<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Sebastian's Pamphlets</title>
	<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com</link>
	<description>If you've read my articles somewhere on the Internet, expect something different here.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>Comment on SEO Bullshit: Mimicking a file system in URIs by Jonah Stein</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2336</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonah Stein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2336</guid>
		<description>Sebastian

I have to disagree with you for several reasons.
1.  Google is now displaying breadcrumbs in SERP and they are more likely to do so based on hierarchies.
2.  Hierarchically designed IA makes it MUCH easier to analyze indexation and web traffic.
3.  While internal linking structures are clearly driving SERP, it is much easier to understand and visualize your internal linking structures if you have a hierarchical structure.
4. Someday, you may need to move some content around or do other tricky and inconvenient things.  You will thank yourself if you took the time to build out a really solid IA first.
5.  Believe it or not, some users do see the URL and it helps establish information scent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sebastian</p>
<p>I have to disagree with you for several reasons.<br />
1.  Google is now displaying breadcrumbs in SERP and they are more likely to do so based on hierarchies.<br />
2.  Hierarchically designed IA makes it MUCH easier to analyze indexation and web traffic.<br />
3.  While internal linking structures are clearly driving SERP, it is much easier to understand and visualize your internal linking structures if you have a hierarchical structure.<br />
4. Someday, you may need to move some content around or do other tricky and inconvenient things.  You will thank yourself if you took the time to build out a really solid IA first.<br />
5.  Believe it or not, some users do see the URL and it helps establish information scent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SEO Bullshit: Mimicking a file system in URIs by mark rushworth</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2332</link>
		<dc:creator>mark rushworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2332</guid>
		<description>LOL thanks for clearing that up... must have been the time in the morning and maybe i needed a coffee to fully comprehend the post lol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOL thanks for clearing that up&#8230; must have been the time in the morning and maybe i needed a coffee to fully comprehend the post lol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SEO Bullshit: Mimicking a file system in URIs by Sebastian</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2330</link>
		<dc:creator>Sebastian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2330</guid>
		<description>Mark, I didn't say you can't use subdirectories to store files. I said that storage location and URIs have nothing to do with each other. You can even store your stuff outside the Web server's reach and provide meaningful URIs. Just because a webmaster manages content in an hierarchical directory structure, that doesn't mean that using this hierarchy in URIs is a good idea.

Having everything "flat", that is the URI's path identifies the resource without using slashes, is an option, and just that. You can do it, combine it with slash delimited paths, query strings, ... whatever. Always do what's best for the actual site, and don't listen to crappy advice that tells you otherwise, even when it comes from a major search engine and is beginner level stuff trying to bring a first understanding of what information architecture is to the noobs.

Just bear in mind that neither search engines nor human vistors care much about your URIs - they follow links, and only links. So if it's difficult to create a hierarchical structure (usually it's raping common sense at some point), then don't do it, or do it just for parts of your content where it makes sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, I didn&#8217;t say you can&#8217;t use subdirectories to store files. I said that storage location and URIs have nothing to do with each other. You can even store your stuff outside the Web server&#8217;s reach and provide meaningful URIs. Just because a webmaster manages content in an hierarchical directory structure, that doesn&#8217;t mean that using this hierarchy in URIs is a good idea.</p>
<p>Having everything &#8220;flat&#8221;, that is the URI&#8217;s path identifies the resource without using slashes, is an option, and just that. You can do it, combine it with slash delimited paths, query strings, &#8230; whatever. Always do what&#8217;s best for the actual site, and don&#8217;t listen to crappy advice that tells you otherwise, even when it comes from a major search engine and is beginner level stuff trying to bring a first understanding of what information architecture is to the noobs.</p>
<p>Just bear in mind that neither search engines nor human vistors care much about your URIs - they follow links, and only links. So if it&#8217;s difficult to create a hierarchical structure (usually it&#8217;s raping common sense at some point), then don&#8217;t do it, or do it just for parts of your content where it makes sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SEO Bullshit: Mimicking a file system in URIs by mark rushworth</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2329</link>
		<dc:creator>mark rushworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/file-names-in-uris-are-bullshit/#comment-2329</guid>
		<description>I dont get it, google in their recently leaked document go on and on about folder based structures and even point to it being a way of determining site links?

are you advocating everything being flat 1 tier?

whats the benefits of this?

