cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Website FIles
Date Sun, 21 May 2017 13:19:49 GMT
Actually, what I said doesn't make sense.  Did I mention I'm living in an
allergy fog these days?  :-)

Even if the production site references the staging site, the robots.txt on
the staging site should discourage search engines from following it.


On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Michael Gentry <blacknext@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no robots.txt file on production, though, so the link will be
> found there.  I'll update it.
>
>
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On May 21, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On May 21, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Michael Gentry <blacknext@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That's the main change.  I also added a link to the Staging CMS site
>> since
>> >> I had to dig that up (didn't know it offhand).
>> >
>> > Exposing staging links publicly and adding more weight to them by
>> creating links from the main site will be bad for SEO (a link to a second
>> copy of the site will confuse Google as to which is the primary page). Wish
>> we had the ability to set <link rel="canonical"../> for each page to help
>> Google. So maybe remove the <a> tag from that link, and simply keep the
>> text?
>>
>> On the other hand, it seems that the CMS already takes care of it by
>> automatically placing a restrictive robots.txt on staging containing this:
>>
>> User-agent: *
>> Disallow: /
>>
>> So my worries may be misplaced, but since search engines are complete
>> blackboxes, you can never be 100% sure :)
>>
>> Andrus
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message