Jump to content

IP.Content More User Friendly in Suite 4.0


Sinistra
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not that I am complaining. because I love how IP.Content works as of now. but I do have a few issues. and I hope that I can get some answers from some of the IP.Board staff.

Page Management and Development

OK I have thought about this for quite some time and was wondering. Will IP.Content page management be more user friendly. (This is directed for those that have no HTML PHP or CSS knowledge) Will it be a drag and drop system sorta like the blogs are with the custom blocks on the site.

Front End Page Creation & Management

I would like to see a feature like this in the IP.Content system. This would help with development for faster page creation.

IP.Content Blocks Can be Used on Forum Index

Another cool feature that would help in development of faster pages and bring stuff from the main page if you have those that just bookmark the forum. Also this would help those that do not have HTML or PHP knowledge

Content Posting and SEO Optimization

OK this is a big thing for a lot of users. a more SEO based IP.Content. Will IP.Content allow users to add meta keywords and phrases to their posts in the articles database and on pages.

IP.Content Page Design

Will IP.Content still use the same page design as it currently dose with Templates or will it be more involving with a drag and drop system

I think I have covered all my questions about the new IP.Content. If anyone has anything else to add please feel free. I will say I love the work that IP.Board has done with the forums thus far and can't wait to see what they come up with next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IP.Content Blocks Can be Used on Forum Index

Another cool feature that would help in development of faster pages and bring stuff from the main page if you have those that just bookmark the forum.

Maybe I'm not understanding the above quoted text 100%, but I use IP.Content Blocks on my main forum page by including them in template bits that are then added to my main board index template. It's actually turned out to be quite useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about a drag and drop system with a front end editor situation. I have IP.Content blocks on my board index as well. but in order to add them you have to know what skin bit to edit to add them. With the blog a user can add custom blocks to the sidebar of their own just drag and drop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Content Posting and SEO Optimization

OK this is a big thing for a lot of users. a more SEO based IP.Content. Will IP.Content allow users to add meta keywords and phrases to their posts in the articles database and on pages.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is already accounted for (you can specify meta keywords/description for articles and database entries). Not that I really think meta tags add much SEO value at all these days, but the functionality is indeed already in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is already accounted for (you can specify meta keywords/description for articles and database entries). Not that I really think meta tags add much SEO value at all these days, but the functionality is indeed already in place.

I take it you are referring to the "tags" system? I am talking about each post not the database in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about a drag and drop system with a front end editor situation. I have IP.Content blocks on my board index as well. but in order to add them you have to know what skin bit to edit to add them. With the blog a user can add custom blocks to the sidebar of their own just drag and drop them.

Ahhh, got ya. Yes that would be nice :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, pretty sure he's talking about meta keywords/descriptions. It's in there. :) I agree though that meta keywords and descriptions are pretty much a vestigial at this point.

Personally I think SEO these days is much more about GOOD content first and foremost, clarity in the semantic markup, topic focused pages with excerpts used elsewhere but linking back to the canonical content rather than splitting page weight with duplication, Removing the "noise" from pages that have a really focused topic and url systems that are clear and make sense.

There are niceties emerging in the microformat/RDFa etc areas markup for SEO that have much more compelling implications for me. I love the idea of pulling all commentary OUT of the canonical content for instance, but leaving the link to comments/replies in a micro format/RDFa formatted fashion. So that it's clear that there has been a decent amount of interaction and commentary on a piece of content, and it's over HERE, but this page is the canonical content undiluted by the "noise" of all the commenting. Not always appropriate, but if you're producing good, focused, curated content it could have major impact, IMO of course, YMMV widely like anything else in SEO.

That's what I'd love to see in IP.C 4, the ability to positively control the URL structure (no /_/ or other required delimiter, instead let us define DB specific delimiters, IOW use an admin provided value or similar), better ability to provide field level markup and have the ability to define what categories specific fields are relevant/displayed for. :)

The blogs about IP.C are the ones I'm really waiting for, as the OP points out there is so much to look forward to in the future in, the doors being opened for 3rd party development as much as the official core feature set. :)

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, pretty sure he's talking about meta keywords/descriptions. It's in there. :smile: I agree though that meta keywords and descriptions are pretty much a vestigial at this point.

Personally I think SEO these days is much more about GOOD content first and foremost, clarity in the semantic markup, topic focused pages with excerpts used elsewhere but linking back to the canonical content rather than splitting page weight with duplication, Removing the "noise" from pages that have a really focused topic and url systems that are clear and make sense.

There are niceties emerging in the microformat/RDFa etc areas markup for SEO that have much more compelling implications for me. I love the idea of pulling all commentary OUT of the canonical content for instance, but leaving the link to comments/replies in a micro format/RDFa formatted fashion. So that it's clear that there has been a decent amount of interaction and commentary on a piece of content, and it's over HERE, but this page is the canonical content undiluted by the "noise" of all the commenting. Not always appropriate, but if you're producing good, focused, curated content it could have major impact, IMO of course, YMMV widely like anything else in SEO.

That's what I'd love to see in IP.C 4, the ability to positively control the URL structure (no /_/ or other required delimiter, instead let us define DB specific delimiters, IOW use an admin provided value or similar), better ability to provide field level markup and have the ability to define what categories specific fields are relevant/displayed for. :smile:

The blogs about IP.C are the ones I'm really waiting for, as the OP points out there is so much to look forward to in the future in, the doors being opened for 3rd party development as much as the official core feature set. :smile:

James

I would have to agree with the URL structure with this as page link to your IP.content install.

http://www.otakurave.com/index.php?/page/index.php

I have never understood why there are 2 index.php extentions in one URL. more frienly URLs for the IP.Content would be great. instead of something like above maybe.

http://www.otakurave.com/index.php
http://www.otakurave.com/reviews/index.php
http://www.otakurave.com/aboutus.php 
Link to comment
Share on other sites


That's what I'd love to see in IP.C 4, the ability to positively control the URL structure (no /_/ or other required delimiter, instead let us define DB specific delimiters, IOW use an admin provided value or similar), better ability to provide field level markup and have the ability to define what categories specific fields are relevant/displayed for. :smile:

Unfortunately, if I have understood correctly, the URL structure is not going to be changed in IPB 4, which I think is a real shame as it doesn't meet Google's best practice guidelines.

See bfarber's comments here:

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree with the URL structure with this as page link to your IP.content install.

http://www.otakurave.com/index.php?/page/index.php

I have never understood why there are 2 index.php extentions in one URL. more frienly URLs for the IP.Content would be great. instead of something like above maybe.

http://www.otakurave.com/index.php
http://www.otakurave.com/reviews/index.php
http://www.otakurave.com/aboutus.php 

Your requested URL structure is already possible. You only have two index.php's (and the /page/ marker) due to your specific site configuration. If you post in the peer help forum I'm sure someone can explain the settings you need to adjust to achieve your goal.

Unfortunately, if I have understood correctly, the URL structure is not going to be changed in IPB 4, which I think is a real shame as it doesn't meet Google's best practice guidelines.

See bfarber's comments here:

>

I was referring to general FURL structure for applications on a global level. IP.Content is an entirely different beast as YOU specify the URLs. We haven't talked about IP.Content yet so I wouldn't make any assumptions about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...