Pages URL Flexibility & SEO + Usability Questions

[esquire]

I have noticed a couple of important items I'd like to discuss. Let's begin with the more superficial and build to areas of greater concern. There still is an inconsistency in the way URLs appear in IPS 4. Forums puts the post number on the left. Pages puts it on the right. One consistent application across the Suite is ideal and moving them around is not. So let's assume I can play with the FURLs and move them left or right. In forums all topics appear as

• forums/topic/1234-title-here/  
• pages/title-here-r1234  (sample Pages URL)

I would prefer forums/t1234-topic-title-here or better that it looks exactly like the Pages URL with numbers on right with a single letter identifier (forums/topic-title-here-t1234 ). I am guessing this can be done if I wanted to get rid of the entire "topics" directory. Possible or something similar? Let's move on to something more concerning to me.

Moving on to another very important difference in the way Pages generates URLs and stores content. Let's say I want to have a few different databases for different items. Let's call the first one "mag" for a magazine and the second "tutorials" for individual user tutorials. From the way it appears designed, I cannot have the following:

• mag/1234-title-here
• tutorial/1234-title-here

or perhaps this would be more appropriate:

• mag/cat/1234-cat-title-here or mag/c-1234-category-title-here
• mag/art/1234-article-title-here  or mag/a-1234-article-title-here

Instead, and I hope I'm wrong, Pages seems to create URLs based upon.... categories? Is this correct? I hope not. If so, this appears to mean that I can have only ONE IP.C articles database with categories? Can't be.... This would mean that I have to put mag and tutorials into the "articles" area and create categories for each one of these. If you're using Wordpress, it is the equivalent of having one site and using your primary categories serving as blogs/multisites. So now /mag/ and /tutorial/ would appear properly only as categories but not as individual content databases. It's one blog/site with categories. The alternative to use databases means having NO categories at all, which is not acceptable for managing text based content properly. This problem is multifold.

1) Usability. If I want a user to contribute in one area, they will see every single content database and their own subcategories, making this much more complicated than it should be. If I want tutorials to be added, I just want the user to access the tutorial database (WP site in multisite) and see only that set of categories and subcategories, not every other content database I have for articles.

I tried to add an article in Pages with the "new article" button. The dropdown to create it in a "category" is challenging as it also begins to show what will be a very complicated dropdown if I have a couple of categories -- which really represents 3-4 different article databases that should be treated separately. The nesting will get nasty.

• mag
  • seo
    • google
    • bing
    • yahoo
    • lycos
    • duck-duck-go
    • yandex
  • whatever
    • more
• tutorial
  • seo
    • google
    • bing
    • yahoo
    • lycos
    • duck-duck-go

2) SEO. It seems that all articles now must appear in the form of cat/sub/sub/ etc.

• /tutorial/seo/google/article-post-title-r1234

This is far from optimal, especially if you have several subcategories. I don't see any easy way to simply list URLs the way I'd want them to be listed:

• /tutorial/1234-title-here-now
• mag/1234-title-here-now

You could even use the same identifiers as used in the forum for category and title:

• tutorial/c1234-cat-title-here
• tutorial/t1234-article-title-here

What my URLs look like now:

• articles.html/seo/google/post-in-a-nested-category-r2/

This is what my IPS 4 articles database looks like now. Why I have "articles.html" stuck in there is beyond me. Is this the IPS4 slug? Can this even be replaced and why do I have such an unsightly URL out of the box using the .htaccess file that gave me SEF URLs all over the Suite? I mentioned an alternative years ago such as having dedicated identifiers for each content database so that you don't need slug + content database. My suggestion mirrored the Wordpress multisite approach which is a proven concept. And then there is the issue of having slug/publication/primary-cat/sub-cat/ in the URL all before I even reach articles. This is troubling to me and I hope it's a matter of my only playing with this module for a half hour.

 

This I do consider important, especially since I'm told that content cannot appear in subdomains -- only subdirectories of the IPS4 install directory. Thank you for your time reviewing my post.

[CheersnGears]

I never even noticed that before.  The thing is, that seems to be how Content and Forums is set up now.

[esquire]

Hopefully someone can answer this since it significantly affects the way you can display content. Tutorial URLs can look like this. This is far from optimal. 

