3 ms·
"I wouldn't recommend having the "pretty" part not validated. It can cause some serious issues with google & duplicate content" Not if you properly generate an
by fnulp 14y ago
"I wouldn't recommend having the "pretty" part not validated. It can cause some serious issues with google & duplicate content"
Not if you properly generate and apply canonical links :)
- nulluk 14y agocanonical links are only hints to google (all be it very strong) they always reserve the right to ignore it if they think a webmaster is shooting themselves in the foot, that in itself is where the problem is. If I built up a few hundred links to example.com/1234-this-site-sucks I'm sure google would think that is the correct url rather than the canonical link version of example.com/1234-the-real-slug
- fnulp 14y agoYeah, and? That still doesn't mean Google et al. think you have, and penalizes you for, "duplicate content". I cut off the quote after that for a reason -- you totally lost me on the "malicious" stuff. Google bombs? People still care about those, really? I say you're wasting resources on fighting non-problem, hence creating a problem ^^
- underwater 14y agoFYI: the word you wanted is "albeit".