content management systems

[customle]

How do pages that are created/managed by content management systems fare with SE's?

I have never used one before because I am aware that any "?" or other symbol in the URL of pages would hurt ranking; however, I have over 100 sites that are related and it is becoming a management nightmare.

I have a sign business and I am writing separate sites for each product and each keyword/phrase of each product. It is working well as far as ranking very well with search engines; however, I am very tempted to try a content management system to keep them organized.

Is this a route you would persue and is there a content management system you would recommend or would you stay with the separate HTML pages/sites?

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

True enough, there are many search engines that ignore anything beyond the question mark (?). The best way to remedy the situation is to use Apache mod_rewrite which will allow for creating search engine friendly URLs.

Apache mod_rewrite can be used on any server operating system to which Apache has been ported.

For instructions on Apache mod_rewrite please refer to http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_rewrite.html.

Any dynamic site can be set up to provide search engine friendly URLs. Unfortunately, I haven't worked on Microsoft servers in over 4 years so I'm no help there unless you use Apache as the web server versus IIS.

[customle]

Thank you so much for the information. Unfortunately, I am moving to a Windows server running IIS.

Does anyone out there know how to set up dynamic sites to provide search engine friendly URLs?

Can anyone recommend search engine-friendly content management system for Windows server?

Also, on another subject, do you roughly know how many people browsing the internet that use pop-up blockers, percentage wise? I have a critical part of a program that gives information via a pop-up and it was brought to my attention that many of my visitors might be unable to use it if they use pop-up blockers.

[RDD]

I too am needing a URL friendly option for IIS & CMS drvien web sites.

As for the pop-up blockers: I disable pop ups in my IE options plus I use the Alexa toolbar that gives me the option to block pop-ups.

I make it a strict policy NOT to use pop ups in any of my web designs.

I also help all my family & friends learn how to block as many pop ups as possible.

I personally hope & feel that pop ups will go away one day. I see them as the graffiti of the Internet.

I don't think they will be going away any time soon though. :(

[StepForth_Jim]

I have recently run across major problems with three clients using Content Management Systems for their websites.

In all three cases, the code output by the CMS is just fine and should not prevent SE spiders from tranisiting through the sites but working within the often limited confines of the CMS drives me batty. Each CMS is somewhat different from the others, thus adding the time it takes to learn the system to the job.

I am having problems applying unique titles for each page in the 3 sites I am working on. For some reason, the programmers who designed these sytems seem to have assumed that one title cascading across all pages in the site is OK. There are other massive limitations in moving text around and adding different elements to the site but with a bit of work, most of them can be overcome.

Does anyone have any secrets to working with a CMS that I have missed? I am at the point of wanting to return my SEO work in NOTEPAD files to the my client's webmasters and instructing them to deal with it. (I don't think that would be very polite though)

thanks

[DanThies]

Jim:

If I had the choice, I'd rather work with a properly set up CMS for optimization, because you can structure documents so that they're optimized by the template.

For example, if you can translate a page topic into the <TITLE> and initial heading, force users to input section headings, etc. you end up with a lot of optimized content without having to tweak each page.

The biggest mistake I've seen is redirecting from www.domain.### to something like www.domain.###/default.asp, and that kind of thing that can prevent the site from getting crawled.

[jholcomb]

Most CMS systems that are widely distributed by sources like PHPNuke, PostNuke, YaWPS, XOOPS, are PHP based. I have personally worked with all of them and had no trouble getting an "index.php" page optimized and in top position. However Apache mod rewrite can be used ofr all of the above. As well most of the above systems support Microsoft servers. re-write is another issue but a good windows based web host should have a solution for you.

See a full list of CMS systems here:
http://www.opensourcecms.com/

The trouble comes in when you want other pages listed. Google (in my opinion) still does have MAJOR issues with indexing dynamic URL's. I have seen Googlebot hit dynamic pages repeatedly in attempts to read past the "?" and not be able to make it through. This is NOT a selective problem or a problem generated by webmasters who accidently "restrict" access to forums for example.

On good option is a PERL based CMS. Engines should have no problem reading these. See Slash Code:
http://slashcode.com/

Hope this helps!

