Jump to content

New Seo Update Suggestion


Intasar

Recommended Posts

This discussion is probably academic, but there's an alternate approach to FURLs that would allow exactly what he suggests in the first post.

Rather than using FURL regex templates to resolve requests, you store the exact input 'furl' and the internal request string that it resolves to (with app, module, section, etc). That could be in a file, cache, or DB. When a request comes in, you check for a match in that table, and then maybe fall back to another method (FURL templates) if it falls through.

The advantage is an incredible amount of flexibility. You could do SEO URLs without any keyword or ID: just requiring rows to be unique solves any potential conflicts. If an URL is already taken, append '-2' or something. You can change any type of content to use any URL you wish, as a group or even individually. You can also have any number of URLs that resolve to the same content: so, for example, if you change a topic title, you can have the old URL still catch and redirect to the new (proper) URL. This approach is also easily understood, so you could allow people to modify all of the URLs directly in an ACP manager. For building URLs, you just do a reverse search, turning route into request. Since the URLs are generated once and then stored, you can also include information that isn't necessarily always available--like a topic's parent forum(s).

The downside is, of course, a nice hunk of added overhead. Funny how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You cannot prove SEO any more than you can disprove it. One "expert" will say one thing and another will come along just as fast and contradict it. This topic is a good example of that :smile:



IPS tends to read all the information out there and pick items that are logical. We have heard every ridiculous SEO "trick" in the book at this point. On the rare occasion someone gives SEO-related feedback that makes sense we certainly do implement it but that is indeed quite rare.

When I say proof, I'm talking about numbers/statistics based upon some deep research and analysis. I'm certainly not going to go searching for it to prove someone else is right, they need to provide it for me to back up their point. If it's just someone boasting their knowledge without undeniable facts, then that's just hot air and not proof. I know what you're saying though, because for years it's been a known flaw, where 'experts' on it will contradict or even try to discredit each other. It's like arguing which flavor of ice cream is the best.


Regarding this topic: the poster is making the argument that /forums/forum/1234-name is bad because of two instances of the word forum. Well first of all the first instance is their choice. I would suggest the word "community" instead. More importantly: if you think Google or any other search engine cannot figure that out and/or really give THAT much weight to what are basically directories in a URL then you're really not giving the engineers at these search engine companies much credit.

Board, community, discussions, etc. So many choices, although community is indeed the best (IMO), because seeing "/board/gallery/" doesn't make a lot of sense, but "/community/gallery"/ does. Heck, even if the double 'forums' were 'fixed', to see "/forums/gallery/" doesn't make sense either, so sort of winning the battle but losing the war.

If someone is really that worried about being on the first page, then they need to invest in advertising.

Anyways, I know the IPS staff read/review ways to improve SEO, so I don't fret on it too much myself.


The downside is, of course, a nice extra hunk of overhead. Funny how that works.

Don't forget the increased probability of the community becoming unstable. For example, let's say it's stored in the DB and that particular table crashes. Would have to rebuild it and if you have over 10,000 topics, that would be a nightmare. A very busy site could have issues with the table locking. The way it's done now (regex) I think is the best. Just wish it was modifiable from the ACP instead of it being inside of files.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Omg stalker, why do you know I use that name?




I'M not a new member here. just a small contributer on IM, same as you all respected members here in my Topic. and just pick your URL due to your "Funny" signature.



Except the difference is that I don't care that my URL is like that.




As you don't care, someother care. What i see here is in my topic that most of really don't care same as you. but care debate/discuss and arguments that you don't IMO.

Few peoples here asking proof even they don't know what is "Panda and what is Penguin" in Google technology. but hope they start searching right now about this. because after providing soo many examples, other applications example. they still disagree.

At the end i just wanna Thanks to all of you with full of Respect. Specially Marcher T. who at the end agree with "301 parmanent hook" and i hope he will suggest this to IPS Managment as he is in QA team. along with Wolfie, AIWA, Aisha, Charless.

I hope IPS pick the arguments in this topic and fix them in flexible utilizing manner for better IP.Board SEO.

Once again thank you for your time. Please forgive if i hurt you in anyway.

Best regards
Intasar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we search a topic to prove a point you're trying to make?

All I've been asking for you to do is provide links to valid google articles that prove your point. To date the only link you have provided is 4 years old and contradictory to your original point.

No feelings hurt, but you haven't made your point. Far from it, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you don't care, someother care. What i see here is in my topic that most of really don't care same as you. but care debate/discuss and arguments that you don't IMO.

Just in case you are referring to me with that comment, let me clarify my position. I trust the IPS developers to do their job and thus far I haven't been disappointed. So why should I go digging around with the mindset of "they done goofed" while trying to find out whether or not the SEO structure is 100% perfect or not? It's not an interest of mine nor my area of 'expertise', so I don't go dabbling in it. If someone (that is a client and not just a visitor) here were to start a topic and provide their findings along with links to back up what they say, then I might take a peek just to see what they're talking about but in the end, I'm going to trust the IPS team to make the right call on whether or not to make changes based on that topic. In other words, I care, but not to the point that I'm going to go digging around on it because it's not an interest/hobby of mine.


Few peoples here asking proof even they don't know what is "Panda and what is Penguin" in Google technology. but hope they start searching right now about this. because after providing soo many examples, other applications example. they still disagree.

Why should we search a topic to prove a point you're trying to make?

Aiwa's comment sums it up rather nicely. YOU need to provide the proof, not expect others to go searching for it. It's like with political ads on TV, where one candidate is bashing the other. In the ad you will see references to the material for the basis of the claims being made. In other words, some sort of PROOF. With that reference, people are able to read up on it for themselves, instead of having to go digging around trying to find proof.

You're the one making claims, so provide proof or admit that you don't know what you're talking about. It's as simple as that. Links to material that demonstrate and validate what you have said. If you aren't going to provide it, then, and this is just my opinion, you are doing nothing more than babbling from your imagination.


At the end i just wanna Thanks to all of you with full of Respect. Specially Marcher T. who at the end agree with "301 parmanent hook" and i hope he will suggest this to IPS Managment as he is in QA team. along with Wolfie, AIWA, Aisha, Charless.


The QA team, which I am not a part of at this given time, is basically regular clients who help to test out the latest versions of the IPS software before it's released to the public. They are not IPS employees. Out of those you named, Charles is the only IPS employee and he's in management. He even said, "On the rare occasion someone gives SEO-related feedback that makes sense we certainly do implement it but that is indeed quite rare." In other words, if you were to provide information that makes sense, it would be considered. So far, you have yet to point out something to change that makes sense. Comparing the way one product does its URL structures to the way another does it's structure isn't going to do it. Someone could be running a site that is using the best structure possible but still be near the bottom of the rankings. Why? Because at the end of the day, as others have mentioned, it comes down to one thing: Content. Without proper content, the URL simply won't matter. The SEO URL's help improve the rankings of the content, but the content is what determines it's true ranking. It's like with buying a brand new car, the base price of the car is for the car itself, not for any extras (radio, climate control, power windows/locks/mirrors, etc). What you're doing is more or less saying that the car is free but the reason you have to pay is because it has a tape deck in it. That's simply backwards.


I hope IPS pick the arguments in this topic and fix them in flexible utilizing manner for better IP.Board SEO.

Have you ever heard of the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" You have yet to provide any proof that the current structure is broken. You've said it's broken and insisted on it, but you haven't demonstrated or provided evidence that it is.

Here's another saying. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. The SEO structure that IPS provides appears to do what it's supposed to do as it is, so why change it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've been researching these topics for some time. Search engines can be illogical. But the proof that SEO exists, whatever it means, is logic and results you can see. For example, I noticed a site that has pure garbage content with duplicate content and a terrible navigation was taking our keywords and had almost equivalent traffic to our site for 6 months which was a HUGE hit. All this talk about "content is king" is hogwash. It's not king except when it's exclusive (for example you are a TV show and own copyrights and a trademark.) In the forum and general publishing world, it's a major factor but not the all deciding factor.

Google, like Yahoo and Bing all work with algorithms and also with output to humans. If you find a way that either (a) exploits a flaw or hole or takes advantage of a discovery of understanding of the algorithm, or (b) optimizes the way humans react to the data, you're going to see improved results.