• htt p:// www. mywebsite. com/community/articles.html/tutorials/photoshop/beginners/how-to-optimize-a-jpg-to-using-24-and-16-bit-color-palettes-r12345

There is also the issue of not being able to set up separate content databases with categories, which is what I thought was the whole point of IP.C.

I'd also like to know if things ilke headers can be used in posts. Right now, it seems like it's all BB code -- and you can't clear text that has been formatted and placed into the text area. You get span tags all over your content. There are no alignment options either so you can't wrap text around an image. There needs to be word on whether IPS ever intends for the Pages App to include these items. From a format point of view, these are the same as forum posts just in a different pocket.

[Storyteller]

I'll try to answer but don't know if I understood it right.

articles.html = just edit the Page Filename in the database settings and delete the .html there.

Article databases:
Create a new database called Tutorials (settings like the article database), change the language on the second tab to Tutorial (or whatever you want) and build it on a new page (last tab) called Tutorials. Build sub categories like you want.
So you get a page/database for Tutorial articles. In the +Create Dropdown you will see something like Tutorial in Tutorials and in the next "popup" you can select the Tutorials sub-category. The URL will be yourpage/tutorials/......
Than repeat the steps for a new database called Mags (or whatever). Language to Mag and new page called Mags. So you get a page/database for Mag articles. The +Create Dropdown will show another entry Mag in Mags. The URL will be yourpage/mags/......
After that you have two separate "article pages/databases". Or what else do you want?

The only way to change the URL structure to get the sub categories out seems to edit the FURLs in ACP under advanced settings. But if and how that works I can't say because not tried so far.

[opentype]

 

Instead, and I hope I'm wrong, Pages seems to create URLs based upon.... categories? Is this correct? I hope not. If so, this appears to mean that I can have only ONE IP.C articles database with categories? Can't be.... 

​You have one “slug” for the page/database. That can be “/tutorial.html” or just “/tutorial”. If you have categories, they will create an additional slug, like “/photoshop” and “/illustrator”. This is a useful default. Would it not be this way, people would freak out and claim once more that the IPS URLs are not SEO friendly. 

Note that in 4.0 you have control over the friendly URLs in the advanced settings. But the default ones are the most bullet-proof. You might change them, but then you could run into conflicts if you remove certain parts of the URL. 

[esquire]

After taking a closer look, you can do what is similar in IP.C by creating multiple content databases with categories -- so that is good. I spent time away from IP.C and forgot just how convoluted it is with the need to create Pages, etc. just to create a new blog - so my apologies and thanks. But the learning curve is still very high just to do simple things like create a new blog/mag/article set. 

1. Do I still need a slug/placeholder for the page in the directory structure making 2 directories when I only want one? 

• Page/Database/category/subcategory/finally-get-to-title-here-r123445

​You have one “slug” for the page/database. That can be “/tutorial.html” or just “/tutorial”. If you have categories, they will create an additional slug, like “/photoshop” and “/illustrator”. This is a useful default. Would it not be this way, people would freak out and claim once more that the IPS URLs are not SEO friendly. 

Note that in 4.0 you have control over the friendly URLs in the advanced settings. But the default ones are the most bullet-proof. You might change them, but then you could run into conflicts if you remove certain parts of the URL. 

​

@Ralf H. - Per @Storyteller 's post, you need both the Page and Database. Regarding categories, people will probably be more concerned that they are required. Most SEOs suggest "post name" for Wordpress for some practical reasons: (1) your most accurate keywords are immediately visible to users in bare urls; (2) if you ever change a category of an article, the URL will change if you have the category in the URL; (3) if you assign an article to more than one category, you need to choose one or the other. Categories are not necessary for pulling pages with most software - you can pull by post/page number irrespective of the text around it. ( http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/408411 -- this doesn't work but I'm guessing some variation does like it will on every other forum).

 

2. Implementation of a second content database, e.g. a new text-based article area called Tutorials

This is as confusing as IP.C and it appears I'll need to study again how things work in IP.C. I just created the Tutorials database and created an article which does (1) not appear on the home page (2) nor in the dropdown so that "create new" for "an article" will allow me to create an article in Tutorials and not just the default Articles area and (3) doesn't work at all.

I solved #1: I figured out eventually that Block Manager controls the pages, so I see you can't have "latest article content by all databases", you can only have blocks by "latest articles in each database" -- not optimal but won't lose sleep.