[DanThies]

It's not the scripting language behind the system that's the problem, it's those darned question marks. Perl and PHP don't look any different to a search engine.

Using mod_rewrite or similar to put the slashes back in the URLs helps, but more for other crawlers than for Googlebot. Even then, you still can't use session variables in the URL, which may be the most common mistake/problem with CMS systems and forum apps.

Google has pretty much our entire "Inside Out Marketing" site, it's got question marks and ampersands in the URLs. It also runs on PHP, but the scripting language used doesn't have any impact on this at all.

[jholcomb]

The scripting language is the reason those additional characters are in the URL's in the first place.

And I'm glad to hear Google has managed to spider your site with dynamic URL's. Still I'm sticking to my guns saying that Google does not have this problem solved. Until my clients sites start being indexed properly by Googlebot then I'll have to maintain that stance.

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

I've seen many attempts to create a viable CMS that will be indexed by the search engines. Many times the programmers make mistakes in their attempt to be fancy.

These are the mistakes I have seen. Some may not consider them mistakes while others may agree with me.

1. JavaScript links
2. urlencoded session variables
3. urlencoded links using ? and &
4. no site map
5. lack of adequate text links
6. Server load, response, incomplete page presentation
7. Database not repsonding correctly

That is not in any particular order of importance. But they are things I have seen that can stop search engines in their tracks.

If a search engine attempts to call the same page more than once during the same session/visit then there is definitely something wrong with the presentation/server response. It may also be due to the 'bot' finding the same link with "hash" (#) attributes in the links on a page.

Again, I hope this helps everyone.

[jholcomb]

WebDoctor you are absolutely right in what you said. However in most cases I have checked the servers for their configuration or to see if a hash might be present in URL's. In all cases (except for 2 where there were hashes in the URL) I have found it to be a matter of Googlebot simply not being able to "read" some URL's properly. The disappointing fact is that it seems to be selective with no real pattern to it. While some pages are indexed fine others are left out.

I have even tested the usage of sitemaps and although it does indeed help to some extent it still is not enough.

I think the solution for CMS systems is to actually take into account mod-rewrite when programming the CMS itself. The disappointing factor is that nearly all CMS solutions do not. As many have grown well past beta stages they do not want to go back and take the time to address the issue.

[raygonzalez]

Today more and more sites are utilizing a CMS.

Historically it has caused nightmares for the SEO.

Most CMS do not take SEO in to consideration, so when it comes time for SEO a ton of changes need to be, other solutions including static landing pages or mirror the site for the search engines.

At first we thought it was simply the ? mark, however many of our clients sites have awesome rankings inside of Google even with the ?.
We have been able to get Google to index sites with the ? mark.

A big part of SEO is naming the pages, unique titles and descriptions and naming the images and using the ALT tags.

All of these things can be taken into consideration when building a CMS.

Over the past year we have actually built our own CMS, the entire program was built around SEO. The first few versions were really only for our internal staff and to speed things up.

Soon after that we landed a large ecomerce site that was built using a CMS.
When we first optimized the site we were contracted to optimize 150 pages of the 500+ pages. The system made things really difficult, when the client would create a new page the optimization was not included in the new page.

Our client actually makes changes 3 or 4 times a day to the site.
Depending on what is in stock pages are taken offline and then put back online at a later date. But when new pages were created the optimization again was not included. WIth in 2 months there were only 15 pages with the optimization code left on the live site.

We took the CMS a step further, considering how often the client is changing the site, we intergrated his current CMS with our CMS, this gave the client control over adding the optimization code to new pages.

We went from having to twak 150 pages down to tweaking 20 templates.
Saved us a ton of time and in turn a huge savings for the client.

We built our CMS around the SEO, but sicne we are also a complete web development compnay, many of our clients don't go with the optimizaiton.
Instead of building two CMS we just built the one, however we are able to turn off the optimization part.

Our designers and programmers are a trained it what it takes to create a search engine freindly site. Every site we build is built with SEO in mind whether or not the client takes the SEO.

