5 ms·

Create web applications, rank as a web application. Create web pages, rank as a web page. This is a band-aid by Google. Developers created inaccessible websit

Create web applications, rank as a web application. Create web pages, rank as a web page. This is a band-aid by Google. Developers created inaccessible websites (JS-only, no HTML fallback) and Google still wanted to give those sites a chance to be in the index. Like when Google made it possible to index text inside .swf movies. This did not mean that flash sites suddenly ranked alongside accessible websites. No, it only meant that you could now find content with a very targeted search query. Don't think you are gaining any SEO-benefit from one-page JS-only applications, just because Google made it possible for you to start ranking. And don't forget your responsibility as a web developer to create accessible content. Forgetting progressive enhancement, fallbacks, a noscript explanation for why you need JS, ARIA is devolution. If Google can index your site, but a blind user has a problem with your bouncy Ajax widget, then you failed catering to all your users. If you lazily let Google repair your mistakes, then soon you will be a Google-only website.

workhere-io 12y ago
Don't think you are gaining any SEO-benefit from one-page JS-only applications, just because Google made it possible for you to start ranking. No one is expecting to get any SEO benefits that "normal" pages don't have. We are expecting to get the same chance of ranking as normal pages. You mentioned that single page apps might rank differently or worse than normal pages. Do you have any source for that? (A source that is current, since Googlebot's improvements are quite new).
- blauwbilgorgel 12y ago
  >We are expecting to get the same chance of ranking as normal pages. Then you should probably adjust this expectation. You say in your article: >While having this sort of HTML fallback was technically possible, it added a lot of extra work to public-facing single page apps, to the point where many developers dropped the idea... A JS-driven site with an HTML fallback is a normal page. Then you don't need any tricks or force Google to run your application and hopefully make pages out of them. Start with the fall-back and enhance. This is a serious mistake with consequences. Tor bundle and Firefox shipped with JavaScript support, because disabling JS broke too much of the current web. It causes accessibility issues (remember when Twitter changed to hash-bang URL's?), if not for Googlebot, then for regular users (From the Webmaster Guidelines): >Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site. >Use a text browser such as Lynx to examine your site, because most search engine spiders see your site much as Lynx would. If fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash keep you from seeing all of your site in a text browser, then search engine spiders may have trouble crawling your site. >Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. I am still going on the assumption that you created a one-page application without a time-consuming fallback, and you rely on Google to make rankable pages from them. Then you leave some users standing in the cold, so why deserve to rank equal to a user-friendly accessible web page? > ... single page apps might rank differently or worse than normal pages ... From the original article, the most current source on this: > Sometimes things don't go perfectly during rendering, which may negatively impact search results for your site. > It's always a good idea to have your site degrade gracefully. This will help users enjoy your content even if their browser doesn't have compatible JavaScript implementations. It will also help visitors with JavaScript disabled or off, as well as search engines that can't execute JavaScript yet. > Sometimes the JavaScript may be too complex or arcane for us to execute, in which case we can’t render the page fully and accurately. > Some JavaScript removes content from the page rather than adding, which prevents us from indexing the content. In the SEO community Googlebot's improvements were noted for a while now. See for example: http://ipullrank.com/googlebot-is-chrome/ http://ipullrank.com/googlebot-is-chrome/ Single page websites or application-as-content-website's are not popular among SEO's. One reason for this is that it doesn't allow for fine-grained control on keyword targeting, and keeping the site canonical, and it can waste domain authority when you have less targeted pages in the index than you can rank for. Experiment and find out for yourself.
mixonic 12y ago
100% FUD. There is no evidence that Google is going to punish my website for being rendered with JavaScript, as you imply with your first two comments. Google is indexing the HTML generated by JavaScript, and the links in that HTML. Not some non-web custom format like SWF. JavaScript driven sites work just fine with modern screen-readers. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/An_overview_of_accessible_web_applications_and_widgets https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A... and in 2014 97.6% of screen-readers ran JavaScript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey5/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey5/#javascript In 2013, 92 out of 93 visitors to a UK government webpage supported JavaScript: https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi... And mixed into that 1.1% were users getting broken JS, behind firewalls, disabling JS, etc. Google making this change does not force you to build a JavaScript-driven website, but it does make it more attractive .
- blauwbilgorgel 12y ago
  If I wanted to imply that Google will punish your website for being rendered with JavaScript, I probably would have said so. It would likely be false too, as it is less of a punishment, than it is not maximizing your chance to rank (to put your best foot forward as a website). Accessibility is not a numbers game. In many countries it is a legal requirement. And adhering to the WCAG means providing non-JS fallbacks or progressive enhancement. RMS not being able to access your content is an accessibility issue too, it does not have to involve a disability. It can be technical in nature, like disabling JS or being behind a corporate firewall, or your browser not supporting pushstate. If you want to look at stats, take a look at the stats and surveys on accessibility of dynamic web applications. Just because your screenreader supports JavaScript does not mean you have no accessibility issues due to JavaScript. Rich internet applications should use WAI-ARIA. I don't think people who create websites without a fallback (avoiding this issue entirely), will worry about creating websites with ARIA-support. And if they do care about such accessibility, they should also provide a non-ARIA non-JS fallback. Google making this change makes it possible to have your non-fallback JS-only application be indexed. It does not make it more attractive from an SEO or accessibility viewpoint.

