Google spune: nu mai rescrieti URL-urile! WTF?

[meetzah]

Tocmai am dat peste articolul asta: Google Says, Don’t Rewrite Dynamic URLs To Static URLs, care face trimitere la postul de pe blogul oficial google.

Articolul este de pe Searchengineland.com asa ca este ceva serios. In postul de pe blogul google scrie clar: avoid reformatting a dynamic URL to make it look static.

Adica ce?

[Daniel]

adica asta:

forum.seopedia.ro/google/9404-google-spune-nu-mai-rescrieti-url-urile-wtf.html

aici URLul e facut sa para static.

[Savage]

da, e destul de greu sa modifici toate structurile la toate siturile pe care le ai, cel putin cazul meu, cred ca as innebuni daca as face asta... eu zic totusi sa mai lasam timp sa treaca, sa vedem ce se intampla...

[Prometeu]

da, suna dubios....
de fapt ce vor sa spuna ei nu e ca din punct de vedere SEo nu mai conteaza static vs dynamic url ci doar faptul ca acum Google este in stare sa indexeze cum trebuie un astfel de url dinamic si blablabla nu te ajuta cu nimic daca il faci static. De fapt chiar la final precizeaza ceva de genul ca e mult mai greu sa reindexeze site-ul in cazul in care unul din parametrii url-ului dinamic[care este transformat static] a fost schimbat.

[alecs]

Mi se pare chiar prostesc acel post. Cred ca se refera la rewrite-uri facute gresit. Intr-un exemplu dat de ei apare www.example.com/article/bin/answer.foo/en/3/98971298178906/URL. Cine ar fi asa de neglijent incat sa puna session id-ul dupa ce face rewrite?

Bineinteles, daca nu ai o structura bine definita si rescrii dupa cum bate vantul atunci poti crea probleme. Dar in nici un caz un url de forma example.com/article/page-1.html nu va fi de inlocuit cu example.com?article=article&pafe=1

Ori sunt ei mai ametiti, ori nu s-au exprimat cum trebuie.

[Tudi]

Ok deci daca eu am un site dinamic. Google vine si indexeaza un URL cu session, in cache ramane session-ul respectiv. Cand dai click pe rezultatul in google ce se intampla?

[meetzah]

adica asta:
aici URLul e facut sa para static.

@domenii, ms pt grija, insa stiu ce inseama URL static si URL dinamic

Oricum, problema e ca nu e doar un zvon de aiurea, ci e chiar pe blogul oficial google. Eu zic totusi ca ar fi o prostie pentru cineva cu URL-uri rescrise si care se claseaza deja bine cu ele in forma asta, sa si le refaca dinamice. De acum incolo insa, la noile proiecte cred ca o sa merge pe URL-urile standard, dinamice.

[Tudi]

Dar nu vad sa zica pe blog ca dauneaza sa faci redirect. Zic doar ca nu dauneaza sa nu faci redirect

[Diana]

Ei au url rewrite pe blog, so...

Ati citit ultimul comentariu cu teoria conspiratiei? Il pun aici, ca intre timp s-ar putea sa nu mai fie ultimul

"As for SEO (and I know it’s not the purpose of this blog... but common, isn’t all related?), I learned with the years to be cautious with what Google want you to do and what really works on search result pages."

I've a similar conspiracy theory related to Google's disclosure about how their inner cogs work, specially on topics related to SEO, where they algorithms are or could be abused.
I think it's "good" to give some misleading advice.
If they would have published something like this: "static URLs are the only way to get indexed, and dynamic urls will be discarded from our indexes", then static URLs would be the new SEO panacea and will be used and abused by everyone, particularly snake oil SEOs.
Imagine it: lot of websites rewriting their already-working dynamic URLs into bad rewritten (because of ignorance) static URLs, making a worse scenario for crawlers.

But then, Google knows *there is good valuable content behind dynamic URLs*, and there is no reason to discard them just because the URLs aren't "pretty".
Probably (in fact, that can be read between lines in Google's article), indexing dynamic URLs (and at the same time, avoid indexing duplicate content) has higher costs for the Google machinery, and so, they lost time and money trying to find out which variables lead to the unique content they want to provide on they SERPs.
And then, it get worst for Google: it's easy to strip out variables from a dynamic URLs until you get the "minimal functional URL".
But it isn't too easy to do the same on a static (bad) re-written URL: it may lead to 404, it may be "impossible" for Google, then their costs on crawling/indexing become higher.

So, at the end of the day, my conclusion (my "conspiracy theory") is that Google is trying to _separate the wheat from the chaff_: the people who does the homework, both for having more human-friendly sites and for SEO's sake, and the people who doesn't care about technology friendliness, SEO, or those who abuse it, or those who does it in the "wrong" way (without anyone really knowing which is "correct" one), like doing bad URL rewriting.

So, the advice here is: don't do it if you are going to do it wrong.

[Tudi]

Singura problema cu teoria conspiratiei a respectivului e ca nu vad unde e conspiratia

then static URLs would be the new SEO panacea and will be used and abused by everyone, particularly snake oil SEOs.

Cum anume ar putea abuza cineva asta?