An added benifit to do things this way is 6 months down the road when they decide they need the optimization a good portion of the set up is already finished, thus creating yet another savings for the client.

The new version which we are thinking of selling on the open market will be ready in about a month. Once it is we will be releasing the case studies and the do's and don'ts.

[ibuiltDOTnet]

Check out the

iBuilt.net Sitemanager (http://www.ibuilt.net)

This content management utility will allow you to create complete sites that can be crawled by search engines.

[DanThies]

The scripting language is the reason those additional characters are in the URL's in the first place.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that PHP forces you to use them, and Perl somehow doesn't? That's simply not true.

None of the search engines have the problem solved of indexing dynamic sites. In my experience Google is better at it, but that may be more a function of where our sites sit in terms of PageRank, which perhaps causes them to do a complete crawl. Having other sites that link to those internal (dynamic) URLs is no doubt a big help as well.

RDD: if you're still around, you should look at IIS Rewrite (http://www.iisrewrite.com) - it works pretty much the same as Apache's mod_rewrite.

[jholcomb]

Dan I'll take a look at "iis". Someone else had mentioned this to me before and I never got a chance to have a look.

Still, I disagree. I know that pagerank may have something to do with indexing. However I still see Googlebot having problems. When it goes to a page and hits it 30 to 40 times and get only halfway through the URL and stops at a "?" sign then you have to believe there is a problem.

When writing PHP in order to call certain dynamically generated pages raw PHP will force you to use additional characters. CGI is easily changed and additional characters are usually not necessary. I never said CGI had a problem with this.

Rewrite (to my knowledge) is the best way to force PHP to behave like you want it to. If there is a better method then I'd love to get my hands on it.

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

Apache mod_rewrite doesn't care if the scripting language is Perl, PHP, Python, C variants, or any other language. It is a way the server converts and handles exchanges from files. You could modify your URL responses to be any extension you wish to use.

When outputing a different extension, the server needs to know how to handle that extension. Therefore, in Linux-variants you need to update your httpd.conf file so that the extension is understood. Much like this [ htm, html => pnd, tsf ] or whatever you choose. The point is any file extension can be used. One trick we use is to hide the server type for the less astute by changing the file extension to .exe.

If Apache is running on Windows or Mac then it will have the modifications set up somewhat differently.

I have a sign business and I am writing separate sites for each product and each keyword/phrase of each product. It is working well as far as ranking very well with search engines; however, I am very tempted to try a content management system to keep them organized.

You are using a method the search engines provide advise upon. They suggest you do exactly as you are doing. Then you link all the alternate sites back to the main site and to each other. That helps you in more ways than one.

I would advise against moving your situation to a content management system. That action would hurt more than help. You are much better off doing what you do now. I actually employ that tactic and it works fine, but also gives people other ways to my main site without using "doorway" pages as so many think they need.

[DanThies]

Still, I disagree. I know that pagerank may have something to do with indexing. However I still see Googlebot having problems. When it goes to a page and hits it 30 to 40 times and get only halfway through the URL and stops at a "?" sign then you have to believe there is a problem.
No question that they still have a problem. Nobody's figured it out yet. The above sounds like they're hitting a bad link or something - they should be fetching the full URL of any link they try to follow. It would be great to see an example, though, where they just can't follow a perfectly good link, so post it if you can.



When writing PHP in order to call certain dynamically generated pages raw PHP will force you to use additional characters. CGI is easily changed and additional characters are usually not necessary. I never said CGI had a problem with this.
PHP, on many servers, is implemented as CGI rather than as an Apache module, but I think you're misinformed. PHP and Perl/CGI will use the "GET" method exactly the same way. They work the same way, and the language used has nothing to do with what's in the URL. What you're probably seeing are lots of really ugly implementations (like PHP-Nuke), or people using session variables and other unnecessary stuff.[/quote]

Rewrite (to my knowledge) is the best way to force PHP to behave like you want it to. If there is a better method then I'd love to get my hands on it.
Rewriting does the job, and I don't know of a better way to make PHP, ASP, or Perl based dynamic sites "look right" so that they're easier for spiders to crawl.