I clicked on the article -- it doesn't work. Why? Because I need to define a "Page" for every content database I create? I tried to assign one page to access and show multiple databases (displayed on the sidebar tags) but I received an error - Page could not be saved: A page may only have one database embedded. Somehow the page was saved with both databases in it and trying to remove the one I added still results in the above error message and nothing works.

My gut feeling is that users are going to have the same complaints about Pages being as convoluted as IP.C. Unless you're an admin and someone willing to wade through setup, they will never figure out how this works beyond hoping they never get beyond the default "articles" installation.

PS - I have no idea what "folders" are, e.g. you can only have one default page per folder, etc. In trying to recreate the articles page, I no longer have access to the "content" tab which appears where you assign a database to show for a page.

PPS - The tab for assigning pages when creating a new database disappears entirely after creation. Hence there is no way to connect a page to a database if you didn't set it up right from the start. 

[esquire]

So a "Page" must be created for what most CMS' call a "home directory" which is a dynamic generated page. That directory aka "Page" will be assigned to pull content from one specific database. Now here is what I'm seeing on the back end. If you forget or don't assign a database to the Page when you create the database, there is no way to reconnect them. The "content" tab is gone in Pages.

[opentype]

 

​@Ralf H. - Per @Storyteller 's post, you need both the Page and Database. 

No. You can see it on my live site. http://typography.guru/directory/

The database “directory” is on the page “directory”. Nothing more necessary in the URL. You need to define a database and page of course. But in contrast to 3.4 this was streamlined in 4.0 and now can be done as one process.  

 

Regarding categories, people will probably be more concerned that they are required. Most SEOs suggest "post name" for Wordpress for some practical reasons: (1) your most accurate keywords are immediately visible to users in bare urls; (2) if you ever change a category of an article, the URL will change if you have the category in the URL; (3) if you assign an article to more than one category, you need to choose one or the other. Categories are not necessary for pulling pages with most software - you can pull by post/page number irrespective of the text around it. ( http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/408411 -- this doesn't work but I'm guessing some variation does like it will on every other forum).

This was discussed many times before. Pages works like “files” and “folders” in a file system. You can only have a record in one category at a time and the URLs behave accordingly, i.e. showing the full path through all sub “folders”. There are pros and cons for this implementation, but it IS the way the IP.Content/Pages data structure works and this can’t be changed easily. 

 

 

My gut feeling is that users are going to have the same complaints about Pages being as convoluted as IP.C. Unless you're an admin and someone willing to wade through setup, they will never figure out how this works beyond hoping they never get beyond the default "articles" installation.

​Note that the software isn’t final and there are no official or unofficial documentations yet. Pages is an extremely powerful software and therefore there is no way to make it self-explanatory. One needs to understand the basic structure first — which is not different for any other CMS software out there. 

[opentype]

 

Now here is what I'm seeing on the back end. If you forget or don't assign a database to the Page when you create the database, there is no way to reconnect them. The "content" tab is gone in Pages.

​When there is no content tab, it is a WYSIWYG page. Just click on the button “open in page builder” to edit the content. That’s another great improvement of 4.0. 

[esquire]

This was discussed many times before. Pages works like “files” and “folders” in a file system. You can only have a record in one category at a time and the URLs behave accordingly, i.e. showing the full path through all sub “folders”. There are pros and cons for this implementation, but it IS the way the IP.Content/Pages data structure works and this can’t be changed easily. ​...... One needs to understand the basic structure first — which is not different for any other CMS software out there. 

First - thank you for generously taking the time to explain.

​I began to realize what you're saying but I can't understand why someone would want to do this. It​ greatly departs from other CMS software in one critically important way. What is displayed to the public reflects a mirror of how it was published and appears on the back end with no flexibility. Most CMS software I've used treats an article as just a unique article ID. It allows the admin to define how to view and categorize the back end to publishers and separately how to display that data to Readers. What further bewilders me here is that IPS 4 still isn't consistent in its own approach to displaying data - forums does not follow pages and vice versa. Here's a real world example:

