Way back in the WWW’s early Jurassic, micro computer based Web development tools sneakily begun poisoning the formerly ideal world of the Internet. All of a sudden we saw ‘.htm’ URIs, because CP/M and later on PC-DOS file extensions were limited to 3 characters. Truncating the ‘language’ part of HTML was bad enough. Actually, fucking with well established naming conventions wasn’t just a malady, but a symptom of a worse world wide pandemic.
Unfortunately, in order to bring Web publishing to the mere mortals (folks who could afford a micro computer), software developers invented DOS-like restrictions the Web wasn’t designed for. Web design tools maintained files on DOS file systems. FTP clients managed to convert backslashes originating from DOS file systems to slashes on UNIX servers, and vice versa (long before NT 3.51 and IIS). Directory names / file names equalled URIs. Most Web sites were static.
None of those cheap but fancy PC based Web design tools came with a mapping of objects (locally stored as files back then) to URIs pointing to Web resources. Despite Tim Berners-Lee’s warnings (like “It is the the duty of a Webmaster to allocate URIs which you will be able to stand by in 2 years, in 20 years, in 200 years. This needs thought, and organization, and commitment.“). The technology used to create a resource named its unique identifier (URI). That’s as absurd as wearing diapers a whole live long.
Newbie Web designers grew up with this flawed concept, and never bothered to research the Web’s fundamentals. In their limited view of the Web, a URI was a mirrored version of a file name and its location on their local machine, and everything served from
/cgi-bin/ had to be blocked in robots.txt, because all dynamic stuff was evil.
Today, those former newbies consider themselves oldtimers. Actually, they’re still greenhorns, because they’ve never learned that URIs have nothing to do with files, directories, or a Web resources’s (current) underlying technology (as in .php3 for PHP version 3.x, .shtml for SSI, …).
Technology evolves, even changes, but (valuable) contents tend to stay. URIs should solely address a piece of content, they must not change when the technology used to serve those contents changes. That means strings like ‘.html’ or folder names must not be used in URIs.
Many of those notorious greenhorns offer their equally ignorant clients Web development and SEO services today. They might have managed to handle dynamic contents by now (thanks to osCommerce, WordPress and other CMSs), but they’re still stuck with ancient paradigms that were never meant to exist on the Internet.
They might have discovered that search engines are capable of crawling and indexing dynamic contents (URIs with query strings) nowadays, but they still treat them as dumb bots — as if Googlebot or Slurp weren’t more sophisticated than Altavista’s Scooter of 1998.
They might even develop trendy crap (version 2.0 with nifty rounded corners) today, but they still don’t get IT. Whatever IT is, it doesn’t deserve an URI like
Why hierarchical URIs (expressing breadcrumbs or whatnot) are utter crap (SEO-wise as well as from a developer’s POV) is explained here:
I’ve published my rant “Directory-Like URI Structures Are SEO Bullshit” on SEO Bullshit dot com for a reason.
If it’s about SEO and it’s there, it’s most probably bullshit. If it’s bullshit, avoid it.
If you plan to spam the SEO blogosphere with your half-assed newbie thoughts (especially when you’re an unconvinceable ‘oldtimer’), consider obeying this rule of thumb:
The top minus one reason to publish SEO stupidity is: You’ll end up here.
Of course that doesn’t mean newbies shouldn’t speak out. I’m just sick of newbies who sell their half-assed brain farts as SEO advice to anyone. Noobs should read, ask, listen, learn, practice, evolve. Until they become pros. As a plain Web developer, I can tell from my own experience that listening to SEO professionals is worth every minute of your time.
Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb
Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments