Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Jaimie Sirovich
220 followers
220 followers
About
Jaimie's posts

Does anyone have experience redirecting really old 404s to 301s and seeing movement from it? Some of them are very old, but there are links and what if it's a big property where some things were just overlooked over the years? WMT reports them and continues to do so. Is it worth it?

Post has attachment
Thoughts?  Adam Audette does some awesome research on Google and probably confirms that Google is indeed crawling the web with a modified Chrome. Some "bad habits" can now be dispensed with and "good habits" like physical-position-of-content-must-be-early (usu. putting header after content) should probably also be tossed.
http://searchengineland.com/tested-googlebot-crawls-javascript-heres-learned-220157

Post has attachment
"#!" died, officially:
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-ajax-deprecating-20218.html
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-ajax-guidelines-dead-19986.html

See note specifically about escaped_fragment.  Google is now viewing the web with the same rendering engine you use if you use Chrome.  I don't think Google wanted to create a browser originally.

But until I see "#" without "!" in the URLs going to an AJAX-powered page, I can't get excited.  And Google needs a URL that represents state to actually go there, and no amount of "magic" will fix that because they still send the traffic to that URL. 

So what are they going to do?

Post has attachment
With HTTP/2.0 standardized without the requirement of SSL, does anyone (from Google or otherwise) know if Chrome is still considering the explicit warnings for non-SSL enabled sites?  See   http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30505970

Post has attachment
It was only a matter of time before we got these emails, right? Are you switching your entire web site to SSL?  Just remember that you'll have to serve all your static content via SSL as well.  Also remember that while domain verified SSL is anonymous, both Organization and EV SSL do a great job identifying you for Google.
Photo

Post has attachment
Jaimie Sirovich commented on a post on Blogger.
Not fake! The Hoff even photobombs his own videos.  SEE => David Hasselhoff - Hooked on a Feeling

Post has attachment
RE: FACETED SEARCH IA -- LONG TECHNICAL QUESTION:  Google finally published http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/02/faceted-navigation-best-and-5-of-worst.html, which is the most comprehensive writeup they've ever published.  I'll add (toot toot) that many of the things I've suggested in the past are there.  OK, so there are basically 2 solutions she cites, both of which I've investigated:

#1. Nofollow the link and canonicalize it to a superset.
#2. Exclude it via robots.txt

Aside from the fact that she mentions nofollow+canonicalize first, she provides no obvious preference.  She does seem to imply #1 is better because "you can consolidate indexing signals from the unnecessary URLs with a searcher-valuable URL by adding rel=canonical."  OK, but then she says it only "minimizes the crawler’s discovery of unnecessary URLs ... rel=nofollow doesn’t prevent the unnecessary URLs from being crawled (only a robots.txt disallow prevents crawling).

I've never completely understood this overloaded use of nofollow to indicate distrust (and historically sculpt).  The only thing I can think of is in the pagerank model "nofollow" means don't flow probability/PR (the wandering visitor) here.  +Alistair Lattimore +Traian Neacsu +Eric Wu?  Allegedly, it doesn't work for sculpting anymore, though this would be a perfect example of when it would be appropriate to sculpt -- tens-of-thousands of URLs that are superfluous/duplicative but not quite duplicate content.  But they have to exist.  Sculpting doesn't work, though.  So that advantage is out.

On the flipside, she notes that nofollow+canonicalize "doesn’t prevent the unnecessary URLs from being crawled (only a robots.txt disallow prevents crawling)."  What does she mean here?  Does she mean that if it's externally linked it will still get crawled?  Doesn't that mean all that you need is some hacky mirror site to get you into trouble that leaves off the nofollow?

HOWEVER, it will preserve link equity if someone does link to some odd filtered URL whereas if the URL were robots.txted out it would not, theoretically.  I just don't think those odds are high.

For the record, I've been the proponent of #2 for a long time because I didn't trust nofollow+canonicalizing.

More questions than answers in some ways :)

Post has attachment
Faceted search recommendations from Google and a toot from my own horn. What I've been recommending for years is spot on. Thank God I wasn't wrong. I'd be really embarrassed.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/02/faceted-navigation-best-and-5-of-worst.html

Post has attachment
In case any of you get tired of Windows :)
Photo

If I have no way to 301 at all, what's better? There are various reports of meta refresh working, but it's very iffy.

1. Screw it.  404.
2. <meta HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" CONTENT="0;URL=SOMEURL">
Wait while more posts are being loaded