There's no trace of the english translation pages neither in search results neither in the `site:www.adrianmoisa.ro` query nor in google webmaster tools page.
My default language is romanian which is the actual translation, and almost fully indexed by google (receiving a healthy trafic for romanian querries). The secondary language is english and the website is fully translated end to end. I have almost 800kb of raw text in almost 80 pages, which is far more than enough for google to do it's magic. On each page there are anchored links in the sidebar and footer which point to the page translation back and forth using seo-locale plugin functionality. The robots.txt file is changed to point to the sitemap.php page. I even manually submited the sitemap in the google account a hour ago. I have the romanian translation retrieved by default because many of my romanian visitors are using english by default in the OS or browser.
I guess that I really need to have distinct URL's for each page translation.
i.e:
`website.ro/ro/same-page`
`website.ro/en/same-page`
Can the seo-locale plugin be modified to stop removing the language apendix from the url? Also I'd preffer `website.ro/en` over `website.ro/en_US` Any advice on how to do that? Thanks!
Comments
If there is any way to rewrite the url so that it displays the translated title link it would be awsome!
My website's pages are well linked between them in case the sitemap can't remain an actual representation of my website and I need to disable it.
Did webside.ro/en not work for you?
If there is any way to rewrite the url so that it displays the translated title link it would be awsome!
The title is never shown in the url but " folder name" We won't change that for sure since Zenphoto is dependend on that unique name.
Any disadvantages for this solution?
Thanks!
Maybe two copies of the images. But you can overcome that with the external album settings in zp-config.php.
Two copies of the database metadata. Most of that can be overcome by placing the metadata in the images themselves via EXIF/IPTC fields or XML sidecars.
Anyway, sounds like a good solution.
If a biger HDD footprint is the only downside I shouldn't worry at all. Currently I'm using only 50 megs out of the 10 GB avaible from the web host . My gallery isn't open for registration and my upload rate is quite small so there's no concern at all.