I have a very dynamic / ajax powered website which also includes iframes and due this reason I have a very bad SEO rank and it come in my mind to make one more additional version of the site (text based / no script) and serve it to the search engines based on the user agent . Please let me know if you think that is a feasible method and if it's not what else would you recommend me to do .. I don't want to loose any fancy ajax feature but I also need to keep the website on the google map :)
thank you in advance for any answer !
btw the website is developed in asp.net c# .
Why not just refactor the site properly in the first place, instead of maintaining multiple copies? It's more effort up front, but will be less effort in the long-run.
Related
I'm trying to figure out the best way to make it possible for external sites to embed parts of my Ruby on Rails app into their website through an iframe. My app allows people to buy tickets to events and we want to allow event organisers to embed the whole ticket buying process into their site.
I've found a couple of answers that have helped with the exact 'how to'
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-create-a-embeddable-widget-in-rails
Allow users to embed my content into their sites (like blogs) -- rails 4
But my question is more about the best way to actually implement this. We already allow ticket buyers to purchase tickets through our site so I don't particularly want to create a new controller(s) as a lot of what happens in the controller will be the same. On the other hand, we may want to do different redirects for embedded users - I know we can do this with variants but I feel slightly like the embedded user flow will be so different it might just be a bit confusing. What is going to be my most maintainable option?
I'm also keen to avoid duplicating views and given that I believe it's best to inline CSS does anyone have any advice on how to handle this. If I were to render the embedded views through some engine that can inline all the CSS (I believe some email gems do this), is this a good idea and if so can anyone recommend any gems?
I want to translate my ASP.NET website, just like microsoft does.
I want the urls to have /en-EN/ or /de-DE/
the problem is that my urls ar already routed URLs
How can I do this?
I found this http://blog.maartenballiauw.be/post/2010/01/26/Translating-routes-(ASPNET-MVC-and-Webforms).aspx
but I don't want to translate all the urls and this method seems to me too complex, with Views and Controllers.
I need mysite.com/en-EN/routedpage or mysite.com/de-DE/routedpage
The above example is for mvc, is your website in mvc?. You need to setup your website for culture specific setting, here is an article how to do that
http://www.ezzylearning.com/tutorial.aspx?tid=3477182
Also for further reading
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/7998/Creating-multilingual-websites-Part-1
and
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/8073/Create-multilingual-web-pages-very-easily
its very easy to setup
This is an important problem. You want the URL to have the language encoded in it for both SEO and usability purposes.
Two common solutions are:
1) Change the domain. fr.example.com or de.example.com. Then the routes don't need to be changed.
2) Use the # for the language code. Search engines nowadays will observe this. So, then you'd have www.example.com/#de or www.example.com/#fr
You can implement both of these solutions with www.SiteTran.com by simply pasting our javascript into your page and setting the sitetran_url_type variable to either:
var sitetran_url_type = 'sub.domain';
or
var sitetran_url_type = 'hash';
SiteTran is 100% free and is my company.
I've built a full ajax site using jQuery and asp.net. All database data are loaded dynamically via client-side ajax calls. There are no html forms or postbacks, just ajax calls to a web service returning (xml) data.
Now, I need to make the site SEO friendly with emphasis to google. What is the least time expensive way to do it? Is there a way jQuery or asp.net can help me with out-of-the-box solutions/components etc? On the other hand, there is the google specification but is it standard or easy to implement in my case?
Any help or ideas much appreciated.
your question is kinda unspecific.
jquery is javascript - based on how it's implemented can be very bad for SEO
asp.net is server side - can be anything, what counts is the HTML you have on page.
for a start i would recommend googling your site, then click on the "cached" link below it, then "text only version" ... this is what google sees. if you can makes sense of it, then google can make sense of it. if there is nothing there (possible for a very very ajaxy site) then well you are in trouble. then go to your competitiors site and do the same. if he is doing a better job look at his HTML sourcecode and think about ways you can get in this direction.
you would maybe also like to take a look at http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/docs/getting-started.html
(I've posted this on the drupal forum too btw)
I'm converting the company websites to use Drupal, or at least trying to check that its going to be the best way forward. I have a background in PHP development, and I'm currently using the CakePHP framwork. I've built this site (not my design) and I can see how to replicate most of the functionality using Drupal, most likely using the CCK module.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yk6u8mt
As you can see from the homepage:
A user chooses a country.
The country is passed using an ajax call to a script that decides which phone is best based on 'in country' network coverage.
A div is shown recommending the visitor the best phone for that country.
I'm wondering how to go about this in Drupal, I'm definitely not after a step by step guide, I just want to know if this kind of thing is possible with Drupal, and what approach to use.
If someone can help that would be superb. Thanks.
Okay, so you've got a path you're defining in hook_menu, which is where your form is being presented - or else you've got it set up as a webform in a node, that could work too.
Either way, in your form you're going to be using AHAH - check out http://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/developer--topics--forms_api_reference.html/6#ahah and http://drupal.org/node/348475 .
Basically, you're going to define another path in hook_menu that's of type MENU_CALLBACK, and which will receive the country as input, and then will return the div that you'll display on the screen.