[jholcomb]

Dan

Being that we handle many nuke based web sites you may be correct in your thinking that the CMS is forcing the usage. However, PHP/CGI are not the same language. They CAN BE implemented to work together but that is on the server level and most web servers are not set up to do this in virtual hosting environments. They are different modules in Apache. You need a module to make them work together, I forget the name of it but I am sure I could dig it up if someone needs it. Raw PHP will force the use of extra characters in the URL.

As far as hitting a URL goes it usually goes something like this for example:

http://www.domain.com/anypage.php?blahblah=xyz123

Google will hit this:
http://www.domain.com/anypage.php
repeatedly and never make it past the "?". Funny thing is that it is hit-or-miss with no definite pattern. Some pages make it, while others do not. I will point out that this is for pages without session variables.

It seems pretty definitive to me that there is still a problem with Googlebot. Maybe there is something I am doing wrong, but I sure can't see it.

[DanThies]

Exactly, the problem there is Googlebot.

[Rabies]

I personally hope & feel that pop ups will go away one day. I see them as the graffiti of the Internet. :(

That's like saying all signage in a city should be taken down because it's "visual pollution". You have to qualify what kind of signs are offensive and which serve a needed purpose. (ie: Big ad billboard VS a School Zone warning).

Pop-up *ABUSE* is the problem, not just pop-ups in of themselves. Pop-ups can serve a useful purpose. Like in these very forums for example, a Private Message can appear in a pop-up. I prefer that method instead of receiving an email, or having to remember to check my PM inbox.

Also we have to make an income some how. It's ridiculous when webmasters put up pop-up after pop-up on every page, but when it's one pop-UNDER that appears once a day and no more, that's very tolerable. We can tolerate having our television shows interrupted every 10 minutes, so what's the occasional pop-up gonna do to us?

These pop-up blockers should be designed to detect when there's pop-up abuse, rather than just blocking them all.

[bmyers]

MemberGate content management system (http://www.membergate.com), the content management system used by General Motors and other large corporations, as well as many one person shops, is fully search engine optimized, includes google tracker, includes the ability to view what key words visitors from google (and other search engines) entered to find the site, and even tracks the searches that visitors do once they reach the site.

Sites powered by MemberGate consistently appear in the top ten ranking of Google for almost every key word on any page within the site. (Visit the active MemberGate site list, choose any site, choose any word or phrase appearing on any page on any MemberGate site, and search google. Check the ranking.)

The Google Tracker feature of MemberGate records and tracks the movement of search engine robots through the site - providing a report showing which pages were ranked and when. These reports also show how often google visits.

I'm somewhat biased on this as I use MemberGate, but it definitely is search engine optimized - our daily referral report (part of the MemberGate control panel), shows 85% of our daily visitors come via Google, Yahoo or MSN searches.

MemberGate was originally priced at $30,000, but now available for under $4,000.

Bill

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

I checked out Membergate as was recommended.

The system seems easy to use. However, it has many problems.

Just doing my simple text on one of their pages I found 21 errors and several warning messages. That wasn't using the W3C validator. I imagine I would find 1000s of errors if I ran my more in depth tests against the site.

Using the W3C validator (a good tool, but not the best) shows 14 errors, but some of those errors are ? in the text. The ? came up because the codes used to generate the "trademark" mark are incorrect. That's an error on the part of the content provider and is probably the result of copying their Word document text into their editor window.

They also use the leftmargin, rightmargin, topmargin, bottommargin attributes for the body tag which are IE proprietary codes. They are not standard HTML codes.

Then instead of quoting all attribute values like they should, they had a team that developed the layout sections independently of each other without a QA evaluation for code consistency.

I didn't find the page naming scheme very useful. Instead of being able to name the pages, the pages in one section were all "department +somenumber". Not very useful in finding the page I want to work with.

They also put <form> tags improperly nested. <form> tags are required to be properly nested with the block elements containing the form.

Ok, I've picked it enough. Bottom line, it may be a good tool for some, but the quality of codes it produces are not up to standards.

No offenses intended, but they need to work on it some more and make it standards compliant before I'd put my endorsement on it.

