Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The 'Duplicate Content' point in the article just plain wrong. It's not duplicate content - it's a load balancing and mirroring technique that's very common. For example, http://us2.php.net/echo and http://uk1.php.net/echo

Also, as ygra has already pointed out, the .asp extension doesn't necessarily mean they're using ASP. They've possibly just kept the extension and they're routing to something more modern with URL rewriting.

If you're going to critique other people's work, make sure you know precisely what you're talking about first.

Load balancing should be transparent to the user. Pages with duplicate content should use <link rel="canonical">.

If we all waited until we were 100% accurate before critiquing anything, then nothing would ever be critiqued - calm down and take your own advice.

This is a classic example of duplicate content in the SEO sense: there are multiple separate URIs which present the same content to the user. That's definitionally duplicated; the fact that it's down to badly-implemented load balancing is irrelevant.

The obvious correct solution would be to handle the load balancing at the DNS level, or with a single canonical load-balancing endpoint. If that's not possible, then using <link rel='canonical'> tags will indicate to search engines that the URIs point to the same resource, allowing a single canonical URI to be defined.

Here are the subdomains they use:


If they are "load balancing", then why aren't they using geo-specific subdomains? As shown above, their subdomains are keyword stuffed. If you're right, then they're certainly doing it in a very bizarre manner.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact