Yoast: Been saying this for years: The “New” SEO Secret Weapon http://t.co/TkpAVjpj via @copyblogger 
SlideShare should get it’s SEO fixed
While I'm uploading my presentation of my WordPress session to SlideShare, I was looking for an upload client as my HTTP connection was bound to die. I searched for [slideshare upload] and found this result:
PHP Session ID's in your URL? A presentation as the best result on your site for that term? Come on SlideShare, get a decent SEO and get it FIXED.
(I'm in the SEO howlers session on A4UExpo where Andy, Dixon and Kristjan Mar are showing off loads of typical stupid issues like this, and doing a damn good job of it. You should have been here!)
PDF Tags: A4UExpo, Conferences
Category: SEO
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Other posts you might like:
14 Responses to “SlideShare should get it’s SEO fixed”
Comments closed, if you feel you have something to say:
drop me a line.
Google Analytics WordPress
Track your WordPress site easily in Google Analytics and add lots of data, for example views per author & category and automatic tracking of outbound clicks, pageviews & downloads.
by Barry on 14 October, 2008 at 16:01
I find it equally as disturbing that a single presentation on slideshare has the #1 spot for this query. yes, they can definitely use some professional SEO care.
by bla on 14 October, 2008 at 16:06
Slideshare should get it is SEO fixed? Could you explain what that means?
by Roy Scribner on 14 October, 2008 at 16:31
Yikes! Quick, send them a link to Yoast. btw - I've had some incidents like this and have found that Google's URL removal tool (in Webmaster Utilities) works well.
by Lodewijk on 14 October, 2008 at 16:33
That it's SEO isnt arranged good enough? Check screenshot?!
by rashmi on 14 October, 2008 at 20:23
Just a note to chime in and say that we are listening. Tell us more.
by Jonathan Boutelle on 14 October, 2008 at 21:14
Thanks, this is great stuff. To be true, this HAS been on my todo list but I hadn't prioritized it 'till now. Are rel=nofollow tags in all links to the upload page the way to go here? Or is a more extreme step (like the google URL removal tool mentioned in the comment) warranted?
Please keep the criticism coming ... it is *extremely* valuable to us! ;->
by Sint Smeding on 15 October, 2008 at 08:27
@Jonathan: Shouldn't this query lead to the upload itself (without the sessionID)? You should consider removing those sessionID's from your URL's, or adding a rel="nofollow" to every link that contains such an ID.
by Sint Smeding on 15 October, 2008 at 08:27
@Jonathan: Shouldn't this query lead to the upload page itself (without the sessionID)? You should consider removing those sessionID's from your URL's, or adding a rel="nofollow" to every link that contains such an ID.
by Joost de Valk on 15 October, 2008 at 10:41
Thx for all the comments!
@Jonathan Boutelle: I'll shoot you an email :)
by bla on 15 October, 2008 at 15:02
Oh right, you meant ITS and not IT'S. Yeah, spelling is difficult.
by Joost de Valk on 15 October, 2008 at 15:04
@bla: so is being nice apparently :)
by sergio on 16 October, 2008 at 12:55
Don't you know that Google has already 'solved' the id session issue and discards them automatically, so that us dumb webmasters don't have to worry about that? At least, that's what they said.
by Sint Smeding on 19 October, 2008 at 14:08
@sergio: As long as these kind of session ID's show op in search results, they haven't solved anything. Do you have a source with more information? I think a search engine would and should be very careful in changing URL's or ignoring parameters while "interpreting" pages and URL's. Normally, SE's will diagnose duplicate content when sessionID's are passed in URL's which causes link authority to leak to pages that won't turn up in search results. The best solution in my opinion is not to use session ID's in your links, at least not for important pages you want to be found with.
by Tertius on 29 October, 2008 at 17:16
I've seen, in some of the recent webmaster/google discussions that the SEs get past this, but like you're saying, a lot of SEO juice is lost.
I'm working on some django development and I'm really focussed on SEO within the app, it's a pity if you have to update your codebase with a problem like this. It's really an avoidable problem. Those IDs are just ugly!