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

[Rimi]

I don't have that issue too but I'm not using IPb 3.2 but rather 3.1. can you please show me a tag that ranks higher than a thread? I really wanna know why is this happening. BTW, I don't have the tag issue on my demo board.

Sorry, I actually don't have the issue where tags rank higher than threads, rather they're just ranking high. My bad.

That reference you mention brings me to:

community.invisionpower.com/topic/360258-ipboard-the-forum-will-be-dead-within-5-years/ as the top result which is fine.

Right, so I think the issue you're having is exclusive to your site.

[Ryan H.]

Sure, see this:

http://www.google.co...lient=firefox-a

The second and third entry are links to my forum, one is a tag, and one is a random search reference. The main thread has been demoted by Google, due to these two entries.

For me, the second link on those results points to the main thread [first page], the third to the tags page. Are you sure you aren't unintentionally polluting your personal search results?

[Steven UK]

Sorry, I actually don't have the issue where tags rank higher than threads, rather they're just ranking high. My bad.

Right, so I think the issue you're having is exclusive to your site.

I highly doubt that, Shigure. Most IPB will do it.

For me, the second link on those results points to the main thread [first page], the third to the tags page.

Are you sure you aren't unintentionally polluting your personal search results?

Interesting you see that. I have tested, just now, on 5 different IP addresses (cleared cache everytime), and browers, and see this:

http://screencast.com/t/FtrxtyCnwyTg

Just as an edit to that. I also know that my visitors are seeing the same, because the IPB software tells me how they are landing on the forum, and it is always 'unknown' IE: tags, instead of the original thread.

Here is an example, of this in my admin, and the unknown being found:

http://screencast.com/t/pQvjvCm9

[Rimi]

Neowin uses IPB right? So lets google "[Official] Show off your body art".

We get the first page of that thread, and no tag pages.

Are there any examples of the string thing happening that aren't on your site Steven?

[Steven UK]

Not checked anybody else site. No references to any.

One thing is sure though, that depending on the version updates, the results change.

[Steven UK]

I have just found another perfect example of this, and I am now almost convinced that Google is almost sandboxing threads that have tags attached!

Serious stuff!

Google is replacing the position of the original thread (if it has a tag attached) and throwing the original thread into the lower pages.

[Rimi]

I have just found another perfect example of this, and I am now almost convinced that Google is almost sandboxing threads that have tags attached!

Serious stuff!

Google is replacing the position of the original thread (if it has a tag attached) and throwing the original thread into the lower pages.

But if it's just your site then it may be that software you're using and it has nothing to do with IPB..

[Steven UK]

But if it's just your site then it may be that software you're using and it has nothing to do with IPB..

Shigure.

The forum is using IPBoard software. It is 1000% an IPBoard issue.

It is not just our site.

All we have done is updated to version 3, added a header image, and added a few customised navigation links, nothing else.

Everything else is original IPBoard software.

[Lewis P]

I think I know your problem, Steven.

Check your topic view, you have your sidebar with an advert in it (with a table, which is bad enough). This is pushing down the actual content of the topic further down the source, and Google is prioritising the content incorrectly.

I don't know if you have the same sidebar on your search results page - but if you don't, then this is probably why your tags are getting prioritised.


You need to put the topic content code ABOVE the sidebar code - the topic content will load first, and therefore Google will pick it up better.

Just a theory.

[stoo2000]

Isn't it ironic that something you are now complaining about is most likely a result of something you asked Matt to implement not that long ago (FURL for tags).

[Rimi]

Isn't it ironic that something you are now complaining about is most likely a result of something you asked Matt to implement not that long ago (FURL for tags).

It goes back to the whole no one is an expert on SEO thing.

[Steven UK]

Isn't it ironic that something you are now complaining about is most likely a result of something you asked Matt to implement not that long ago (FURL for tags).

You really think this is JUST about tags? You may want to read the thread again.

[Steven UK]

I think I know your problem, Steven.

