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

[Alfa1]

What you said, just made no sense at all. Does vbseo have a tag of sex? I was doing a site specific search, for a tag that vbseo actually have. My point was, if the tag page was so well optimised, it would have appeared on the first few pages, when searching specifically for that keyword, on a site specific search! But the tag pages aren't well optimised and so it didn't.

What I mean is that the word 'optimized' is too generic. There are so many sites competing on this query, that there is no way that vbseo will come out on page one.

[realmaverickuk]

What I mean is that the word 'optimized' is too generic. There are so many sites competing on this query, that there is no way that vbseo will come out on page one.

But I was searching only within vbseo.org or whatever the url is. I wasn't searching for the term "optmized" and expecting vbseo to rank for it :S

If you add site:www.domain.com before you search, the SERPS show only results from that particular site.

[Rimi]

Alright finally got this. I used a thread that's quite old that has a lot of backlinks and I know it was indexed at one point. When I google the title the article (because I promoted it) of it shows up and when I look for more results I can only find page 2. When I look at results from only my site I get them in the following order.

Page 2 of the thread.
The article
Page 1 of the thread.

Google term is "HSDK OVA Opening"

Here is the thread. http://hsdkfans.com/...dk-ova-opening/
Here is the article. http://hsdkfans.com/...ova-opening-r33

Yay Steven is no longer alone! Shame I didn't put a "HSDK OVA Opening" tag on that thread hehe...

So how exactly does IPS fix something like this? Adding "Page 2" to the beginning of the title?

EDIT: And yet again...on an even older thread with more pages...it only indexed the first page. :S (http://hsdkfans.com/...n-upcoming-ova/).

Also if I might add...SEO sucks. Because of SEO my traffic went up slightly and IPS forced me to upgrade my hosting package. Jerks.

[Steven UK]

Yay Steven is no longer alone! Shame I didn't put a "HSDK OVA Opening" tag on that thread hehe...

I forgive :tongue:

Just a point about your threads though, your page 2 is not even indexed by the search engines, which if it is a valid page, it should be. See here:

https://www.google.c...iw=1205&bih=738

[Rimi]

I forgive :tongue:

Just a point about your threads though, your page 2 is not even indexed by the search engines, which if it is a valid page, it should be. See here:

https://www.google.c...iw=1205&bih=738

Umm...that's a thread for the second OVA. I'm talking about the thread for the first OVA which was posted three months ago.

[bfarber]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=maybe+you+could+give+us+a+change+log%3F

This demonstrates the big issue quite well.

Take a look at the first two results. They are both for the same thread, page 1 and page 2. But both are being seen as completely independent. That's why it states a different number of posts and authors for each. Google thinks each is a different topic. That much is certain.

Now, the fact Google thinks each is a separate topic, is a big issue, the big issue being both have the same title. Page 1 and page 2 are now competing for the rank for the keyword. But more importantly, duplicate titles, tells Google that you've created 2 pieces of content, on the same subject. Something that Google Panda was designed to penalise against.

This could be doing a lot more harm than just Google struggling to know which page to rank.

It is doing more harm, especially when you throw some other variable pages into the mix, like users, searches, and much more which is getting indexed instead of the intended threads. And even if those other variables were not in the equation, you could easily have a duplicate content issue. X that by 20,000 IPB users, and Google could easily just blacklist the core coding of the software, with a flick of an algorithm change, based on a virtual spider report.

Please guys, let's stick with useful information and discussion, and dispense with any "fear-mongering". I think it is a pretty silly claim that google is going to suddenly stop indexing all IP.Board installations merely because page 1 and page 2 of a topic use similar title tags. Nor would it be reasonable to expect Google to stop indexing forums (which often contain a plethora of very useful information) because of URL variables, or because it doesn't like the fact that more than one topic might have similar title tags.

This is where we go from useful discussion about improvements that can realistically be made in the software to discussion that leads no where, and is based purely on fear alone.

