved away from hashbangs is that they weren't well supported by Google, despite this being a "Google specification". Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker, has some interesting tweets about the use of hashbangs over the past few months: Nick Denton: "Dip in uniques largely because of drop in Google refers. Pageviews (which are driven more by core audience) less affected." -- http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61152134929981440 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61152134929981440 Nick Denton: "Google does not fully support "hashbang" URLs. So we're eliminating them rather than waiting for Mountain View." -- http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61465859079671808 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/61465859079671808 Nick Denton: "Yeah, I'd advise against hashbang urls. Will kill search traffic -- even if you abide by Google protocol." -- http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/62595141927583745 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/62595141927583745 So here's a high-profile failure of hashbangs when it comes to being indexed by Google. Which means if it's search indexability you want, hashbangs isn't it. The Google spec just isn't mature enough, or well supported by Google search itself.