Check your topic view, you have your sidebar with an advert in it (with a table, which is bad enough). This is pushing down the actual content of the topic further down the source, and Google is prioritising the content incorrectly.

I don't know if you have the same sidebar on your search results page - but if you don't, then this is probably why your tags are getting prioritised.

You need to put the topic content code ABOVE the sidebar code - the topic content will load first, and therefore Google will pick it up better.

Just a theory.

Thanks Lewis, for your thoughts.

That image though has only been on a week or so, and the errors have been there for weeks now.

[stoo2000]

You really think this is JUST about tags? You may want to read the thread again.

I never said it was, I commented on a portion of what the topic is about. I'm not an SEO expert, I tend to read these types of topics only, without reponding.

[Steven UK]

Ok, Stoo200.

Definitely an issue here, and like I have said elsewhere on here. I think the software has some fantastic characteristics, and looks great, but if it gets a reputation for bad SEO, that would not be good. The forum we have, we have not modified anything that would affect the negative search results being created.

The main problem, is that Google, or search engines are not clustering the related threads, and are seeing them as competing against each other. Also, much more is being indexed from the software than is normal, or required.

It is not just me that has acknowledged this problem, others have too. The reason I highlight it, is I have been doing a lot of testing, as we deal with SEO for clients, etc. Regarding tags, again, I have never before seen the SERPS demote threads because of tags, not in the manner they are doing with IPB.

Also, this software is not the finished article, by any stretch, has ambitions to become the market leader, and is still growing, I get that, although topics such as this should be embraced, because such issues are very important, and the solution to such issues would, in my eyes, render this software untouchable in the marketplace.

It is common knowledge that VB has unrivaled SEO capabilities, and that is their main 'pull', but VB does not have the 'usability' and visual dynamics that IPB has, and therefore as a 'player' in this market, as IPB is, I feel it would be a clincher to sort these type of issues out.

If my IPB forum grows, as it surely will, and ten threads are created about a similar keyword topic, as there surely will be, and the search engines choose just one of those threads to rank, instead of relating them, like all other software does, then the disadvantages, as it currently stands, are gigantic, and I am hoping, with threads such as this, that the IPB owners realise this too, as I am sure that not only would they not want to lose current paying customers, but olso use such fixes as enticements to attract future customers away from competitors.

After all, SEO, is just a tad important when using the internet.

[sound]

edited as misread

[Steven UK]

(edited too then, after replying to misread post) :tongue:

[realmaverickuk]

There is too much for me to read, to catch up, but what I have read, is frustrating me.

Everybody does seem to believe they're an expert in SEO and yet almost all of what's been posted, is nonsense.

I'm going to go over my own posts, which had the actual reasons and solutions to the problems, post them all together in a single thread.

The objective, is simply to stop sending mixed messages to Google, stop sending Google to dead ends and duplicate content.

Somebody suggested stop using Canonical tag?! That's potentially the worst suggestion of all.

[Matt]

I must admit, I'm struggling to reproduce your issue with other IPBs.

A search for 'catalan style bread' brings up eGullet.org which run IPB 3.3

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=catalan+style+bread&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The tag page is nowhere to be seen on the results page even though they make good use of the 'Also tagged with' feature.

Similarly, a search for 'download speeds win 7' brings up a Neowin topic at the bottom of page 1

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=download+speeds+on+win+7&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Again, the tag page is nowhere despite there being a tag entitled 'win 7' in heavy use.

I'm not trying to shirk the issue here, I just don't think it's a cut and dried as "IPB needs to fix something". There's a lot of improvements to be made for sure, but I'm struggling to see a pattern - and without a pattern I can't even begin to think about how to improve this exact issue.

[Matt]

There is too much for me to read, to catch up, but what I have read, is frustrating me.

Everybody does seem to believe they're an expert in SEO and yet almost all of what's been posted, is nonsense.

I'm going to go over my own posts, which had the actual reasons and solutions to the problems, post them all together in a single thread.

