I’m working on a huge website project with over 100,000 pages. Instead of making static HTML files, I’m thinking about using blank pages that get filled in by JavaScript when they load. This way, I’d only need to update one main file to change all the pages at once.
Some people say this might hurt SEO because the content isn’t there right away. But I think search engines probably wait for the page to load before checking it. They also say it might slow things down for users.
I’m wondering if anyone has tried something like this before. What do you think? Is it a good idea or a bad one?
Here’s a simple example of what I mean:
window.onload = function() {
const pageContent = {
title: 'Welcome to My Page',
body: 'This content was added by JavaScript!'
};
document.title = pageContent.title;
document.body.innerHTML = pageContent.body;
};
Has anyone done something similar? What were the results? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
I’ve actually tackled a similar project before, and I can tell you it’s a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s incredibly efficient for managing content updates across a massive site. I loved being able to push changes instantly to thousands of pages.
However, the SEO concerns are real. While Google’s gotten better at rendering JavaScript, it’s still not perfect. We saw a noticeable dip in organic traffic initially. Load times were also an issue, especially on mobile.
What worked for us was a hybrid approach. We pre-rendered critical content server-side for the initial load, then used JavaScript to enhance and update dynamically. It struck a good balance between SEO, performance, and maintainability.
If you go the full JavaScript route, make sure you’ve got a solid caching strategy and consider using a framework like Next.js that supports server-side rendering out of the box. It’ll save you a lot of headaches down the line.
Having worked on large-scale websites, I can attest that the approach you’re considering has its merits, but also significant drawbacks. While it streamlines content management, it can severely impact performance and SEO. Search engines have improved in parsing JavaScript, but they still prioritize server-rendered content.
A more robust solution would be to implement a static site generator or a server-side rendering framework. These tools can generate individual HTML files for each page while still allowing for centralized content management. This approach offers the best of both worlds: excellent SEO, fast initial load times, and ease of maintenance.
If you’re set on using JavaScript, consider implementing progressive enhancement. Serve critical content server-side, then use JavaScript to add interactivity and dynamic elements. This ensures your content is accessible to all users and search engines, regardless of their JavaScript capabilities.
hey there, i’ve done something similar before. it’s tempting but can be risky. SEO took a hit and load times were slower than expected. maybe look into static site generators? they can give u the best of both worlds. just my 2 cents tho, good luck with ur project!