Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

blog.alexmaccaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#31

Post by tonylampada »

chaddeshon wrote: post #9

I made a web service that will do javascript SEO for you. Check it out at BromBone.com. We render your entire page for you a save it has html on a CDN. Then you can just do the simple routing described in this article, but send Google the page from our CDN instead. That way Google sees the exact same thing as your users, but you don't have to code it again.

> BromBone uses a real web browser to download your web pages. We run all that fancy javascript, make all your AJAX calls, and save the result.

Makes me wonder why Google itself doesnt do it like that. Maybe Google should buy BromBone...

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#33

Post by m0th87 »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #20

Monocle.io is not getting indexed correctly. see: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Node+has+had+great+succes... Notice how the monocle.io link is totally useless. Overtime, this will get you killed by Google as they realize your domain is returning useless results.

Any idea why it's failing here? The crawler is successfully fetching the content, but not associating it with the correct URL. Maybe google crawler isn't pushState aware?

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#34

Post by JohnTHaller »

blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #21
JohnTHaller wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, with every worthwhile browser (both desktop and mobile) supporting JavaScript and having it enabled by default, it doesn't make much sense to support browsers with it disabled. The couple million people with NoScript installed who enable it only on specific sites know to enable it if a site doesn't work.

It does make sense to me, because: - Not all search engines can handle JavaScript, Google is leading the way, but not perfect. - Those NoScript users could be potential clients or users of your site. I love it when my conversation rate goes up 1%, and that becomes harder when you ignore 1-5% of users. - Screenreaders generally do not support JavaScript [not true, see comment]. If only one blind user gets to access th…

I'm not saying that you shouldn't ensure that your website is crawlable by search engines. You absolutely should. But we're at a point today where you simply don't need to worry about whether your site works without Javascript or not for the functionality of the site. Even Mozilla is removing the option to disable Javascript from the browser's UI (you can still use the advanced about:config or extensions).

As mentioned elsewhere, screen readers fully support Javascript and have for a very long time (which you've updated your post to acknowledge). That was one of the big reasons I used to ensure sites worked without Javascript years ago.

NoScript users know enough to turn it on for a site for it to work. NoScript users only make up 0.08% of internet users worldwide, a far cry form 1-5%. Basically, you can safely give them a significantly reduced site experience or just a message to turn Javascript on. They're not really worth the effort in most cases. Hardly anyone disables JavaScript anymore as most sites simply won't work right without it.

If you want to expend the extra effort, more power to you. It's just that for most sites nowadays, it's not worth the time/money anymore.

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#35

Post by maccman »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #20

Monocle.io is not getting indexed correctly. see: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Node+has+had+great+succes... Notice how the monocle.io link is totally useless. Overtime, this will get you killed by Google as they realize your domain is returning useless results.

Yeah, it's only failing because I list the summary of the posts on the index page, and Google isn't picking up the real link.

It'll take a bit more time for Google to index the rest of the site, but I've removed the summary from the index page so it shouldn't get picked up by this.

[1] - http://monocle.io/?_escaped_fragment_=

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#36

Post by iopq »

https://www.cityblis.com/ I implemented the solution which actually shows the same content (without dynamic positioning) to the users and allows them to go to non-javascript versions of the pages. With JS on I serve dynamically positioned content and with scrolls.

I also have an implementation for the search, but it's not pushed yet. It doesn't paint the first page, but only provides pagination for the users without JS.

What do you think of this kind of a solution?

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#37

Post by Amadou »

iopq wrote: post #36

https://www.cityblis.com/ I implemented the solution which actually shows the same content (without dynamic positioning) to the users and allows them to go to non-javascript versions of the pages. With JS on I serve dynamically positioned content and with scrolls. I also have an implementation for the search, but it's not pushed yet. It doesn't paint the first page, but only provides pagination for the users without…

As a noscript user I'd like to see an explanation to why I should enable javascript on your site. If you put a link to an explanatory page along with the "please enable javascript for a better experience" header I think that would be useful.

Of course getting the explanation down is going to take some effort you don't want to be condescending and you do want to give a meaningful explanation - perhaps with pictures, animated gifs? - but don't want to make it into a dissertation either.

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#38

Post by Amadou »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #13
blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #2

Another option is to make a website that works without JavaScript. Only dynamically fetch pages when JavaScript is enabled. Progressive enhancement rocks. Visiting http://monocle.io/posts/how-yield-will-transform-node without JavaScript support yields a blank page. All page titles are Monocle which isn't very descriptive and the meta description is the same for every page. Only with escaped_fragment can a user see de…

Honestly, with every worthwhile browser (both desktop and mobile) supporting JavaScript and having it enabled by default, it doesn't make much sense to support browsers with it disabled. The couple million people with NoScript installed who enable it only on specific sites know to enable it if a site doesn't work.

Don't forget that javascript performance on mobile is abysmal. If your use of javascript is much more than light fluff, its going to seriously annoy mobile users.

http://sealedabstract.com/rants/mobile-web-apps-are-slow/

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#39

Post by benkitzelman »

steeve wrote: post #12

For AngularJS apps, you are welcome to try (and improve!) AngularSEO https://github.com/steeve/angular-seo (based on PhantomJS)

There's a few gems around handling this in middleware:

https://github.com/benkitzelman/google-ajax-crawler

https://github.com/inossidabile/hashbang

Re: SEO in JavaScript Web Apps

#40

Post by iopq »

Amadou wrote: post #37
iopq wrote: post #36

https://www.cityblis.com/ I implemented the solution which actually shows the same content (without dynamic positioning) to the users and allows them to go to non-javascript versions of the pages. With JS on I serve dynamically positioned content and with scrolls. I also have an implementation for the search, but it's not pushed yet. It doesn't paint the first page, but only provides pagination for the users without…

As a noscript user I'd like to see an explanation to why I should enable javascript on your site. If you put a link to an explanatory page along with the "please enable javascript for a better experience" header I think that would be useful. Of course getting the explanation down is going to take some effort you don't want to be condescending and you do want to give a meaningful explanation - perhaps with pictures, a…

Would just adding a line like "This site uses AJAX for a large part of its functionality" work or would you prefer a more in-depth description?
Post reply on HN