The objective, is simply to stop sending mixed messages to Google, stop sending Google to dead ends and duplicate content.

Somebody suggested stop using Canonical tag?! That's potentially the worst suggestion of all.

Thanks. To stop sending mixed messages and dead ends to Google has been my aim since 3.2. I've been monitoring our own webmastertools account and analytics and I've made changes based on what I've seen.

For example, I removed access to the search engine for guests, removed the last post by information for guests, removed links to avatars for guests, removed 'soft 404s' for guests where a page had no content or a message saying 'no matches found', etc. This alone has seen our crawl errors drop by 80% on this site alone.

I have some ideas to improve this further in 3.4.

[realmaverickuk]

First of all, Matt you're doing a good job so far, but this really isn't as complicated as you are suggesting. Some SEO is perhaps trial and error but there are some things, which are proven and logic.

Lets deal with the issues Steven is having in the thread. We can look at the bigger SEO issues later maybe. The most likely cause of tags outranking main content, is because of the fact the tags have more links going to them than the thread itself. If you have a 10 page discussion, each page has a link to the tag page, with an optimised link. Especially if you create a tag, that matches your topic title perfectly. More links to a page = more important in Googles eyes. There are other factors, but this is a reason why it maybe happening. But again, this isn't a problem with IPB, there's a very clear, logical answer. Overall I would simply not use tags. OR I would add noindex to them, so that they're not indexed. If you're going to use them, without noindex, do so carefully but you still have the chance of having the tag outrank the thread. [*]Page 2 outranking page 1: Again, there is a logical reason, but in this case, I do think perhaps Matt can apply a few tweaks, that should prevent it from happening. 1. Alter page__st__20 to page-2 and create a 301 redirect from page__st__20 to page-2. This will send a much clearer message to the engines. 2. At present the titles are very similar, and as Google is struggling to understand the relationship between page 1 and page 2, you have 2 pages fighting to rank for that term. Once issue 1 gets sorted, this may no longer be an issue. But I would still switch the titles of page 2+, to something like this: Page 1: Title: SEO Rankings flying all over the place | Invision Power Page 2: Title: Page 2 of 2 | Invision Power | SEO Rankings flying all over the place All it's effectively doing, is un-optimising page 2, to ensure our first page, is the clear winner when it comes to the keyword or phrase. I don't think any of this is rocket science or needs any complex solution. These are very clear reasons why these things can happen. There is a lot more IMO that does need to be fixed. But I do sometimes feel as though I'm repeating myself. EDIT: If tags were ever to be used as a way to drive extra traffic to the forums, then they'd need a lot of work, to optimise them. But then the most optimised they are, the more chance they have of outranking threads. However, perhaps it could be an option, to prevent people creating tags, with the same name as the thread. Finally, Google doesn't like indexing results, it's logic, why would a search engine, with results, want to send a visitor to more results. However, it does happen.

[*]Tags: These are generally not useful and usually do more harm than good. I don't believe it's an issue for IPB to fix, as there is nothing really to be fixed as such. The major SEO plugins for Wordpress, add noindex to tag pages. They are generally full of duplicate and thin content. In the case of IPB, they were even worse than usual. Largely due to the sorting options, leading to tons and tons of duplicate content. However I submitted a bug and I believe Matt fixed this in 3.3.2, and the sorting options now lead back to the Canonical version?

[realmaverickuk]

Thanks. To stop sending mixed messages and dead ends to Google has been my aim since 3.2. I've been monitoring our own webmastertools account and analytics and I've made changes based on what I've seen.

For example, I removed access to the search engine for guests, removed the last post by information for guests, removed links to avatars for guests, removed 'soft 404s' for guests where a page had no content or a message saying 'no matches found', etc. This alone has seen our crawl errors drop by 80% on this site alone.

I have some ideas to improve this further in 3.4.