[bmyers]

Yes, if you use a html validation program, it will certainly issue some warnings on MemberGate created pages - especially in user entered fields such as the meta descriptions.

And the use of IE specific commands will trigger more warnings in the html code validators (but of course, these extra specs are ignored by older browsers - they don't create errors).

The design strategy behind MemberGate was to provide maximum flexibility for site owners and visitors, maximum search engine optimization, comply with US usability guidelines, and make use of advanced code snippets to enhance viewer and search engine access to the site - while still remaining compliant with older browsers.

It was written to be fully compliant within the real world IE, Netscape, Opera and other browsers.

As for html validators, I use them often. But try running a html code validator against Amazon, Google.com, eBay, News.com, or PCmag.com - in fact any of the top sites on the internet - and you'll find they all produce large numbers of errors and warnings - at least according to html code validators.

I just ran an html validator against the front page of this very site ( http://www.webproworld.com/), and the html code validator found over 30 hard errors, and more than 90 warnings.

And then I ran the same code validator on the home page of your site - it found 40+ hard errors, including finding many instances of absolutely invalid html code.

But the front page of your site still displays well - even with all these 'errors' (as defined by html validation programs).

I do think validators have a place in web site development - but you also have to consider real world performance.

Again, I appreciate your comments.

Bill

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

Bill,

I think you might want to go back and try that again. My site is fully XHTML 1.0 compliant, no errors found with WebQA by Watchfire (yes I own a copy of that $1500USD software and several other pieces of software for validation).

Don't insult me with your tests until you know what tests I run. I can peel away the onion faster than you can ever imagine and find problems you might think are problems.

As for the W3C test use the link below.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roserockdesign.com

In the interim, tell me what tool you used and I'd love to look at it. If it's a tool that passes my rigors I'll put my endorsement on it. I help develop the standards, so don't you think that I'm going to use them?

[bmyers]

Lee,

I didn't mean to insult you. I tested using the CSE HTML validator tool in Allaire Homesite - same tool found in Macromedia's Dreamweaver.

Apparently the validator doesn't like the way many of your lines of html include a '/' in the line, prior to closing the command.

For example, it doesn't think the '/' in {BR/} is a valid html command. (Your page is full of commands that end with /} - the validator didn't like any of them.

That's the problem with validators - there are many different flavors - reporting errors that may or may not be errors - depending on who's standards are used.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just providing feedback based on the CSE HTML validator found in HomeSite.

Bill

[TheWebDoctor(tm)]

Bill,
You'll find on the testimonial page at http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/testimonials.html my testimony is listed third from the top as I write this.

I've spoken to the developer at length on the issues of the validator not validating based upon the DOCTYPE. He doesn't want to validate based upon the DOCTYPE and says he won't be doing so.

CSE HTML Validator is a great tool and points out many things people are not aware of and that don't get validated by the W3C validator. However, the learning curve is very steep with the professional version program.

I actually had a feeling you were using CSE. I commend you on using it. My only advice is to use it with the knowledge that it doesn't check everything.

If you set your CSE to validate based upon XHTML/XML you'll find that those errors disappear. But, you don't want me to try and walk you through it. I get lost with all those flags and settings the developer has in the program.

Now, if you have Dreamweaver you can validate any of my pages using the Check as XML option. That will then go out to W3C and validate there and return the results.

I've used HomeSite since 1996. I use Dreamweaver when I want a quick visual. Dreamweaver's presentation engine is based upon IE's engine. However, I use Notepad on a more regular basis. I really get a kick out of competitors that know I use Notepad and tell me that use Notepad, but for some strange reason their codes say <meta name="generator" content="Front Page blah">. I simply get amused.

If you're using HomeSite I would recommend you open the template and modify the default template to include the full DOCTYPE declaration of the DOCTYPE you use most. That way you are informing the browsers that you are using the DOCTYPE correctly. Otherwise, browsers like IE will operate in Quirks mode and not display your pages correctly.

