Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #16333

Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/01/2016 13:09, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> writes:
> <snip>

...

>>    http://my-site.com/partition/essay-1053/long-file-name
>>    http://my-site.com/partition/essay/1053/long-file-name
>>    http://my-site.com/partition/essay/long-file-name-1053
>>    http://my-site.com/partition/essay/long-file-name/1053
>>
>> And the short form could be one of
>>
>>    http://my-site.com/partition/essay-1053
>>    http://my-site.com/partition/essay/1053
> <snip>
>> I am thinking that the only true key would be the decimal number. Even
>> for the URL with the long file name I don't see a need to use anything
>> other than the number to find the file.
>
> Which suggests the short form could be
>
>    http://my-site.com/essay-1053
>
> or even
>
>    http://my-site.com/1053

I couldn't use those shorter forms because the number would only be 
unique within a folder within a partition.

I'd better explain a bit more. The idea is that each partition could be 
under separate control, basically as if it were a separate web site.

The folder which I called "essay" in the example is just the place 
within the partition where the partition's administrator had chosen to 
put a certain web page. In the fictional example, you could imagine that 
there would be an arbitrary number of files that the administrator 
decided to call essays and each essay would have a distinct number. The 
administrator could just as easily have decided to call them "articles" 
or "widgets" or whatever was appropriate, with the folder name 
reflecting that choice.

There could be other folders within the partition, each with its own set 
of files and its own set of rules for URL-to-filename mapping.

As an example of a different type of folder,

   http://my-site.com/partition/ref/scanner

That would lead to

   /partition/ref/scanner.extn

The "ref" folder in this made-up example is intended to be a place where 
terms are defined. (In this case the term is "scanner".) No numeric 
prefix is used - partly because terms are normally short already; no 
special shortening is needed and would, in fact, only get in the way.

Because different folders would have different mapping rules the PHP 
script (this query does therefore just about have a tenuous relationship 
with the subject of the newsgroup!) which converts the URL to a filename 
would need to map differently depending on what folder the URL 
specifies. Continuing the above examples, in "essay" the files would 
have numeric prefixes whereas in "ref" the files would be unnumbered.

That's maybe too much information but it explains why the numeric prefix 
has to apply within a folder, and won't be unique across the entire site.

> Not that there's any harm in providing a medium length form as well
> since the "partition" and "essay" bits do convey some information to the
> reader.

Good point. It's not all about shortening URLs.

James

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:39 +0000
  Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:22 -0700
    Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 13:58 +0000
  Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-21 19:16 +0000
    Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 14:03 +0000
  Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2016-01-21 12:31 -0800
    Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2016-01-21 22:42 +0000
  Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO Goran <goran@nospam.com> - 2016-01-22 13:01 +0100
    Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 14:11 +0000
      Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-22 17:03 +0100
        Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 11:59 +0000
          Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-23 13:09 +0000
            Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 16:17 +0000
              Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-23 20:11 +0100
                Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 21:35 +0000
  Re: Canonical URLs, truncated URLs, redirects and SEO Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2016-01-25 22:20 +0000

csiph-web