4 ms·
Because SEO is so important, you should be really careful about the sort of assertion you're making - most people will read your post and assume that the google
by _lex 13y ago
Because SEO is so important, you should be really careful about the sort of assertion you're making - most people will read your post and assume that the googles can read html generated by js template rendering. AFAIK, this is false, and this is a huge problem for single page js apps - they're often SEO crippled.
Most people running js webapps are not following google's ajax webcrawling directives or paying seo4ajax to solve the problem for them. It's irresponsible to say that there's no SEO problem with client side rendering.
- ulisesrmzroche 13y agoBut there's a right way to do it already, and the definition of a solved problem is one people are making money off, so steering people away from js webapps because of SEO is just bad There are no large caveats here, either follow a tutorial off Google Dev Guides or pay someone like $5 bucks a month to do it.
- Isofarro 13y agoGawker did this a while back. And reverted after their Google rankings took a hefty plunge. That is one very large caveat, that Ajax crawler spec is no magic bullet. 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