I can't say multiple h1 tags are 100% an algorithm problem. But I can say that (a) you can't disprove that SEs work best as one H1 per page, and (b) a human user probably would like to see one largest headline and then everything is less emphasized. So there is some logic in setting things up this way from the start. I call it by a different term although this is all known as "SEO."

Then there is the amount of work SEs need to do to find your content. If they have to wade through a ton of junk in the header, you're making the exercise much more difficult. I don't put so much faith in Google figuring all of this out. Much of their hope relied upon their +1 implementation and even they realize that tricking the engine is a serious problem for them and a constant battle. Panda and Penguin have been horrible to deal with for some of us and I keep seeing terrible results (logged in and not logged in) such as the same site appearing 10 times in the first three pages because they have every related term indexed by using subdirectories and somehow they all get prioritized.

To say that "well this site is doing really well so none of this matters" is a major fallacy. As I said, there will be exceptions to the rule. That doesn't mean we can't go about some things smartly instead of saying "this is the way it was built and it doesn't seem to affect anything. Here is one amusing fact -- every time I search for extensions in Google (4 out of 5 or 6) I get another site other than Invision's own marketplace as the top spot. In many instances that site is linking here to Invision or to a file on some download repository. That result sucks, yet it consistently occurs. Makes you wonder why invision's own marketplace doesn't rank in the top 2 and frequently 3 spots for add-ons. As a result, I've been optimizing everything I can. Those who don't want to play along or are not happy with my approach, I respect their opinion and simply ask them not to be angry with my efforts in another direction. And I appreciate the IPB team being open to and making changes to best implement SEO in IPB. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate it when topics are locked. There is rarely any need to ever lock a topic unless there is incendiary conduct that needs to be extinguished.

It's a discussion forum. I never understand why people can't just ignore the forum that irks them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


SEO debates are worse than politics and religion combined.



It's not the topic, it's the people involved that need to learn how to conduct themselves properly. And with regard to the software, it's a necessary area of discussion. Whether or not you believe much of it there still are best practices that should be followed just like any other process in anything that you do, e.g. human interface guidelines.

My "SEO" changes are actually even more about the way humans expect to interact with a website and I have for years. It took me a long time to get it to work "logically" for humans, irrespective of the machines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And most of those 'best practices' are opinions. That's the joy of SEO.

And 'the way humans expect to interact with a website' is also an opinion. I would venture a guess that MOST humans, us technically inclined people don't count, don't really care what the link says and don't know much of a difference between structure... It is what it is and they'll figure it out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


And most of those 'best practices' are opinions. That's the joy of SEO.



And 'the way humans expect to interact with a website' is also an opinion. I would venture a guess that MOST humans, us technically inclined people don't count, don't really care what the link says and don't know much of a difference between structure... It is what it is and they'll figure it out...



I'll just silently agree with you to avoid another repeat of the last thread.

The funny thing is, I've had both religious and political debates on my site before, and they've never gotten out of hand.
It's because everyone isn't going around stating their opinions are facts and that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. Which is generally what happens with those subjects.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


And 'the way humans expect to interact with a website' is also an opinion. I would venture a guess that MOST humans, us technically inclined people don't count, don't really care what the link says and don't know much of a difference between structure... It is what it is and they'll figure it out...



I do agree but some items are obvious and become even more obvious if you've run sites for a long time (and can confirm it consistently with your log files.) I'll give you an example - directory structures. So if I have a forum that seems to load under mysite.com /topic/1234-topic-name/ by nature of the link you're going to have people typing in mysite.com /topic just because they will make the obvious assumption. It took me a very long time investment to set up the site to work in this expected fashion. As far as search engines go, there is a great deal of guesswork involved. If there are some suggested ways to go, especially if Google or Bing or Yahoo are saying that this is the way their machine is built to run, it wouldn't seem a good idea to just ignore those statements.


I'll just silently agree with you to avoid another repeat of the last thread. The funny thing is, I've had both religious and political debates on my site before, and they've never gotten out of hand. It's because everyone isn't going around stating their opinions are facts and that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. Which is generally what happens with those subjects.



