> It occurred to me that the hype around client-side rendered apps
> is still alive and kicking. It’s not the first time I’ve heard
> server-side rendering negatively referred to as an “old school” technique.
and ...
> Chalk that up to my ignorance, believing the client-side rendered
> app-of-the-future hype, and not caring about SEO until the organic
> traffic numbers came in.
I think the end of your comment should be shared with others; for those that are eager to try, but not fully aware of the consequences of client-side rendered apps.
I'd like to include your statement somewhere in the post to further emphasize the point; I hope that's okay. Thanks!
If you use Node...
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/docs/...
If you used backbone routing properly this shouldn't be a problem.
Or, use one of the "Full-Stack" Frameworks for Javascript which merge the client and the server almost completely. Derby.js comes to mind, maybe even meteor.
[edit]: you mentioned PhantomJS in your summary, didn't see it. But you don't mention why you didn't use it.
I had the rare opportunity to re-imagine the profile app in the context of another app that was being built from scratch and went with the server-rendered approach.
The phantomjs approach is totally valid. Thanks for reading!
Well,most of your users come to your website through Google, which is just another website.
I dont see why Google should adapt its stack to yours, since Google is actually the one who brings you users. It doesnt have to do anything for you, especially when you abuse javascript and dont provide a bot-readable fallback to indexable pages.
You cant have it both ways.Make readable html documents like you are supposed to and you'll be fine. Make a dynamic scripted mess and you'll lose some potential custormers because of bad ranking. You cant expect Google to do your job for you.