As some of you may have noticed, the D 2.0 stuff has all moved into digitalmars.com/d/2.0, instead of digitalmars.com/d. The original files have been replaced with redirects (phew, that was a lot of tedious work).

The benefit of this is that the searches are now targeted instead of picking up the whole digitalmars site. (It took about 24 hours for google to reindex the site.)

(moved from announce to the main discussion list)

Walter Bright wrote:
> As some of you may have noticed, the D 2.0 stuff has all moved into digitalmars.com/d/2.0, instead of digitalmars.com/d. The original files have been replaced with redirects (phew, that was a lot of tedious work).
> 
> The benefit of this is that the searches are now targeted instead of picking up the whole digitalmars site. (It took about 24 hours for google to reindex the site.)

Good, thanks.  That'll help clarify things a lot for everyone browsing the site.

Would you consider adding "(alpha)" near any of the 2.0 references (such as the header) so that it's clear that 2.0 is still a work in progress?  Also, I'd really suggest moving the 1.0 docs back to the primary links until 2.0 leaves alpha testing.

The downloads link/button at the top of the page leads to a non version specific page, so it's questionable to have it inside /1.0/ or /2.0/. Additionally, the versions listed on the page are both considerably out of date (1.015 and 2.007).  Looks like there's a parenthesis mismatch on the page as well.

Question, do you periodically mine the comments linked from every page for things to fix / do?

Later,
Brad

Walter,

Again I just want to mention that Google assigns a number ("pagerank") to every page it indexes.  When a page is linked to by a reputable source, the number increases.

META Refresh redirects will get this page rank, but are useless, and will be badly indexed for phrases.  Also, people will not continue to link to these meta refresh pages.

So, you're splitting potential page rank (something you want to maximize) in pieces by using that sort of redirect.  If at all possible, I strongly suggest using a 301 redirect (which is a "permanent" redirect and tells Google to give the page rank to the resultant page.)

If you want, I can provide further documentation on this phenomenon from google.com.

That said, I'm glad to see this reorganization, and I'm sure it will help people searching the site.

-[Unknown]


Walter Bright wrote:
> As some of you may have noticed, the D 2.0 stuff has all moved into digitalmars.com/d/2.0, instead of digitalmars.com/d. The original files have been replaced with redirects (phew, that was a lot of tedious work).
> 
> The benefit of this is that the searches are now targeted instead of picking up the whole digitalmars site. (It took about 24 hours for google to reindex the site.)

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> Walter,
> 
> Again I just want to mention that Google assigns a number ("pagerank") to every page it indexes.  When a page is linked to by a reputable source, the number increases.
> 
> META Refresh redirects will get this page rank, but are useless, and will be badly indexed for phrases.  Also, people will not continue to link to these meta refresh pages.
> 
> So, you're splitting potential page rank (something you want to maximize) in pieces by using that sort of redirect.  If at all possible, I strongly suggest using a 301 redirect (which is a "permanent" redirect and tells Google to give the page rank to the resultant page.)
> 
> If you want, I can provide further documentation on this phenomenon from google.com.

Ok, sure! I didn't know this.

Brad Roberts wrote:
> Would you consider adding "(alpha)" near any of the 2.0 references (such as the header) so that it's clear that 2.0 is still a work in progress?  Also, I'd really suggest moving the 1.0 docs back to the primary links until 2.0 leaves alpha testing.
> 
> The downloads link/button at the top of the page leads to a non version specific page, so it's questionable to have it inside /1.0/ or /2.0/. Additionally, the versions listed on the page are both considerably out of date (1.015 and 2.007).  Looks like there's a parenthesis mismatch on the page as well.
> 
> Question, do you periodically mine the comments linked from every page for things to fix / do?

Yes, but obviously I should do it more often.

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:fn6v2q$1doq$1@digitalmars.com...
> Ok, sure! I didn't know this.

google will skip meta refreshes.. but you can build a sitemap, that would help ALOT - http://www.sitemaps.org/

Walter Bright, el 22 de enero a las 20:33 me escribiste:
> As some of you may have noticed, the D 2.0 stuff has all moved into digitalmars.com/d/2.0, instead of digitalmars.com/d. The original files have been replaced with redirects (phew, that was a lot of tedious work).
> 
> The benefit of this is that the searches are now targeted instead of picking up the whole digitalmars site. (It took about 24 hours for google to reindex the site.)

Thanks.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 people die every year, testing if a 9 volts battery works on their tongue

Search for 301:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34444
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=79812
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66359

There's not as much directly from Google but you can find a lot on other sites just searching, e.g.:

http://www.seobook.com/archives/000297.shtml
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/when-to-use-a-301-vs-302-redirect/

That said, mileage will very in that kind of search, because most of people's knowledge about search engines is guided by guesswork and extrapolations from experience.  I used to have a link on Google's support that explained pagerank but can't find it now.

-[Unknown]


Walter Bright wrote:
> Ok, sure! I didn't know this.

Unknown W. Brackets Wrote:
> So, you're splitting potential page rank (something you want to maximize) in pieces by using that sort of redirect.  If at all possible, I strongly suggest using a 301 redirect (which is a "permanent" redirect and tells Google to give the page rank to the resultant page.)

Will this also make browsers update the URL in the location bar?  I don't like how (currently) typing in a url without /2.0/ or /1.0/ does not end up showing which page you ended up at


> 
> If you want, I can provide further documentation on this phenomenon from google.com.
> 
> That said, I'm glad to see this reorganization, and I'm sure it will help people searching the site.
> 
> -[Unknown]
> 
> 
> Walter Bright wrote:
> > As some of you may have noticed, the D 2.0 stuff has all moved into digitalmars.com/d/2.0, instead of digitalmars.com/d. The original files have been replaced with redirects (phew, that was a lot of tedious work).
> > 
> > The benefit of this is that the searches are now targeted instead of picking up the whole digitalmars site. (It took about 24 hours for google to reindex the site.)

Yes, a 301 should work like that (as would 302.)

-[Unknown]


Jason House Wrote:

> Unknown W. Brackets Wrote:
> > So, you're splitting potential page rank (something you want to maximize) in pieces by using that sort of redirect.  If at all possible, I strongly suggest using a 301 redirect (which is a "permanent" redirect and tells Google to give the page rank to the resultant page.)
> 
> Will this also make browsers update the URL in the location bar?  I don't like how (currently) typing in a url without /2.0/ or /1.0/ does not end up showing which page you ended up at
> 
> 
> > 
> > If you want, I can provide further documentation on this phenomenon from google.com.
> > 
> > That said, I'm glad to see this reorganization, and I'm sure it will help people searching the site.
> > 
> > -[Unknown]
> > 
> > 
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> > > As some of you may have noticed, the D 2.0 stuff has all moved into digitalmars.com/d/2.0, instead of digitalmars.com/d. The original files have been replaced with redirects (phew, that was a lot of tedious work).
> > > 
> > > The benefit of this is that the searches are now targeted instead of picking up the whole digitalmars site. (It took about 24 hours for google to reindex the site.)
>