19 years and still counting working on the Internet. I imagine one day I'll either stop counting or stop doing work. Admittedly, I have some sites that are not up to snuff, but some of them are being reworked for free. I hate showing off stuff that isn't correct.

Now, I'm working with a group that is developing a CMS. We're developing it so that all the pages validate. When we get it finished, I'd be more than happy to show it off. Of course, if they drop the ball and provide non-compliant pages my endorsement ends.

[jephens]

There's been a port of mod_rewrite for IIS.

http://www.qwerksoft.com/products/iisrewrite/

I use a similar package called URLReplacer

http://www.pstruh.cz/help/urlrepl/library.htm

Works great.

As far as CMS goes, I use CityDesk from FogCreek Software (related to the awesome joelonsoftware site) and it works really well for me; I'm looking forward to their Version 2.0 which is in the pipeline.

This works by creating static pages on your local drive and then publishing the changed files to the web server via FTP or file copy. It works great. I've used it with a combination of ASP and CityScript (its built in scripting language) and it's a pretty cool tool.

[customle]

Wow, Jephens, thanks for that info. I'm a newbie at CMS, and it is so nice to talk to someone who has first-hand knowledge of using one that works.

I wanted to be so careful not to ruin my great rankings by using a CMS; however, I am at a point where I think I really need one.

Anyone else use this CMS?

Everyone's feedback on this topic is greatly appreciated, since I am a bit over my head here.

Reyne

[NetPublisher]

Hello!

CMS are far better than any old static HTML offering! - PERIOD!!!


Here's now are just a few reasons why...

* You can modify your site on the fly!

* You can allow others access to greater participation!

* You go easily make your way to the tippity-top of any search engine!

* You can add all the code that you like!

* You can manage your site from anywhere in the world!


From a successful marketing position, you will "crush" your competitors bar none!

"We do and so can YOU!"

Here's a perfect example...
http://www.InternationalePublishersAssociation.com

Have a wonderful Sunday!

All the best,

Tony

Questions? 866-824-9684
Email:admin@americawebworks.com

[Netcera]

We have built a content managment system/application server based on Apache/PHP/MySQL. We started out using mod_rewrite to address the search engine issue, as well as the human issue of weird page names, but found it somewhat unreliable (occasionally glitches and doesn't display the page) and created more server overhead and latency than we were comfortable with. This was over two years ago, so it may have improved by now.

Instead, our system creates directories for each page and places a single index.php to display the page. Pages are therefore in plain English (www.mysite.com/Products/Tape/DuctTape/), and look and act exactly like regular web pages. To the outside world, it just looks like every web page has it's own directory. Admittedly, you need to have a fast filesystem that can handle creating and deleting lots of directories.

[chico]

i think Content Management Systems are good and they help me to manage a lot of stuff.i manage one of the biggest websites in my country Ghana and the CMS we designed has helped a lot.

With search engines finding our publications and indexing has been great,actually since we started using CMS our rankings on the search engines have greatly improved.

CMS are supposed to improve productivity,so if your CMS is not working as it is supposed to then i guess the developer who put it together has to modify it.

[matt_j]

We use a java-based CMS called nucontent that seems to work well with search engines and everything else. It publishes the title and URL in a way that Google seems OK with. It's also very easy to use. We had another cms prior to nucontent and it was a nightmare. I think the Web address is http://www.nucontent.com.[/url]

[jasper]

We (I) here at www.npowerin.org developed our own home grown CMS for our Non-Profit customers using ASP with Access.
So far I have developed calendars/events, dynamic menus, email forms, and some specialty pages (like the "Resource Guide" section of my latest: www.dvngi.org
With a quick change of the site template and CSS I can create a new looking site rather easily. With the WYSIWYG editor, I can control how much my customer can change, depending on how savy they feel about making changes.
My goal is to get website creation down to 3 days, and helping our local non-profits save money, but still have a functioning, manageable website, without having to call me (spending dollars) to make changes.

[MattRobertson]

Interesting topic. More so because I develop and wholesale a cms to other developers.