Theres no doubt that sites like the bbc make good use of folder like structures??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dont get it, google in their recently leaked document go on and on about folder based structures and even point to it being a way of determining site links?</p>
<p>are you advocating everything being flat 1 tier?</p>
<p>whats the benefits of this?</p>
<p>Theres no doubt that sites like the bbc make good use of folder like structures??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Get yourself a smart robots.txt by John S. Britsios (aka Webnauts)</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2327</link>
		<dc:creator>John S. Britsios (aka Webnauts)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:26:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2327</guid>
		<description>Another kick ass idea! I cannot wait to get it implemented on my sites.

Thanks a lot for sharing man.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another kick ass idea! I cannot wait to get it implemented on my sites.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for sharing man.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The most sexy browsers screw your analytics by Mykola Stryebkov</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/webkit-please-rescue-the-http_referer/#comment-2325</link>
		<dc:creator>Mykola Stryebkov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:01:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/webkit-please-rescue-the-http_referer/#comment-2325</guid>
		<description>@Aaron Davidson
you're not quite right: on my Mac Chrome shows different behavior in case of opening a link in a new tab from context menu and opening a new tab by cmd click.

In the first case Chrom really doesn't send referer, but in second - does. And this behavior doesn't depend on source referer. I've checked twice :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Aaron Davidson<br />
you&#8217;re not quite right: on my Mac Chrome shows different behavior in case of opening a link in a new tab from context menu and opening a new tab by cmd click.</p>
<p>In the first case Chrom really doesn&#8217;t send referer, but in second - does. And this behavior doesn&#8217;t depend on source referer. I&#8217;ve checked twice <img src='http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Get yourself a smart robots.txt by Antti Kokkonen</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2317</link>
		<dc:creator>Antti Kokkonen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2317</guid>
		<description>Hi Sebastian. Since this runs on php, how do you see the performance with this vs. "plain" robots.txt?

[No performance issues.]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Sebastian. Since this runs on php, how do you see the performance with this vs. &#8220;plain&#8221; robots.txt?</p>
<p>[No performance issues.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Get yourself a smart robots.txt by Austin WebKing - Small Business Website Design</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2312</link>
		<dc:creator>Austin WebKing - Small Business Website Design</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2312</guid>
		<description>Great article, but a very over engineered solution.  The assumption is that bad bots will adhere to the robots file and provide an accurate user agent.  To build this solution on that assumption is, to me, the weakness of the plan.

That said, I do think the solution itself is pretty slick.

[You didn't get it. A smart robots.txt is just one weapon in the arsenal. And yes, some rogue bots request it seeking site areas that aren't fully indexed caused by Disallow: statements in robots.txt, usually to avoid duplicate content issues with reprinted content. Once they request robots.txt, they'll never see any content again. As said above, rogue bot detection has to be done before any piece of content is served to any user agent. A smart robots.txt is just one source that detects and persists sneaky requests, so that the offender can be properly blocked from everything.]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article, but a very over engineered solution.  The assumption is that bad bots will adhere to the robots file and provide an accurate user agent.  To build this solution on that assumption is, to me, the weakness of the plan.</p>
<p>That said, I do think the solution itself is pretty slick.</p>
<p>[You didn&#8217;t get it. A smart robots.txt is just one weapon in the arsenal. And yes, some rogue bots request it seeking site areas that aren&#8217;t fully indexed caused by Disallow: statements in robots.txt, usually to avoid duplicate content issues with reprinted content. Once they request robots.txt, they&#8217;ll never see any content again. As said above, rogue bot detection has to be done before any piece of content is served to any user agent. A smart robots.txt is just one source that detects and persists sneaky requests, so that the offender can be properly blocked from everything.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Get yourself a smart robots.txt by &#187; Schleimt euch zur SMX nach München &#124; seoFM - der erste deutsche PodCast für SEOs und Online-Marketer</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2307</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Schleimt euch zur SMX nach München &#124; seoFM - der erste deutsche PodCast für SEOs und Online-Marketer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2307</guid>
		<description>[...] Get yourself a smart Robots.txt [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Get yourself a smart Robots.txt [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Get yourself a smart robots.txt by Lenen</title>
		<link>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2306</link>
		<dc:creator>Lenen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/smart-robots-txt/#comment-2306</guid>
		<description>Sebastian,
What you clarified in your last comment, I never thought of that when creating robots.txt. It makes kind of sense that scrapers will try to copy that concerning dupe content, but usually there is nothing important (that will attract search engine hits) to scrape in blocked area's. &lt;b&gt;At least, on my sites.&lt;/b&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sebastian,<br />
What you clarified in your last comment, I never thought of that when creating robots.txt. It makes kind of sense that scrapers will try to copy that concerning dupe content, but usually there is nothing important (that will attract search engine hits) to scrape in blocked area&#8217;s. <b>At least, on my sites.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
