SEO Rankings flying all over the place, and why is this..

[Steven UK]

Just a note, if you do rewrite your paging from st__st__20 to page-2, ensure you do the relevant 301 redirects.

Thinking about it some more, page-2 is almost universal and so it is going to help Google better understand the relationships.

Though my other suggestions, would definitely go a long way towards ensuing the page 1 wins.

I still don't think this has been grasped though. Because although you are right, ideally, and is the standard, is that the pages should be complimenting, and the SERPS should be STACKING THEM, not competing them, they should be right underneath each other, almost like a supplemental results, but underneath the freshest connected page - again, as per my image:


Freshest first, oldest last, but stacked in that way. Vbulletin does, it, phbb does it, and so do the rest. This is the ideal way.

There should be absolutely no question of them competing each other for a SINGLE page ranking.

[realmaverickuk]

I'm not sure what you mean by, you're not sure it's being grasped? by me or by IPB?

I understand exactly what SHOULD happen. I understand that it's NOT happening. And I've explained why.

You need to understand that pages with the same or similar titles, will compete. That is a fact. A well SEO'd forum, will do exactly as you desire and you see in your VB run websites.

So the task here is quite simple, ensure page 1, isn't in competition with page 2 and so on. Un optimising pages 2+, will help ensure this happens. Rank Fishkin from SEOMoz suggests the same thing, it's extremely logical.

/page-2/ will also go toward helping Google understand the relationship between the pages. In some cases, page 2, will be the most relevant page to rank, but NOT for the target keyword (thread title).

Hopefully though, you were referring to IPB and not me ;)

[realmaverickuk]

I would also avoid linking to your site in your signature on this forum. You have 93 posts, that's 93 links with the anchor text "Free Work From Home Business Forum Community". Penguin is among the most ridiculous updates Google has ever made. But it's important to be super cautious when link building.

But anyway, enough free SEO advice for now :tongue:

[Steven UK]

Yeah to IPB,

Actually, you know, this IPB software is without doubt the best looking forum software on the planet, and I have used them all, it is great on the eye and very enticing

Just a few important tweaks needed :smile:

PS - Yeah, I never realised I had some many postings on here, you are right, linking variety and all that, I will now have to do some linking of the natural variety somewhere else to even it out :tongue:

[realmaverickuk]

I agree, I just literally said the same thing to Matt. It's visually beautiful and also works brilliantly. I enjoy using it.

But VB has a big edge when it comes to SEO and ranks. People who move from VB to IPB, lose rankings and traffic. But it is all fixable.

3.3 was a step in the right direction. But it wasn't solid enough to fully address all of the issues that exist within IP. software.

We also need to keep in mind, that Google can now penalise at site level rather than a page to page basis.

So even if all of the problems within IP.Board are fixed. Duplicate content on the tags pages, blogs etc, are still going to effect the site as a whole.

Google really needs to sort their act out, their updates are dumb, illogical and hurting many websites for stupid reasons.

But unfortunately we rely on them for traffic, so we either conform to their BS, or suffer.

[Rimi]

Steven goto your template and open globalTemplate

search for

                        {parse template="quickSearch" group="global" params=""}

Replace with

        <if test="canSearch:|:$this->memberData['g_use_search']">

                        {parse template="quickSearch" group="global" params=""}

        </if>

This basically hides the search box from Google and other engines.

Hello.

Your code does not hide the search box from search engines. It hides it from user groups that do not have permission to use search. So if you allow guests to use search then Google will see the search box. It doesn't seem to matter either way. I did remove the box for Google using different code and still whenever I see Google in the sessions table its using the search...I have no clue why.

Maybe, but I believe IPB HAVE to implement these changes, it is basic forum characteristics we are talking about here, that help SEO. Tags? Yes, they always compete, but NEVER to the extent that IPB tags do.

Seriously, I have never in all my years of ranking sites seen so much fluctuation amongst results, than IPB.

This is how the rankings should look for pages related, page 2 or not:

[img]

[/img]

They place them in date order, even if it is the same thread, they just use page2, page3, page4, then date it. This does not happen with IPB. There is simply no relationship between anything, the threads just compete, and by the way, this page 2 being mentioned, the strings are still being product even if there is a single page, most of the pages on my forum are single pages, that have not overlapped onto another page, yet the SERPS are still indexing a string.

