[wp-hackers] Canonical integration into core
Joost de Valk
joost at yoast.com
Wed Feb 18 13:45:56 GMT 2009
On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Lynne Pope wrote:
> 2009/2/19 Joost de Valk <joost at yoast.com>
>> On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Lynne Pope wrote:
>> There is no need to add meta data tags to handle this situation.
>>> Search engines that respect robots.txt all honour this, and have
>>> done for
>>> years. I use pretty permalinks and none of my /permalink?anything is
>>> indexed. This also prevents indexing of search pages (which
>>> do get linked to). Depending on how the site uses these non-
>>> standard URL's
>>> though there can be a loss of link juice by blocking them at
>>> robots level.
>>> Disallow: /*?*
>>> Disallow: /*?
>> you don't get it, I'm afraid. When you're blocking those pages from
>> indexed, you're also blocking the search engines from allowing
>> those links
>> to help your rankings. If you use the rel=canonical, you allow them
>> to index
>> it, and they use the links toward that "faulty" URL to improve the
>> of the page you set as canonical (provided they have (almost) the
> Joost, with respect, did I not say that depending on how the site
> uses these
> non-standard URL's there can be a loss of link juice with using the
> I was simply pointing out that there is more than one way to skin a
> cat. The
> same can be achieved by using PHP to set locations in HTTP headers,
> or to
> serve the correct page to search bots or...
> Sorry, but not all sites use non-WP-generated URL's and not all
> require link
> juice from them. I am not trying to argue against inclusion of the
> URL tag (gave up on that ages ago) but was simply pointing out that
> its not
> necessary for all sites.
Well it's not my call either, though I'd sure like them in there. :)
More information about the wp-hackers