This is true. Go to the Google Webmasters forum and things get way out of hand. I think the problem is that there are a sizeable number of predators posing as SEO experts who charge $100-300 an hour claiming to know search engine secrets, taking advantage of people's fear. They are like traveling evangelists promising to heal the sick with the power of prayer and donation to the church. It's highly objectionable and people get angry the moment they smell a whiff of fraud.

I'm hoping not to introduce the highly questionable elements as being "fact." As per the above, there are generally more and less sensible ways of doing things. I can't tell you whether search engines care about keywords appearing to the left or 100 characters to the right. I can say that short titles are probably better than very long titles, especially in the online world where attention span can be very short. As per the above, I can say that a nice clean site with clean and easy to understand directory structures are probably more of a good thing than to ignore. But what I find frustrating is people pretending as if, without a case study and "proof" then none of it exists. When you've been doing this a long time and also read logs, you can see how people generally act. If you have a topics/ directory with nothing that says /forum/ before it you're going to get more 404 errors than you should there. Just is that way and hopefully we can agree that some of these things are probably prudent practices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can change the topic FURL to /forum/topic. That isn't a point of argument. Though doing that for everyone would not be good. Just because a fundamental change works well for your configuration doesn't mean it will work well for others. I.e. anyone that installs at /forum would have /forum/forum/topic for every topic. I bet you would have a heart attack if you saw that. IPS has to design to the most common denominator or what works best for all types of setups.

As for the topic title and ID in the link... There are other softwares out there that do comparisons and only add markers to duplicate content, this removing ID's from the link. IPS products don't work that way. In fact, neither does vB.

As for whether its ID-title or title-ID, that's Search Engine Opinion. (I like that version of the acronym :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You can change the topic FURL to /forum/topic. That isn't a point of argument. Though doing that for everyone would not be good. Just because a fundamental change works well for your configuration doesn't mean it will work well for others. I.e. anyone that installs at /forum would have /forum/forum/topic for every topic. I bet you would have a heart attack if you saw that. IPS has to design to the most common denominator or what works best for all types of setups.


Very true. I've changed the remainder of the URL to deal with that issue so it is no longer an issue. This is why I agonized in using IPB for a while. What is usually very easy is very difficult to set up here. I really like my FURLs a lot now. They are much cleaner, logical and seem to work very well. Don't know enough about whether SEs care but at least it is, in theory, a good match for both humans and SEs.

As for the topic title and ID in the link... There are other softwares out there that do comparisons and only add markers to duplicate content, this removing ID's from the link. IPS products don't work that way. In fact, neither does vB. As for whether its ID-title or title-ID, that's Search Engine Opinion. (I like that version of the acronym :smile: )


Heheh, I like that version of the acronym. There are actually more factors at play with the ID-title than just SEO. That's the point I was raising. It's about understanding how the software works and being able to make good educated decisions. There is some software that works much more efficiently when ID appears first. That's a matter of understanding the software and I was hoping someone could state whether it made any difference having the ID number at the end as opposed to the beginning. From what I understood is that it takes a shorter time for the machine to figure out what post to show with numbers as they are unique (e.g. you can go through 4 words before the machine discovers the fifth word is a unique entry.) And here if there is a topic ID at the beginning, maybe the server software just needs to scan the first few numbers and thats it while an ID at the end requires the server to scan the entire URL and then figure out what topic to serve.

For pure SEO, I agree with you. It's only theory that the first 66 positions are the "hot" positions. nobody knows for sure. I still prefer title-ID just because it's easier for humans to read, especially when there is a URL that has been shortened. People can see the short domain and a beginning directory structure and subject name. I don't recall seeing most software work like it does here with characters also added on at the end.That's a human element I like to support if I can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, I've had both religious and political debates on my site before, and they've never gotten out of hand.


It's because everyone isn't going around stating their opinions are facts and that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. Which is generally what happens with those subjects.

I do agree but some items are obvious and become even more obvious if you've run sites for a long time (and can confirm it consistently with your log files.) I'll give you an example - directory structures. So if I have a forum that seems to load under mysite.com /topic/1234-topic-name/ by nature of the link you're going to have people typing in mysite.com /topic just because they will make the obvious assumption. It took me a very long time investment to set up the site to work in this expected fashion. As far as search engines go, there is a great deal of guesswork involved. If there are some suggested ways to go, especially if Google or Bing or Yahoo are saying that this is the way their machine is built to run, it wouldn't seem a good idea to just ignore those statements.