Ah I wish IPB results displayed the number of posts in the thread like VB does.

Anyway I think this is the first SEO thread I've seen where people aren't freaking out or being rude. I'm really glad to see it. :)

[Steven UK]

I agree, I just literally said the same thing to Matt. It's visually beautiful and also works brilliantly. I enjoy using it.

But VB has a big edge when it comes to SEO and ranks. People who move from VB to IPB, lose rankings and traffic. But it is all fixable.

3.3 was a step in the right direction. But it wasn't solid enough to fully address all of the issues that exist within IP. software.

We also need to keep in mind, that Google can now penalise at site level rather than a page to page basis.

So even if all of the problems within IP.Board are fixed. Duplicate content on the tags pages, blogs etc, are still going to effect the site as a whole.

Google really needs to sort their act out, their updates are dumb, illogical and hurting many websites for stupid reasons.

But unfortunately we rely on them for traffic, so we either conform to their BS, or suffer.

Spot on. And this is the reason I am thinking of moving our forum to VB, but I REALLY, REALLY do not want to, and am hoping these fine people at IPB can adjust their thinking, and make the changes, sooner, rather than later. If I was the owner of Invision Power Services, Inc, it would be the first thing I would be doing now, as it will obliterate the competition. Then as a marketer myself, I would literally blow the other players in the market out of the water, no doubts.

Then, IPB will be without doubt a phenomenal vehicle, envied by the rest.

[realmaverickuk]

Your code does not hide the search box from search engines. It hides it from user groups that do not have permission to use search. So if you allow guests to use search then Google will see the search box. It doesn't seem to matter either way. I did remove the box for Google using different code and still whenever I see Google in the sessions table its using the search...I have no clue why.

Yes, it does remove it for Google. Spoof your user agent, view this forum and you'll see no search box. It definitely works, in 3.3, Google is not treated just as a guest, other considerations like user agent are taken in to account I believe. So perhaps IPB have it set, that certain user agents are now allowed to use search.

Anyway I think this is the first SEO thread I've seen where people aren't freaking out or being rude. I'm really glad to see it.

TBH, there's no point in anybody being rude. I think in the past, the hostility has come from what appeared to be resistance from IPB. But lately, it seems they're listening more :)

[Rimi]

Yes, it does remove it for Google. Spoof your user agent, view this forum and you'll see no search box. It definitely works, in 3.3, Google is not treated just as a guest, other considerations like user agent are taken in to account I believe. So perhaps IPB have it set, that certain user agents are now allowed to use search.

TBH, there's no point in anybody being rude. I think in the past, the hostility has come from what appeared to be resistance from IPB. But lately, it seems they're listening more :smile:

Wow. The more you know...I didn't realize that search engines are in their own group now. Sort of.

Anyway this horrible line of code might add no index to your tags page.

<if test="$this->request['search_tags']">

<meta name='robots' content='noindex' />

</if>

Stick it in the globalTemplate. In the header obviously.

[realmaverickuk]

Yeah, I forget the page now, but one of the php pages, that deals with the mobile skin etc, takes a lot in to consideration from the user agent to the user group.

In a sense, it's a low level cloaking, serving different content to search engines vs visitors. BUT I don't think even under human review, they would frown. There is absolutely no need for Google to have access to that search box. None.

[Steven UK]

So does that code work then, Maverick? As we have implemented it now, and wouldn't want to have to come chasing you down for misinforming me :D

[Rimi]

So I have a question. When you guys say duplicate content do you guys mean duplicate title tags? :S

Also Matt, when you fixed duplicate titles in profile tabs, you forgot to add separate titles for the different sorts in the reputation tab. Not sure if that's a bug..

[Rimi]

So does that code work then, Maverick? As we have implemented it now, and wouldn't want to have to come chasing you down for misinforming me :D

Oh, you used it? Well you can always view the page source to check if the code is on the right pages (it is, I checked). You might want to switch the ' to " since that's apparently what normal people do. I like '...

[Steven UK]

Thanks, Shigure. I'll add you to the chase list, if it does not work. Haha. Thanks.

[Rimi]

Thanks, Shigure. I'll add you to the chase list, if it does not work. Haha. Thanks.

