AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 Why on earth would a user remove the digits from the middle of the url? It makes no sense. And what if the topic title was literally "397771 URL Enhancements"? I didn't say they'd remove digits I said "What happens when a user types in 4 7's instead of three in this URL?" Suggesting words are more prone to user-error than #'s is a fallacy. He claimed "User's make mistakes, they are more likely to type a word or cut off the last character(s) when copying/pasting. The current method allows users to make these mistakes and gently correct them." Users do make mistakes and according to Google they're more likely to exclude parameters than they are the rest of the URL. He said the current method allows for mistakes but mine doesn't. Sure, if they don't mess up the ID. Also if the last character is a trailing slash who cares? With an intelligent 404 page this wouldn't even be a problem with my structure or the current. "Did you mean..." Since when is 60,000 a significant number? Didn't say it was. Since when does someone have a million topics on their forum? Using some simple math it would take 0.004698 long to do a query of a million threads instead of 60k at 0.003 seconds. The query would need to take 10,000% longer to take 0.2 seconds. You'd be hard pressed to convince me this would be a likely scenario.
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 I think if you guys wanted to walk the talk you'd be testing queries like I am. Either deploy your own test form with a gigantic number of threads and start querying titles until you reach the point it creates a bottleneck or have someone with a large forum do it. I don't believe it. I don't think it's within the realm of possibility to even think it would cause a noticeable degradation in speed. But, I think you're more interested in trying to think of ways to be right. I think if I asked you "If you found out for a fact it wouldn't cause issues, would you implement it?" -- you wouldn't be saying "sure, why not?".
TSP Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Didn't say it was. Since when does someone have a million topics on their forum? Three different forums: mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ippbe_topics; +----------+ | COUNT(*) | +----------+ | 1538914 | +----------+ 1 row in set (2.13 sec) mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM topics; +----------+ | COUNT(*) | +----------+ | 1916461 | +----------+ 1 row in set (4.99 sec) mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ibf_topics; +----------+ | COUNT(*) | +----------+ | 727846 | +----------+ 1 row in set (1.41 sec) All of them are norwegian forums, so I'm sure there are international forums that are bigger.
GreenLinks Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Didn't say it was. Since when does someone have a million topics on their forum? This is why people are suggesting for you to learn and consider more about big boards
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 Three different forums: mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ippbe_topics; +----------+ | COUNT(*) | +----------+ | 1538914 | +----------+ 1 row in set (2.13 sec) mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM topics; +----------+ | COUNT(*) | +----------+ | 1916461 | +----------+ 1 row in set (4.99 sec) mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ibf_topics; +----------+ | COUNT(*) | +----------+ | 727846 | +----------+ 1 row in set (1.41 sec) All of them are norwegian forums, so I'm sure there are international forums that are bigger. What's the difference between ibf_topics, topics and ippbe_topics? Where are the queries for the topic ID's? What's the difference between doing the select count query and the search query for a specific title?
stoo2000 Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 What's the difference between ibf_topics, topics and ippbe_topics? Where are the queries for the topic ID's? What's the difference between doing the select count query and the search query for a specific title? He's showing you that it's not uncommon to have a large amount of topics.
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 He's showing you that it's not uncommon to have a large amount of topics. I think over 1M topic is uncommon... Relative to all IPB licenses. How many IPB licenses have over 1M users? Probably a very, very small percentage.
Rimi Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I didn't say they'd remove digits I said "What happens when a user types in 4 7's instead of three in this URL?"Suggesting words are more prone to user-error than #'s is a fallacy. He claimed "User's make mistakes, they are more likely to type a word or cut off the last character(s) when copying/pasting. The current method allows users to make these mistakes and gently correct them." Users do make mistakes and according to Google they're more likely to exclude parameters than they are the rest of the URL. He said the current method allows for mistakes but mine doesn't. Sure, if they don't mess up the ID. Also if the last character is a trailing slash who cares? With an intelligent 404 page this wouldn't even be a problem with my structure or the current. "Did you mean..." Didn't say it was. Since when does someone have a million topics on their forum? Using some simple math it would take 0.004698 long to do a query of a million threads instead of 60k at 0.003 seconds. The query would need to take 10,000% longer to take 0.2 seconds. You'd be hard pressed to convince me this would be a likely scenario.Since forever.
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 Since forever. You know what I meant.
GreenLinks Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I think over 1M topic is uncommon... Relative to all IPB licenses. How many IPB licenses have over 1M users? Probably a very, very small percentage. Surely big boards like us are not common however IPB needs to consider big board like us when developing their software. Otherwise their customers will choose other scripts after they reach up to a certain size.