workhere-io 12y ago

Don't think you are gaining any SEO-benefit from one-page JS-only applications, just because Google made it possible for you to start ranking. No one is expecting to get any SEO benefits that "normal" pages don't have. We are expecting to get the same chance of ranking as normal pages. You mentioned that single page apps might rank differently or worse than normal pages. Do you have any source for that? (A source that is current, since Googlebot's improvements are quite new).

blauwbilgorgel 12y ago
>We are expecting to get the same chance of ranking as normal pages. Then you should probably adjust this expectation. You say in your article: >While having this sort of HTML fallback was technically possible, it added a lot of extra work to public-facing single page apps, to the point where many developers dropped the idea... A JS-driven site with an HTML fallback is a normal page. Then you don't need any tricks or force Google to run your application and hopefully make pages out of them. Start with the fall-back and enhance. This is a serious mistake with consequences. Tor bundle and Firefox shipped with JavaScript support, because disabling JS broke too much of the current web. It causes accessibility issues (remember when Twitter changed to hash-bang URL's?), if not for Googlebot, then for regular users (From the Webmaster Guidelines): >Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site. >Use a text browser such as Lynx to examine your site, because most search engine spiders see your site much as Lynx would. If fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash keep you from seeing all of your site in a text browser, then search engine spiders may have trouble crawling your site. >Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. I am still going on the assumption that you created a one-page application without a time-consuming fallback, and you rely on Google to make rankable pages from them. Then you leave some users standing in the cold, so why deserve to rank equal to a user-friendly accessible web page? > ... single page apps might rank differently or worse than normal pages ... From the original article, the most current source on this: > Sometimes things don't go perfectly during rendering, which may negatively impact search results for your site. > It's always a good idea to have your site degrade gracefully. This will help users enjoy your content even if their browser doesn't have compatible JavaScript implementations. It will also help visitors with JavaScript disabled or off, as well as search engines that can't execute JavaScript yet. > Sometimes the JavaScript may be too complex or arcane for us to execute, in which case we can’t render the page fully and accurately. > Some JavaScript removes content from the page rather than adding, which prevents us from indexing the content. In the SEO community Googlebot's improvements were noted for a while now. See for example: http://ipullrank.com/googlebot-is-chrome/ http://ipullrank.com/googlebot-is-chrome/ Single page websites or application-as-content-website's are not popular among SEO's. One reason for this is that it doesn't allow for fine-grained control on keyword targeting, and keeping the site canonical, and it can waste domain authority when you have less targeted pages in the index than you can rank for. Experiment and find out for yourself.

mixonic 12y ago

100% FUD. There is no evidence that Google is going to punish my website for being rendered with JavaScript, as you imply with your first two comments. Google is indexing the HTML generated by JavaScript, and the links in that HTML. Not some non-web custom format like SWF. JavaScript driven sites work just fine with modern screen-readers. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/An_overview_of_accessible_web_applications_and_widgets https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A... and in 2014 97.6% of screen-readers ran JavaScript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey5/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey5/#javascript In 2013, 92 out of 93 visitors to a UK government webpage supported JavaScript: https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi... And mixed into that 1.1% were users getting broken JS, behind firewalls, disabling JS, etc. Google making this change does not force you to build a JavaScript-driven website, but it does make it more attractive .

blauwbilgorgel 12y ago
If I wanted to imply that Google will punish your website for being rendered with JavaScript, I probably would have said so. It would likely be false too, as it is less of a punishment, than it is not maximizing your chance to rank (to put your best foot forward as a website). Accessibility is not a numbers game. In many countries it is a legal requirement. And adhering to the WCAG means providing non-JS fallbacks or progressive enhancement. RMS not being able to access your content is an accessibility issue too, it does not have to involve a disability. It can be technical in nature, like disabling JS or being behind a corporate firewall, or your browser not supporting pushstate. If you want to look at stats, take a look at the stats and surveys on accessibility of dynamic web applications. Just because your screenreader supports JavaScript does not mean you have no accessibility issues due to JavaScript. Rich internet applications should use WAI-ARIA. I don't think people who create websites without a fallback (avoiding this issue entirely), will worry about creating websites with ARIA-support. And if they do care about such accessibility, they should also provide a non-ARIA non-JS fallback. Google making this change makes it possible to have your non-fallback JS-only application be indexed. It does not make it more attractive from an SEO or accessibility viewpoint.