Matt, you're definitely heading in the right direction. I'm feeling somewhat frustrated, that everybody really does believe they're an SEO expert, which is rich coming from me, because I too believe I am. Though at least I'm not spouting utter nonsense and offering proper reasoning.

Anyway, I do think a carefully selected focus group needs to be chosen, to work with you on the SEO of IPB. It really won't be a massive task to completely clean things up and make it the best optimized forum software in the world.

[Steven UK]

[list=1] [*]Page 2 outranking page 1: Again, there is a logical reason, but in this case, I do think perhaps Matt can apply a few tweaks, that should prevent it from happening.

1. Alter page__st__20 to page-2 and create a 301 redirect from page__st__20 to page-2. This will send a much clearer message to the engines.

2. At present the titles are very similar, and as Google is struggling to understand the relationship between page 1 and page 2, you have 2 pages fighting to rank for that term. Once issue 1 gets sorted, this may no longer be an issue. But I would still switch the titles of page 2+, to something like this:

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Page 1: Title: SEO Rankings flying all over the place | Invision Power[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Page 2: Title: Page 2 of 2 | Invision Power | SEO Rankings flying all over the place

All it's effectively doing, is un-optimising page 2, to ensure our first page, is the clear winner when it comes to the keyword or phrase.[/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I don't think any of this is rocket science or needs any complex solution. These are very clear reasons why these things can happen.[/font][/color]

[/list]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]There is a lot more IMO that does need to be fixed. But I do sometimes feel as though I'm repeating myself.[/font][/color]

I cannot agree with that, I honestly cannot, no other software on the planet allows page 2 to outrank page one, but even if it did, it should keep the same position. The titles, I feel are not the issue, because all other forum software has the same titles, and they do not have this issue.

Pages ARE being demoted - fact.

Here is yet another example I have found.

For the last 3 days my thread for a particular keyword was bang page 1 position 2, and I have just checked it again, and now it is page 2 with the string attached being:

makemoneyforum.com/topic/1405-bamboo-video-loophole-reviews-anthony-devine-wso/page__p__5087

The thread only has 2 postings on it, but because Google has found that string in the software it HAS competed with the original thread, the original being has been demoted (sandboxed almost) and replaced with this string, in an inferior position

The search engines are systematically destroying my forum due to endless similar issues to this.

So here is a direct question, and hopefully a temporary (albeit not ideal) fix:

How in God's name can we stop those strings being indexed? Any type of string.

[realmaverickuk]

I cannot agree with that, I honestly cannot, no other software on the planet allows page 2 to outrank page one, but even if it did, it should keep the same position. The titles, I feel are not the issue, because all other forum software has the same titles, and they do not have this issue.

Pages ARE being demoted - fact.

Here is yet another example I have found.

For the last 3 days my thread for a particular keyword was bang page 1 position 2, and I have just checked it again, and now it is page 2 with the string attached being:

makemoneyforum.com/topic/1405-bamboo-video-loophole-reviews-anthony-devine-wso/page__p__5087

The search Engines are systematically destroying my forum due to endless similar issues to this.

So here is a direct question, and hopefully a temporary (albeit not ideal) fix:

How in God's can we stop those strings being indexed? Any type of string.

Steven, I didn't say the titles are THE issue. I suggested how they could be improved to help your issue. Will it help? YES it will. Just because VB doesn't employ the strategy, doesn't mean it won't help. If you only copy your competition, you can only ever hope you be equal to them.

Matt has fixed the issue with page__p__5087 but you've not upgraded properly, this isn't really Matts fault. You need to get that fixed, it's only an issue for you, due to a failed upgrade.

The paging string, which is something different entirely. I clearly said that this can be fixed by changing to page-2, as it will be universally understandable to the search engines. Which is also correct. I then offered a way to further ensure the subsequent pages don't compete with page 1.

I cannot quite see what you're disagreeing with. Because what I said, was 100% correct.

[Steven UK]

IPB Admin checked our files today, and told us that we now have a proper upgrade, and all files are in place.