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 Surely big boards like us are not common however IPB needs to consider big board like us when developing their software. Otherwise their customers will choose other scripts after they reach up to a certain size. I realize that. That's why I've said two things: 1) Big boards don't have to use a permalink structure they don't want to. No one is forcing this on anyone. It's an "option". 2) If these boards exist why not do some testing with queries so we can put our money where our mouth is and see how efficient these queries are. You guys are saying it "would be" inefficient. I disagree. Only one way to find out. What does disagreeing get us?
GreenLinks Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I realize that. That's why I've said two things: 1) Big boards don't have to use a permalink structure they don't want to. No one is forcing this on anyone. It's an "option". 2) If these boards exist why not do some testing with queries so we can put our money where our mouth is and see how efficient these queries are. You guys are saying it "would be" inefficient. I disagree. Only one way to find out. What does disagreeing get us? So you suggest to start a forum with no id's inside url then change to id structure when you reach to a certain size and you claim you investigated SEO for 7 years right ?
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 So you suggest to start a forum with no id's inside url then change to id structure when you reach to a certain size and you claim you investigated SEO for 7 years right ? Maybe you didn't read what you're quoting. What don't you get about "Big boards don't have to use a permalink structure they don't want to. No one is forcing this on anyone. It's an "option". " Hey guys, It's a miracle::http://wordpress.org/support/ http://wordpress.org/support/forum/plugins-and-hacks http://wordpress.org/support/forum/plugins-and-hacks http://wordpress.org/support/topic/wp-installed-in-subfolder http://wordpress.org/support/topic/wp-installed-in-subfolderWOW! Unbelievable. WordPress forum with 1,331,739 topics not using ID's ANYWHERE in their URLs? Magic! Wizardry!
GreenLinks Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Maybe you didn't read what you're quoting. What don't you get about "Big boards don't have to use a permalink structure they don't want to. No one is forcing this on anyone. It's an "option". " Hey guys, It's a miracle:: http://wordpress.org/support/ http://wordpress.org/support/forum/plugins-and-hacks http://wordpress.org/support/forum/plugins-and-hacks http://wordpress.org/support/topic/wp-installed-in-subfolder http://wordpress.org/support/topic/wp-installed-in-subfolder WOW! Unbelievable. WordPress forum with 1,331,739 topics not using ID's ANYWHERE in their URLs? Magic! If you want to throw away the money for custom developed solution and that much server power then be my guest :smile: And FYI , their DB size is highly possible way smaller then ours , i can easily see that through post numbers ;)
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 If you want to throw away the money for custom developed solution and that much server power then be my guest :smile: Likewise if you want to bury your head in the sand and throw away better rankings, then be my guest :)
MisterPhilip Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 3) Even if #1 and #2 were proven wrong, giving the option for users to do this doesn't change anything. While you guys argue that it's a performance hit, I'll happily be using this structure with no issue. In the even it effects my forum, then you can say "I told you so" when I have a million topics. Even though I disagree with one of your suggestions, I wish I could shout this one from the rooftops. I know there has been some hinting at it, but we'll have to wait and see what IPS brings us. More flexibility is better (as long as it doesn't degrade performance too much). "Also, users may believe that a portion of the URL is unnecessary, especially if the URL shows many unrecognizable parameters. They might leave off a part, breaking the link." Sure, but I highly doubt users are going to truncate a URL to http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/. Granted, stupid users continue to prove me wrong... Using your same argument: What happens when a user types in 4 7's instead of three in this URL?http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/3977771-url-enhancements/ Sorry, we couldn't find that! Honestly, how often do you type a URL to a forum thread? I'm assuming here, but I'm willing to be a majority of users copy and paste - where if they manage to mess up the topic ID doing that, I have to question what sort of users you're babying. Anyways, I think we should stop focusing on this one idea of removing an ID from the URL and focus on the other suggestions to make sure IPS understands what we want. I think the dead horse has been beaten like the piñata on my 3rd birthday - to a pulp.