One core example of AHAH that may be useful to you is where you're entering a password and it lets you know if the password is secure enough - check that out.
Edit: There's also some good examples at http://drupal.org/project/examples.
I would look into using CCK and views. you can set up filters for the views. If filters don't work, you have the ability to include php code. I have also successfully added jquery code in the header of a view through which I was then able to have my view filtered by what is typed in a text box.
Coming from CakePHP using Drupal is a pain in the a** - even more for developers.
It's application structure might be designed to ease extensibility but this only means you have a system to enable your own plugins and themes.
While modules are basically the M+C-part the themes are the V-part of an MVC-application. The problem is that this seperation is not very strict in Drupal - in fact you have to break it sometimes in order to make things work (e.g. you have to include a theme_mymodule_myfunction() into your module as default output which you then can override with your theme using mytheme_mymodule_myfunction() ) And don't even bother looking for classes ( see http://drupal.org/node/547518 ).
Also there is no real link from a module to a theme. On many occations this is a good thing as you can switch modules and themes seperatly without creating a problem. For application builders coming from CakePHP (or any other framework) you often feel a lack of "wholesomeness" - you create parts for a base software and have to live with it's drawbacks.
IMHO I wouldn't recommend this step. Drupal is fine if you have to manage a website and might add a few modules to add neccessary value (image gallery etc.) but I definetly don't recommend it as a base for a customized web-app.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is it worth it to code different functionality for users with javascript disabled?
I've just learned in this question that an ASP.NET webforms application will have issues to run properly in a browser with disabled Javascript (unless I don't use certain controls and features).
So this is a kind of a follow-up question. For my current web application which will only have a small number of users I can postulate to enable Javascript.
But how to deal with this question in general? As I can see (with my rather small knowledge about web development until now) Javascript is all around, especially the more a web site is "dynamic" or "RIA" like.
Is it worth at all to take care about the few users during web app development who disable Javascript in their browsers?
Are they really "few"? (I actually have no clue, I just don't know anyone who has Javascript disabled.)
I'm a bit inclined to tell them: "If you want a nice interactive page, don't disable Javascript." or "You cannot enter this website without Javascript. Go away!" Because I don't want to double code and development time for some mavericks (if they are mavericks). Does it indeed add a lot more time to get a website working with Javascript and without Javascript as well?
For what reason does someone disable Javascript at all in his/her browser? Well, I've heard: "Security!" How unsecure is Javascript actually? And does that mean in the end that millions of pages are unsecure and almost every website I am using is a risk for me? Are there other reasons except security?
Are there any branches or environments where it is usual or even mandatory to disable Javascript for security (or other) reasons? (For instance I have security services, offices in defense ministries or a bank in mind.)
Are there any trends in development to see to add more Javascript to web sites, thus making it more and more necessary to let Javascript enabled in the browser? Or is there rather a counter motion?
Thank you for some feedback in advance!
Whether or not to care about users who turn off javascript should be done on a case by case basis. If you believe that it is ok to turn away users that do not have it enabled then that is a decision that you can make and is made by many apps.
Keep in mind that it is not necessarily a conscious decision to have javascript disabled or at a limited capacity. Screen readers, for example have a very stripped version of javascript and a site that uses it throughout will often be inaccessible. Depending on the website, this may actually be illegal.
If a website is properly constructed with progressive enhancement from the beginning, then creating versions that work without javascript should not be too much additional work. Therein lies one of the major issues with webforms - it is difficult to gain control over markup and javascript tends to be very tightly coupled.
My personal view is the number of people who completely disable javascript to the extent that .net web sites stop functioning is very small - For some government sites I have been responsible for, I don't recall getting any complaints from "non-javascript" users.
My concern would be more about making sure your site was xhtml compliant, with valid markup (which earlier versions of Visual Studio did not generate), valid css, and intelligent use of javascript.
Having a disclaimer somewhere on your site - that is accessible to those few with javascript disabled telling people that javascript is required for the site to function correctly would be a good thing.
Depends on your audience. For one thing, if the site is completely nonfunctional without JavaScript, accessibility (e.g. to those who must use a screen reader) may be an issue, so if you expect any blind users, you might need to consider that.
In most situations, I'd say, you're probably fine just using <noscript> tags to drop in a quick disclaimer along the lines of "JavaScript is required to use this web site."
While I have no solid numbers -- and I presume I'm in the distinct minority -- I, and many of the more savvy users I know, disable JavaScript by default (a la NoScript). I enable it on websites on a case by case basis. Most novice users (I'm ignoring the 25% in the upper/middle of experience) don't even know what "JavaScript" means.
As a developer I see the cost/benefit of supporting JS-less users
as boiling down to one question:
Do your users need the site more, or do you need your users more?
One of my current projects makes heavy use of JavaScript and Flash and does not function at all without it. But as it's installed at the employer's site and the visitors are the employees using it for their job, that requirement is completely reasonable.
However, if I were working on a revenue-generating site where losing users meant losing money, I'd seriously think about crafting the site to work w/o JS -- albeit less quickly with more page reloads. (Perhaps by asking advice here.)
As a random thought -- you could probably devise a special method to determine how many of your current users do and don't have JS enabled.