Personally, being a hard-liner insofar as coding by hand is concerned I'm afraid I've given my soul completely over to the devil: a wysiwyg web-based editor. The benefits of managing a site within a cms framework are just too great. Now, that doesn't mean you can't be standards-compliant, nor does it mean you have to give up SE-friendliness. The developer just has to build the capabilities into the system.

For example, the cms can give you entry spaces for all the meta stuff, and a custom title, but default to using the page title in absence of a special title, and take the first 255 chars of text -- stripped of html -- for a meta descr. It just depends on the product in question, and I'm sure there are many out there that take this into account.

While you can use mod_rewrite to make SE-friendly urls, you can also do this in the cms system code. In CF, this will work on Apache:

[cfparam name="attributes.VarScope" default="url." type="string"]
[cfparam name="attributes.delimiter" default="/" type="string"]
[cfset variables.query_string_length=Len(cgi.Request_Uri)-Len(cgi.Script_Name)]

[cfset variables.query_string=Right(cgi.Request_Uri, variables.query_string_length)]
[cfset variables.items=ListLen(variables.query_string, attributes.delimiter)]


[cfset variables.i1=ListGetAt(variables.query_string, i, attributes.delimiter)]
[cfset variables.i2=ListGetAt(variables.query_string, i+1, attributes.delimiter)]
[cfset "#attributes.VarScope##variables.i1#"=variables.i2]




Then you build your links and code to use slashes in its query string.

To use this in-code technique in IIS requires an alteration to its default settings otherwise it will throw a 404 whenever it finds a 'page' like http://foo.com/bar.cfm/id/123 doesn't exist. You can shut this selectively and safely off in IIS for specific page extension types.

There are also free Win2k/IIS isapi filters out there. Look at the free tools at http://cfdev.com for one of many.

Lastly I haven't seen mention of using a cms to administer the pages, but for it to publish physically discrete, static versions of same so that the SE issues y'all are discussing don't exist. Some pages of course require application processing of some sort (a page whose menu alters itself depending on the user's access level, for example). Those pages can be served dynamically but given SE-friendly urls.

This technique not only removes the issue of SE-friendliness, but it takes a colossal load off the application and database servers. Naturally there are issues with taking pages in and out of service, but those can all be dealt with via the cms if its thoughtfully laid out.

And by the way, please don't take my own site -- built in an older ver of the cms I sell -- as a shining example of what I'm talking about. I sorely wish I had the time to refit a good design onto it, and install all of the nice keywords and such. Never enough time in the day.

Cheers,

--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com

[scoob]

Some people were talking about their system being on windows while others were recommending using mod_rewrite.

I have come across the following website which
might interest you:

http://www.isapirewrite.com/

Disclaimer: I have never used the product.

Good luck!
- Scoob

[germonc]

I've read the whole of this CMS forum avidly - however there is no mention of CMS' being accessible to the disabled (meeting RNIB, WIA and Section 508 Standards).

As a Government Organisation we have have an obligation to create our site to be accessible. We will be looking into implementing a CMS to maintain our FOIA section, therefore it needs to be accessible.

Has anyone got any suggestions?

[ed.quinn]

We are currently in the process of developing a new Content Management System which we intend to sell to small businesses and individuals who don't necessarily want to create websites from scratch, spend a fortune on the software or have their own dedicated server to run it from!

If you would like to see a complete version online, visit http://www.e-centrixonline.com

You may notice as you navigate through the site that the URLs for a lot of the pages do not contain the dreaded question mark! The system is designed from the ground up to be as search engine friendly as possible in so far as that you can set individual sections with different metatags and descriptions as well as setting them globally for the entire site. We also have the ability for you to easily enable comments and ratings for individual articles and set up your own discussion pages that work in a similar way to a forum.

You can also set up different themes for your website which can be changed either globally or on a per-section basis and with some packages we will be offering your own theme creation section, where you will be able to create your own page skins from scratch if you so desire.

If you are interested in any more information about our product (e-centrix.net), please feel free to e-mail me for more information (ed.quinn@e-centrix.com). We are looking to do a roll-out over the next couple of weeks for version 1.0 and we will be continually developing the product from then on with the aid of user feedback to drive the development process.

Ed Quinn
Web Development Team Leader