TSP Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I think over 1M topic is uncommon... Relative to all IPB licenses. How many IPB licenses have over 1M users? Probably a very, very small percentage. Norway have only 5 million people living in it, but still we have three very large forums. So I don't believe it can possibly be that uncommon. Anyway, I did some tests for you. I put an index on title_seo (It was limited to 191 chars since we use InnoDB and utf8mb4 for the database. I tested on a test-dump of the 1.9 million topic forum. (In the dump I was testing on there is 1.8 million topics, so it's a bit old) For each query with a tid, I did a query for the title_seo for that topic afterwards. mysql> SHOW PROFILES; +----------+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Query_ID | Duration | Query | +----------+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ... | 26 | 0.00025875 | SELECT tid, title, title_seo, posts FROM topics WHERE tid=144100331 | | 27 | 0.00789500 | SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE tid, title, title_seo, posts FROM topics WHERE title_seo='teknisk-test' | | 28 | 0.01105500 | SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE tid, title, title_seo, posts FROM topics WHERE tid=144000231 | | 29 | 0.03535800 | SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE tid, title, title_seo, posts FROM topics WHERE title_seo='emil-med-et-mellomnavn' | ... | 34 | 0.00025050 | SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE tid, title, title_seo, posts FROM topics WHERE tid=4643328 | ... | 36 | 0.35666400 | SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE tid, title, title_seo, posts FROM topics WHERE title_seo='ranveig-r' | As you can see there is a significant difference on some queries, although they are still quick. When this scales up to hundreds of similar queries per minute, then you could get in trouble.
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 Honestly, how often do you type a URL to a forum thread? I'm assuming here, but I'm willing to be a majority of users copy and paste - where if they manage to mess up the topic ID doing that, I have to question what sort of users you're babying. I apologize, I thought you mentioned typo's in your first response which is why I addressed it but I'm mistaken. I was thinking the same thing. And what I do copy/paste, the ending character is a trailing slash and even so, I don't try to copy and drag at the last character. I whip my mouse to the right of the screen well past the last character. Nothing that couldn't be solved by a nice 404 page.
MisterPhilip Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I tested on a test-dump of the 1.9 million topic forum. (In the dump I was testing on there is 1.8 million topics, so it's a bit old) Nice, thanks for testing :D
TSP Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I also got curious about the amount of title_seo duplicates. Here is a list of the top 50 mysql> SELECT title_seo, COUNT(*) cnt FROM topics GROUP BY title_seo ORDER BY cnt desc LIMIT 50; +--------------------------+------+ | title_seo | cnt | +--------------------------+------+ | noen-som-vet | 2340 | | hjelp | 2122 | | - | 1262 | | hei | 1183 | | gravid | 1079 | | endelig | 962 | | jippi | 822 | | hei-alle-sammen | 647 | | kynnere | 632 | | noen-som-vil-spa-meg | 562 | | jeg-har-f%c3%b8dt | 546 | | kan-noen-hjelpe-meg | 541 | | ny-her | 522 | | bekkenl%c3%b8sning | 459 | | ultralyd | 452 | | hei-hei | 439 | | test | 409 | | kan-noen-spa-meg | 404 | | hurra | 404 | | aurora | 391 | | er-det-mulig | 391 | | nattinatt | 387 | | noen-som-kan-hjelpe-meg | 375 | | er-jeg-gravid | 373 | | noen-som-kan-hjelpe | 370 | | jeg-er-gravid | 354 | | noen-som-kan-spa-meg | 343 | | hva-skal-jeg-gj%c3%b8re | 331 | | sjaman | 325 | | slimproppen | 316 | | heisann | 315 | | festebl%c3%b8dning | 311 | | hva-tror-dere | 302 | | hei-jenter | 300 | | gutt-eller-jente | 300 | | hva-skjer | 287 | | kimby | 287 | | 100-dager-igjen | 286 | | hjelp-meg | 286 | | strekkmerker | 278 | | utflod | 274 | | trenger-hjelp | 269 | | er-dette-normalt | 269 | | tenner | 268 | | takk-for-meg | 267 | | kan-jeg-v%c3%a6re-gravid | 263 | | navn | 261 | | vondt-i-magen | 259 | | trenger-litt-hjelp | 259 | | 3d-ultralyd | 258 | +--------------------------+------+ 50 rows in set (15.05 sec)
Rimi Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 You know what I meant. I suppose we should be removing page numbers from URLs too. :D
AaronP Posted February 14, 2014 Author Posted February 14, 2014 I suppose we should be removing page numbers from URLs too. :D Could care less about page numbers. They should probably look something like this forum.com/forum-name/topic-name/2/ forum.com/forum-name/topic-name/3/ forum.com/forum-name/topic-name/4/ forum.com/forum-name/topic-name/5/ forum.com/forum-name/topic-name/6/
Rimi Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Psh. Having random number in the url is bad for SEO tho
AaronP Posted February 15, 2014 Author Posted February 15, 2014 Psh. Having random number in the url is bad for SEO tho No need for the sarcasm/mockery.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.