That was an earlier example. I agree that one is too intense.
We agree, but my point was that - as I see it - the way you read a "Pretty URL" is nearly the same as how you read a Breadcrumb.
Your stance seems to be, "People like and can easily read Breadcrumbs, but they tend to shy away from reading Pretty URL's..."
You may be right, but to me, a "Pretty URL" and a Breadcrumb are nearly identical from how you read them. That is what I was "Six of one, a half-a-dozen of another" ing about!
Well, several months ago I consulted with people here on SitePoint about this topic, and the consensus was, "It is a good thing to cross-reference the Same Article in Different Sections of your website. Users will appreciate this because they won't have to search for things - it will be in the Section they care about. And Search Engines shouldn't care either, as long as you aren't doing this 10 times for every Article?!"
So I'm sticking with that game plan.
More importantly, though, you unintentionally are taking what I said out-of-context...
The URL's above are examples of what I was trying to AVOID...
I was saying earlier in this thread that I wanted to avoid DEEP threads because - like you - I think that having numerous levels would confuse things. (And be a maintenance nightmare.)
Lemme do a deeper dive into what I was trying to say...
If I took a traditional approach to my website, and I had 2 competing concepts like Business Structure (e.g. Sole Prop, S-Corp, C-Corp, LLC) and Business Presence (e.g. Brick & Mortar, Online, Hybrid) which BOTH applied to an Article, then I might "AND" things and create - you're a techy so you'll get this - a "Cartesian Product". (I was trying to show that above with the BAD URL's...)
So the "brilliant" idea I had a few days ago was to introduce the concept of "Dimension" to my website.
Instead of seeing "Business Structure" and "Business Type" as things which need to be NESTED, I decided to "level the playing field" and treat them as EQUAL.
So "Business Structure" is a "Dimension". And "Business Type" is another "Dimension".
They are siblings, not Parent-Child, because it would be a "Chicken and Egg" syndrome?! :eek:
But there is still the issue that some Articles apply to both "Dimensions".
No big deal.
Instead of trying to cram disparate concepts (e.g. LLC and Brick & Mortar Business) together, I just place the Article in each Section.
Then, people who care about S-Corps will come across this related Article. And people who are debating about whether to have a Brick & Mortar Store or an Online Store will also come across it.
So instead of doing this...
I do this...
(These are contrived examples...)
I don't think so.
First of all, one is under Legal > Business Structures > S-Corps, and the other under Management > Business Types > Hybrids.
If someone is so eager about my website that they come across the same Article twice, I believe they will be perceptive enough to "get" that it is just the same Article being cross-referenced...
But again, you were referring to the "bad" URL's.
With what I just re-explained above, I only have TWO LEVELS. (That shouldn't be overly burdensome to most people.)
You got me on that one, David!!
But considering that my website is more than just Articles, and even if I could write a PHP script to iterate through my Category>Sub-Category>Article structure, I'd still have the issue of how to handle all of the other webpages and different structures for my website?!
So, I'd say I'll just have to do things the manual way for now. (Which shouldn't be a big issue, because it is not like I am the NY Times and have 100 new Articles every day?!)
Right. I only outlined the few tables which pertain to Articles and the organization of them...
Possibly. I think r937 had a similar feeling/idea as you, however, it was just too much for me to wrap my head around for this build.
I'll have to play around with this.
If I go with the tables I showed you in the link above, I guess it might not be as hard as I thought to build Breadcrumbs, but we'll have to see...
It is also FaceBook!!!! (Known for it's horrible architectural decisions - or lack thereof?!)
They don't. But my site does...
(I think the confusion over what I was saying was a "good" and "bad" example above may have caused some undo confusion...)
Thanks for your 2-cents so far!!!
I look forward to see what your responses are to my replies...