[ic] [SPAM] Re: more list

[Frank Reitzenstein]

On 3/27/2010 2:30 AM, Mike Heins wrote:
> Quoting Frank Reitzenstein (frank at aussievitamin.com):
>   
>> On 3/27/2010 1:39 AM, Mike Heins wrote:
>>     
>>> Quoting Frank Reitzenstein (frank at aussievitamin.com):
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> On 3/27/2010 12:40 AM, Stefan Hornburg (Racke) wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Ton Verhagen wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had the impression that it would be possible to format the 'current
>>>>>> page' link in the more list. Unfortunately I cannot find anything
>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ITL below:
>>>>>> <ul>
>>>>>> [more-list]
>>>>>> [link-template]<a href="$URL$">$ANCHOR$</a>[/link-template]
>>>>>> [more]
>>>>>> [/more-list]
>>>>>> </ul>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> generates code like (page 1 is current page):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <ul>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#" rel="nofollow">Next</a></li>
>>>>>> <strong>1</strong>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">2</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">3</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">4</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">5</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#" rel="nofollow">Previous</a></li>
>>>>>> </ul>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This breaks html because of the current page (strong tags without <li>)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I want is following (page 1 is current page):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <ul>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#" rel="nofollow">Next</a></li>
>>>>>> <li class="down">1</li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">2</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">3</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">4</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#">5</a></li>
>>>>>> <li><a href="#" rel="nofollow">Previous</a></li>
>>>>>> </ul>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wouldn't there be a 'current_page_template' sub tag for the more list
>>>>>> or such?
>>>>>> Thought there was something.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I switch to use my own paging routine. [more-list] templates are not
>>>>> flexible
>>>>> enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>          Racke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> [more-list] templates are not google friendly.
>>>>
>>>> I use static pages with content and list items on that:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aussievitamin.com/shop/aussievitamin/couleur-caramel.html
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Yes, we all do that, for SEO reasons.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> We plan to do better, but packing and ordering is my main occupation
>>>> nowadays.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> There's no reason we can't make them more friendly. Would this
>>> type of work?
>>>
>>>     http://www.aussievitamin.com/shop/pager/MM/Xw399awaqa/1/30/100.html
>>>
>>> Then we just write a "pager" ActionMap which rearranges the components
>>> of the path.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Mike,
>>
>> Not for me.
>>
>> The makeup page was an exception. On a typical page only www and com are
>> not keywords:
>>
>> http://www.aussievitamin.com/allergies.html
>>
>> (After a few scripts in the httpd.conf to remove your /cgi-bin/)
>>
>> We might omit the www too on future sites, use hyphens and not use the
>> meaningless keyword aussie.
>>
>> But yes if you can stop those pages that expire, but which google will
>> spider that IS a good thing. I think we may have tried to block them in
>> robots.txt.
>>
>> If the generated pages 2..3.. are not linked from home they are in
>> danger of being orphaned by google. Too deep and google behave as if
>> they don't have the resources.
>>
>> Remember no more than 100 links per page? The common navigation (eg left
>> hand and top) on each page is likely to be 50 links. So you can only
>> really splash 50 links dynamically, which makes the more list on the
>> foundation store unattractive, because it breaks the rules by it's very
>> design. Nor can you keep linking pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 to the
>> home page for the same reason. Nor is reducing displayed product to 25
>> necessary or desirable.
>>
>> Is this just theory? Well no we had 100s of links (product lists) on
>> some pages and sales increased when we applied these rules. We removed a
>> lot of products from view. By the laws of statistics more products = 
>> more sales, but not so if you clutter your site or display too far from
>> home.
>>
>> This was last year and we heard about the rules years ago.
>>
>> But hey that's just what we do. Google hates shopping carts, China and
>> Yahoo! There are other factors like how many external links, so others
>> may think differently.
>>     
> I understand the SEO issues. We shoot for mappable actions as well,
> because we know having the word in the URL makes a big difference.
> Those have to be your search-engine placement priorites.
>
> Still, it's nice to have the ability to have searches be valid when
> they are linked to. 
>
>   
Yes sounds like a good idea. 

I guess I would have tolerated the NEXT 50 if they were on a page with a URL because you can always get external links to prop it up.