Re: Get rid of /static/ in doc urls?

> On 20 Oct 2018, at 02:32, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> The one thing I wonder about is- didn't someone say at one point that
> shorter urls are preferred by search engines, and if we made the
> 'current' doc link shorter than the per-version doc links that it'd be
> much more likely to show up higher in search results (which we would
> generally prefer)..?

I’ve never seen URL length matter, and especially not in the short lengths we
have with/without static. The SEO wizards we had at $work were only interested
in URLs that conveyed meaning, which ours do quite well (especially if we lose
/static).

My bigger concern is the duplicate content we have with /docs/current/ and
/docs/11/, and in general for doc pages not changed in a release. We clearly
saw SEO punishment in similar situations, with Google more or less picking one
at random to index and rating the other much lower. The common solution is
setting canonical URLs but that doesn’t apply to us.

cheers ./daniel