[Steven UK]

Umm...that's a thread for the second OVA. I'm talking about the thread for the first OVA which was posted three months ago.

Just pointing out that if a valid page, it should still be indexed.

[Rimi]

Just pointing out that if a valid page, it should still be indexed.

My site is very small and young. It doesn't get indexed as quickly as other sites so these things don't surprise me and it's why it's hard for me to find example from my own site to relate to SEO things. The fact that I did find one that makes page 2 rank higher than page just proves your point though, right? :)

[Steven UK]

This is where we go from useful discussion about improvements that can realistically be made in the software to discussion that leads no where, and is based purely on fear alone.

I take that on board, although this thread seemed to be going in the direction that it was just my forum, and something I had done, which was proven otherwise. As for fear, my income is based around rankings, as are most people's, and I do have valid concern, based on multiples of my own threads vanishing, that I brought the concern to this forum, for you guys to look at, to see if there was a solution, or if it was even deemed as important to IPB, as it is very much so to me. Although of course I now expect it will be.

Thanks.

[Alfa1]

But I was searching only within vbseo.org or whatever the url is. I wasn't searching for the term "optmized" and expecting vbseo to rank for it :S

If you add site:www.domain.com before you search, the SERPS show only results from that particular site.

I didn't notice that you searched wihtin the domain. I know how to do that. :smile:

The reason why it did not come out on your search is because you spelled it wrong. Using the same spelling as the tag will have it come up in google. i.e. 'optimization' not 'optimisation'
US spelling vs UK spelling.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&ix=h9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vbseo.com%2F+htaccess#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vbseo.com%2F+optimization&oq=site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vbseo.com%2F+optimization&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...79822.80891.0.81504.4.3.1.0.0.0.117.250.2j1.3.0...0.0.MmpQm9n6o-c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4d2a2500bec4723&biw=1532&bih=936&ix=h9

[sound]

Please guys, let's stick with useful information and discussion, and dispense with any "fear-mongering". I think it is a pretty silly claim that google is going to suddenly stop indexing all IP.Board installations merely because page 1 and page 2 of a topic use similar title tags. Nor would it be reasonable to expect Google to stop indexing forums (which often contain a plethora of very useful information) because of URL variables, or because it doesn't like the fact that more than one topic might have similar title tags.

This is where we go from useful discussion about improvements that can realistically be made in the software to discussion that leads no where, and is based purely on fear alone.

i just like others have noticed own lengthy threads indexed and then pages being classed as seperate posts

after comparing this site with another forum software that is supposed to be good at seo and doesnt seem to suffer from this problem

it appears that invision should be better for google at this as it does follow this method

http://googlewebmast...nd-relprev.html

but from what seen it idoesnt seem to be working well

the only difference could spot with both software html is below

can i ask could this "issue" be due to invison using forum post numbers rather than actual page numbers in the rel=next info

google example

<link rel="next" href="http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2" />[/CODE]

this site

[CODE]<link rel='next' href=' />

am no seo expert so apologies if am missing something basic

as thats the only difference could see, is there a chance that google doesnt "get" this use of post numbering rather than using the actual page numbering method?

[Matt]

So the big issue is to fix paginated URL structure. That's something I can do for 3.4.

Which would you say is better:

/123-topic/page-2

/123-topic/?page=2

[Matt]

I am leaning towards just using a query string rather than a FURL extension for pages. That way google will clearly know they are related to the root page.

[AlexJ]

Matt can you do something about keywords?

When I search for word "posts" my forums returns 140 results and when I search for "enemy territory" my forum returns 170 results.



Can I ask why Google bot only gives importance to those keywords? My friend runs vB and Xenforo and he doesn't have this issue.

Are this generic keywords aka javascript, posts, topic, etc are served from templates somewhere?

More or less why not fix duplicate meta description and duplicate title tag issue?