I am always here. You won't have to chase far.

Do you know the answer to my question? Is duplicate content the same as duplicate page titles? I want to know because when you have something like the gallery, if people are uploading images to an album and they name the images all the same thing then you have duplicate content and you get penalized yes?

[Steven UK]

I am always here. You won't have to chase far.

Do you know the answer to my question? Is duplicate content the same as duplicate page titles? I want to know because when you have something like the gallery, if people are uploading images to an album and they name the images all the same thing then you have duplicate content and you get penalized yes?

We had a discussion on this very subject. I could repeat it, but this is easier and will give you more information on what we discussed:

http://community.inv...se-are-useless/

[Rimi]

We had a discussion on this very subject. I could repeat it, but this is easier and will give you more information on what we discussed:

http://community.inv...se-are-useless/

I'll be honest.

I skim SEO topics. :cry:

You seem to be quite knowledgeable though, and it seems IPS is listening too. :)

[Matt]

I'm unclear why Google doesn't associate IPB pages better either.

Perhaps a change to /page-2/ would suffice or even /?page=2

As with anything 'SEO' there is no definitive answer and you won't know if it's worked for a few weeks or so.

[realmaverickuk]

I'm unclear why Google doesn't associate IPB pages better either.

Perhaps a change to /page-2/ would suffice or even /?page=2

As with anything 'SEO' there is no definitive answer and you won't know if it's worked for a few weeks or so.

It may suffice, I'll take a look and see if I can spot other reasons. But in terms of them out ranking one another, un-optimising the page titles of 2+ as described earlier, would help. Rand Fishkin of SEOMoz also recommends this.

[realmaverickuk]

I'll be honest.

I skim SEO topics. :cry:

You seem to be quite knowledgeable though, and it seems IPS is listening too. :smile:

Here is an example, that will be easy for you to see. In the marketplace.

http://community.invisionpower.com/files/category/127-ipboard/

Pay attention to the title etc.

Now click one of the sorting options. The URL changes but the title stays exactly the same. As does the content pretty much.

This is easily fixed, by adding rel="canonical" back to the main page i.e http://community.invisionpower.com/files/category/127-ipboard/, which basically tells Google, this is the preferred version of the page. Because sorting options are just that, another version of the page.

But without the canonical tag, it's a completely new page, that happens to be almost an exact duplicate.

[realmaverickuk]

In the terms of the original post, that wasn't really a duplicate content issue, although the very similar titles of page 2+, could be altered to ensure they're not as similar and ensure page 1 wins for the target keyword (thread title).

[Rimi]

I'm talking about something like this vs this. No sorting options at all. It's two separate images, but everything else is pretty much the same.

Uh..don't browse my gallery if you have "morals".

[realmaverickuk]

Those two pages fortunately have the users upload name in the title for example, but the <h1> tag is very short, and yes duplicate of the other page.

I know you didn't ask how the page can be improved, but at a quick glance, here goes..


You may benefit from ommiting the "gallery" portion of the title.

Also what is it? Is it a wallpaper, photo or what? I think you'd benefit from identifying the content type in the title etc.

A title such as "Kensei Ma Wallpaper by Ryozanpaku - HSDK Fans might serve you better.

Ultimately, whatever you think your prospective visitors are gonna be searching for.

But overall, those two pages aren't really duplicate but could be improved.

[Rimi]

Well we can't really remove Gallery from the title...IPS put it in there. I could hijack the skin and change it, but I don't want to.

Thanks for your advice.

Although I wouldn't want to edit every picture my users upload...wish there was a better way. Sorry I kind of derailed this thread. :S

[Steven UK]

I'm unclear why Google doesn't associate IPB pages better either.

Perhaps a change to /page-2/ would suffice or even /?page=2

As with anything 'SEO' there is no definitive answer and you won't know if it's worked for a few weeks or so.

Your honestly there is very refreshing, Matt.

I think this definitely needs testing now, the options, and suggestions, as it is a problem larger than most people realise, especially if Google suddenly slam a penalty on people using the software, when it could have been avoided, as I have a horrible feeling (and some of my testing shows this), that Google are placing a lot of content into the supplementals, because they are duplicated, and this is because in their eyes, they are competing, instead of being seen as just 'related' pages.