Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Google Canonicalization Problems?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Aaron Pratt  
View profile  
 More options Jun 4 2008, 2:51 pm
From: Aaron Pratt
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jun 4 2008 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: Google Canonicalization Problems?
Excellent, thanks, I will make note and refer back to this link.

On Jun 4, 2:20 pm, JohnMu wrote:

> There is no "absolute" answer :-)

> There are pros and cons to both absolute and relative URLs in links:

> Absolute URLs:
> + help keep the links pointing to your content if someone were to copy
> it (*)
> + help keep the links pointing to your domain name if you cannot
> select a canonical (can't do 301 redirects)
> + help make sure that you're pointing to the right URL even if you
> move things around (say for stylesheets or graphics)
> - cannot be tested on a staging / testing server (eg locally) (unless
> you insert the links dynamically)
> - makes it hard to move content (unless the links are inserted
> dynamically)

> Relative URLs:
> + make it easy to move content around
> + make it easy to test locally and on a staging server
> - are easy to break if linking to content that isn't moved as well
> (stylesheet, graphics, etc)
> - an evil scraper would have less work (*)

> There's a middle ground as well, using absolute links without a domain
> name, eg: <a href="/resources/green/mostly/page.htm" ...>

> Personally, I prefer to use relative URLs + some absolute (without
> domain name) ones to shared resources. The advantage of being able to
> test things out 1:1 on a staging server can't compete with the pseudo-
> protection against scrapers.

> The only place I would use absolute URLs would be if the site is
> hosted somewhere where the webmaster can't do a 301 redirect and may
> have trouble with duplicates. I've seen this a lot with sites hosted
> on a free account with the ISP; often it will be hosted ashttp://isp.com/users/~name/site..., then perhapshttp://domain.com/site...
> andhttp://www.domain.com/site... . By using absolute URLs in that
> situation, any value passed to one of the wrong URLs will
> automatically pass value to the correct URLs as well.

> If you have a really good CMS you may be able to change from one to
> another and use a staging server without much work. In that case, it
> probably doesn't matter which one is chosen.

> John

> (*) Regarding the evil scraper scenario: I think this is overrated and
> those who have problems with it usually have other problems to worry
> about. Also, most scraper software recognizes absolute links and swaps
> them out anyway.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.