[Alfa1]

This is a quick SEO preview that I did on 3.2 some time ago. I think this will be of use to IPS. It also explains why Google is ranking irrelevant keywords so high.
Please disregard the point that have been discussed before or that have been fixed with the 3.3 release.

Forum index Forum view Topic view /index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&andor_type=&sid=82c562ec95ec8364a5b3403aa53fa65d&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_tags=tag+1&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_term=&search_app=blog This url syntax does not result in high ranking. While these would be much better like: /tags.php?tag=alcohol or /tags.php?tag=alcohol&app=forums [*]Hovering over a tag will gives you an alt text of ‘Find more content tagged [tag name]’. So for every tag your site has, the keywords ‘find more content’ are added. It would be best for SEO to remove this and only have the tag name in the alt text. [*]Breadcrumb has ‘return to [forum name] ‘ as the title tag. It would be better to remove ‘return to’. [*]Under the topic title, there is a line of text that states ‘started by [username], [date]’. This text is superfluous, as the post under it, already shows this information. It adds ‘started by’ to our site keywords and that is unwanted. So it’s best to remove this line of text. [*]At the bottom of the topic it displays how many users and who are reading the topic. This text is present on every page and therefore influences keywords. While some admins may like this function, there should at least be an option to disable this.

[*]The page source of could do with much less whitespace and better separation between script/code and content. [*]Title tag at hover over the logo could be improved by replacing ‘go to community index’ to the site name. The alt tag can be improved from ‘logo’ to site title. [*]Title tag text for the various tabs have ‘go to’ which will add this to the sites main keywords. ‘go to’ should be replaced with the site name. For example ‘IPS Forums’ instead of ‘Go to Forums’. [*]Each forum has the title tag text ‘go to forum’. If a site has hundreds of forums, then this is repeated hundreds of times and will negatively affect SEO. This should be the forum description instead. [*]The recent topics block shows the title tag text ‘view topic’. A topic preview or just the thread title would be better for SEO. [*]Hovering over a thread title shows the title tag text ‘go to the first unread post of’. This will result in these words becoming major site keywords. These should be removed and replaced by the thread title or topic preview. [*]Using sprites would increase page load and site speed, which is good for SEO.

[*]Mouseover on thread title does not show thread preview. Instead this function is hidden. This means that search engines do not add this text to forum view and forum index. But the preview text is often rich in keywords. Hiding this lowers keyword density. Another issue with hiding this function is that such hidden functions can be perceived as counter-intuitive and not granny-proof. [*]Only a few thread tags are shown on forum view, while tags are important keywords that define what the topic is about. It’s important to display all tags on forum view. However, this is not possible in the current way these are displayed, without causing display issues. It would be much more practical to only display tags on hover of the tag icon, through the use of alt or title tag text. [*]The words ‘threads’ and ‘replies’ occur many times on forum view and thereby become major keywords. This should be avoided. For example: by using correct html tags or by using images. [*]The same goes for the ‘hot threads’. We do not need ‘hot’ to be one of our site keywords. This should be replaced by an image. [*]The date of the last post is hotlinked to the last post. This is fine, but it should get a html datetime class to prevent it from getting indexed as content/keyword.

[*]Tag urls are very complex and improving these would be a big SEO improvement. Tags are an immensely powerful tool which will allow you to quickly get high ranking for a word or phrase. Currently tag urls can display as:

[Weppa333]

So the big issue is to fix paginated URL structure. That's something I can do for 3.4.