Here's a suggestion for you both. One of you start a new topic with your personal experiences as to what does and doesn't work, including some sample links (of what does and doesn't work). Since this topic was started by someone who suggested a change that would introduce anarchy into the environment, any points made now would likely get overlooked or lost and wouldn't benefit anyone even if the suggestions are backed up with undeniable findings. While one creates the topic, the other can reply to it with their own findings and such (hopefully will be one of the first couple of replies). That way the combined experiences will be in one spot and most likely give the developers something to they find has merits and decide to implement.

Wouldn't really help me much as the couple of sites I have don't have much active content (and content is the main force behind it) but I know that there are some people with great content who want improvements and can benefit from knowledge that can be demonstrated as valid and working.

(Also, please leave a link to the new topic in here. Thank you.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have faith that Invision Power is competent enough to drive IP.Board in the right direction, I don't think there's anything important I need to suggest right now. I've made a few edits to the FURL of apps on my site, such as the blog and a few other third party apps, but this was to make the applications more friendly for my site. The modifications would not be useful for anyone else.

I think IP.Board should keep to a reasonable and widely accepted standard, not spread out to using wild and untested theories that may potentially offer some SEO benefit because such and such site does this and they have so and so amount of success.

Put simply, I think the way IP.Board currently operates is fine. There's nothing obviously or significantly wrong with it, no matter how many times you say there is. Unless you can present solid (not controversial) evidence that says otherwise, that is the mindset I am going to hold.

There's always room for improvement, but needlessly hacking away at the forums URL structure and forcing theories on thousands of clients and hoping for the best is certainly not a wise idea.

You paid for the software. You're free to customize it however you want. Think you know a better way of doing things? Change the software any way you like. No one is going to stop you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have faith that Invision Power is competent enough to drive IP.Board in the right direction, I don't think there's anything important I need to suggest right now. I've made a few edits to the FURL of apps on my site, such as the blog and a few other third party apps, but this was to make the applications more friendly for my site. The modifications would not be useful for anyone else.



I think IP.Board should keep to a reasonable and widely accepted standard, not spread out to using wild and untested theories that may potentially offer some SEO benefit because such and such site does this and they have so and so amount of success.

My reason for what I said is simple. If you know of things that would provide improvements for other people, then by all means, speak up with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here's a suggestion for you both. One of you start a new topic with your personal experiences as to what does and doesn't work, including some sample links (of what does and doesn't work).



(Also, please leave a link to the new topic in here. Thank you.)



Good point. As soon as I'm finished getting things set up properly on my site, which should be this weekend, I'll look into creating a new thread and posting it here.


I think IP.Board should keep to a reasonable and widely accepted standard, not spread out to using wild and untested theories that may potentially offer some SEO benefit because such and such site does this and they have so and so amount of success.




My reason for what I said is simple. If you know of things that would provide improvements for other people, then by all means, speak up with it.



From speaking with others it appears that I'm far from the first to provide the same feedback. VBSEO was probably the most popular SEO product for forums and what I've proposed is for much the same reasons why they provided those options. If that's considered "wild and untested" then I'm just going to accept that some will choose not take that approach and I don't need to prolong the discussion. Fortunately, based upon discussion with others, it appears that some staff at IPB have taken a very open minded approach and have been willing to listen with regard to potential benefits and why some of them make sense. It's another reason I came here and appreciate the atmosphere. Thanks for piping in and any further comments from me on this topic will be in a new thread and I'll try to update it here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IPS tends to read all the information out there and pick items that are logical. We have heard every ridiculous SEO "trick" in the book at this point. On the rare occasion someone gives SEO-related feedback that makes sense we certainly do implement it but that is indeed quite rare.

Fortunately, based upon discussion with others, it appears that some staff at IPB have taken a very open minded approach and have been willing to listen with regard to potential benefits and why some of them make sense. It's another reason I came here and appreciate the atmosphere. Thanks for piping in and any further comments from me on this topic will be in a new thread and I'll try to update it here.

Indeed.

(By the word, it's 'topic' and not 'thread' ;) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...