Which would you say is better:

/123-topic/page-2

/123-topic/?page=2

I'd say it's
/123-topic-p2.html :smile:

Why do you always want topics to look like directories ? A topic is just a page, pretending to be something else is weird for me. And adding the word "page" in the url will simply have you either rank higher for the word "page", "p2" or "~2" is safer imho.

there should be a hierarchy : the root level has to be the FORUM where the thread is in.

this is utterly mandatory, again in a car's forum, much better serp with
mustang.com/vintage-1964/new-windshield.html
than with IPB's
mustang.com/topic/1239-new-windshield/blah__blah__blah

[Weppa333]

And again, I don't pretend having the ultimate google knowledge, this is just my needs as a customer, what I believe is the best on my niche market, what would for sure make me rank higher, and the options I would activate FOR ME if they were avail in IPB.
(that's a nice disclaimer he ? :) :) )

[Steven UK]

I am leaning towards just using a query string rather than a FURL extension for pages. That way google will clearly know they are related to the root page.

So the big issue is to fix paginated URL structure. That's something I can do for 3.4.

Which would you say is better:

/123-topic/page-2

/123-topic/?page=2

I think it needs serious testing in a live environment, to ensure that without a doubt that Google/SERPS are relating the threads, instead of setting them up in competition with each other, and also stacking them in order of date, similar to competitors of IPB, and what is proven to work.

It does not matter what you put on the end, if it does not solve the issue. Just adding a particular string to the end will not do that, the relationship between how search engines view related threads needs some study here, but of course you will know that.

When discussing duplicate titles, etc. If you look at, VB, or PHBB, etc. they also have the same titles in the threads, through the same title pages, so there has to be some absolute differential that search engines accept as the standard, which relates threads instead of penalises them, which it does now.

It could be a variable so small, that it has been overlooked, as is often the case.

I think that differential, finding what it is, and implemented it into this software, is the crux of this issue. And solving it sooner rather than later.

Testing, maybe on a thread so we can all see the results, and analise them with you.

This situation, where search engines stack related threads is ideally what is required:



Not only will it mean the correct 'settings' are in place and coded correctly, but it is fantastic for SEO, when you have 5 stacked links on the first page like that. It dominates the results, but in a way that Google accepts, and understands. We do it purposely with other forums, and have done for years. It works, and is proven to increase click-through rate from searches, considerably.

[Heyhoe]

Really interesting read.

So essentially, Google is not linking pages together and recognising it as one topic, therfore they are classed as seperate entities, competing against each other for a higher rank?

What is the ideal outcome which happens on VB? Does just one instance of a topic get indexed and therefore only one search result (for that topic) appear on google?

If this is indeed happening and Google is penalising the forum for having, lets say, 10 pages with the same title then I could understand why this might frustrate people.

Hope this all gets sorted. But really nice to see that IPS are listening. :)

[NewRockRabbit]

For me, improving the SEO of IPB is the most important priority above everything else. I really think IPS should prioritise this before any other developmental work is done on the IPS range.

The functionality of IPB is IMO the best of all forum products and my users love it. But I run boards on IPB, XF and others and IPB really does not perform as well at SEO. Given that many of us are in very competitive environments operating against other forums, we really do suffer from poor SEO. Its of little use running a fantastic board if no one can find it! And yes, content is king, but it has to be content within a properly structured environment that Google is happy with and can index properly.

I think the only way to solve this is for IPS to take someone on to concentrate on the SEO side of things , including evaluating suggestions put forward by customers.Given all the SEO controversy the right person will not be easy to find. Alternatively allow an existing staff member on the technical side be dedicated to the SEO matters until this issue is improved.

Unfortunately though I do not have the technical knowledge to add to this debate.

[realmaverickuk]

Well, just for fun I checked Webmaster tools. 30,000+ server errors.

What was causing it?

index.php?app=forums&module=moderate&section=moderate&f=135&st=0&auth_key=880ea6a14ea49e853634fbdc5015a024&do=08&t=#{tid}[/CODE]

Stuff like that, which for whatever reason is in my source code of the forum view. How do I fix it? I cannot see it in IPB source code. It's giving according to Google, a server 500 error, 30,000 of them. Code looks like this:

[CODE] // Delete stuff set up ipb.forums.deleteUrls['hardDelete'] = new Template("http://www.domain.net/index.php?app=forums&amp;module=moderate&amp;section=moderate&amp;f=135&amp;st=0&amp;auth_key=cdcf8b0611b27ca0316819688648c1d0&amp;do=08&amp;t=#{tid}"); ipb.forums.deleteUrls['softDelete'] = new Template("http://www.domain.net/index.php?app=forums&amp;module=moderate&amp;section=moderate&amp;f=135&amp;st=0&amp;auth_key=cdcf8b0611b27ca0316819688648c1d0&amp;do=sdelete&amp;t=#{tid}");

Google is following these links.

Once I remove the reference, is there a way I can create a 404 or something for these urls?

I can obviously disallow via robots.txt too.

But I would like to get it out of my source code asap.

Thanks

[Lewis P]

Check that that area of the template (topicViewTemplate) is wrapped in these tags. It was added in 3.3 to prevent those errors.

<if test="canDeleteUrls:|:!$this->member->is_not_human">

	// Delete stuff set up

	ipb.topic.deleteUrls['hardDelete'] = new Template( ipb.vars['base_url'] + "app=forums&module=moderate&section=moderate&do=04&f={$forum['id']}&t={$topic['tid']}&st={$this->request['st']}&auth_key={$this->member->form_hash}&p=#{pid}" );

	ipb.topic.deleteUrls['softDelete'] = new Template( ipb.vars['base_url'] + "app=forums&module=moderate&section=moderate&do=postchoice&tact=sdelete&t={$topic['tid']}&f={$forum['id']}&auth_key={$this->member->form_hash}&selectedpids[#{pid}]=#{pid}&pid=#{pid}" );

</if>

I don't have any of those errors in webmaster tools. I always keep my templates up to date. ;)

[PSNation]

For me, improving the SEO of IPB is the most important priority above everything else. I really think IPS should prioritise this before any other developmental work is done on the IPS range.

The functionality of IPB is IMO the best of all forum products and my users love it. But I run boards on IPB, XF and others and IPB really does not perform as well at SEO. Given that many of us are in very competitive environments operating against other forums, we really do suffer from poor SEO. Its of little use running a fantastic board if no one can find it! And yes, content is king, but it has to be content within a properly structured environment that Google is happy with and can index properly.

I think the only way to solve this is for IPS to take someone on to concentrate on the SEO side of things , including evaluating suggestions put forward by customers.Given all the SEO controversy the right person will not be easy to find. Alternatively allow an existing staff member on the technical side be dedicated to the SEO matters until this issue is improved.

Unfortunately though I do not have the technical knowledge to add to this debate.

+1 isn't this not what Dan was doing? I am not sure if he was IPS Staff however.

[Alfa1]

For me, improving the SEO of IPB is the most important priority above everything else. I really think IPS should prioritise this before any other developmental work is done on the IPS range.

The functionality of IPB is IMO the best of all forum products and my users love it. But I run boards on IPB, XF and others and IPB really does not perform as well at SEO. Given that many of us are in very competitive environments operating against other forums, we really do suffer from poor SEO. Its of little use running a fantastic board if no one can find it! And yes, content is king, but it has to be content within a properly structured environment that Google is happy with and can index properly.

I think the only way to solve this is for IPS to take someone on to concentrate on the SEO side of things , including evaluating suggestions put forward by customers.Given all the SEO controversy the right person will not be easy to find. Alternatively allow an existing staff member on the technical side be dedicated to the SEO matters until this issue is improved.

I have wondered about this many times. IPS would greatly benefit from a seasoned SEO expert or contracting a renowned SEO firm for a full audit. But be warned: such an audit often results in rigorous changes to software.

[Enkidu]

So the big issue is to fix paginated URL structure. That's something I can do for 3.4.

Which would you say is better:

/123-topic/page-2

/123-topic/?page=2

you guys should stop changing the url structure in every release because everytime we upgrade we go through months of Google updating its index and dropping our ranking.

if it is a big issue then why not release it for IP.SEO?