I create several forums, some work better than others, e.g. my "Tutorials" forum is working better than my "How To" forum. I decide to move all my posts from the How To into Tutorials to reduce clutter. I will consider creating a new forum in that now empty space when I decide a new category might perform better and appeals to the community. The result -- no problem. Since Forum Topics/Threads are shown by /topic/12345-Topic-Title , there are no redirections required. The forum name is NOT included in the URL.

http://community.invisionpower.com/forum/481-product-feedback/

Moving to Pages: I create Magazine section and notice that one category isn't generating much attention although another is. To remove clutter, I move all my articles from the mostly unpopular How To section into the more popular Tutorial section and will consider creating a new category that my community seems to be more interested in reading. But the 6 articles that got recognition in a rather lackluster category must now all be 301 redirected to the new page simply because I moved an article to another category.

http://community.invisionpower.com/tutorials/photoshop/481-same-title-new-url/

More issues. My moderators don't realize that articles posted by users were posted to the wrong category. That article is now syndicated to our Facebook Page, G+ and Twitter pages. The article generates a ton of interest in the first few hours and gets cited on other websites because publishing . I get home from my trip to discover the mistake. I can easily fix the social media posts by deleting and republishing the new URL. But in moving the article, I must create and keep a 301 redirect for that article as well because the backlinks from other sites are out of my control. This is far from optimal.

 

[esquire]

​When there is no content tab, it is a WYSIWYG page. Just click on the button “open in page builder” to edit the content. That’s another great improvement of 4.0. 

​I open Page Builder, see empty blocks. None of the Pages widgets seem to be appropriate to choose to assign. Perhaps you can lead the horse closer to water?

Another problematic real world example: WIKI creation. It's a community project. It will unquestionably require periodical cleanup. Since articles may be posted to the wrong places and opinions may vary where to put them, especially in a growing WIKI, categories will change. Content will be reorganized. Pages simply does not allow for content to be reorganized without creating havoc for URLs. This includes references to them you may have in your own forum. 

In short, instead of requiring just an article ID in the URL like Forums does, Pages requires Article ID + Database ID + CategoryID + Subcategories IDs to call up an article from the Pages database.

[opentype]

 

Pages simply does not allow for content to be reorganized without creating havoc for URLs. This includes references to them you may have in your own forum. 

Not entirely true. If you change URLs, the proper URL forwarding is done automatically in the background. 

In short, instead of requiring just an article ID in the URL like Forums does, Pages requires Article ID + Database ID + CategoryID + Subcategories IDs to call up an article from the Pages database.

​As I said before: there are pros and cons for the way this is set up. I could try to explain why there are also a lot of advantages to consider, but it really doesn’t matter. It is the way it is and it highly unlikely that in 4.1 or 4.2 a completely new system is used — simply because it wouldn’t be compatible with the current system. So my recommendation is: first try to fully understand the system, and then think about how you can built your databases within that system. Your long posts describing how you assume it would and could work, wont lead anywhere. 

[esquire]

Not entirely true. If you change URLs, the proper URL forwarding is done automatically in the background.  

Clerically speaking, very messy but it does do the job. And the impact on SEO and visibility still remains with unnecessary 301 redirects. This was discussed years ago so as to be avoided.

​As I said before: there are pros and cons for the way this is set up. I could try to explain why there are also a lot of advantages to consider, but it really doesn’t matter. It is the way it is and it highly unlikely that in 4.1 or 4.2 a completely new system is used — simply because it wouldn’t be compatible with the current system. So my recommendation is: first try to fully understand the system, and then think about how you can built your databases within that system. Your long posts describing how you assume it would and could work, wont lead anywhere. 

​My long posts reflect my experience with general practices in SEO and traffic generation. It doesn't matter to me how innovative Pages may be if it doesn't conform and enable my site to rank as best it can. If I want to use IPS 4 on a corporate intranet that the public never sees, fine. But as a public facing website, it's a concern. And honestly, I'd love to hear what the benefits are that make this structure meaningfully superior regarding usability because I'm not seeing it. (And the "learning curve" is exactly what scared away most customers with IP.C.)

Another concern is that issues like these make migration extremely difficult or unfeasible. There was a huge number of admins wishing to convert their vBulletin and Wordpress/Joomla sites to a solution. There needs to be a community sufficiently large enough to induce the development and maintenance of paid plugins. Creating a CMS with one category and not looking at other SEO essentials is a concern. Why wouldn't you make multiple categories an option so admins can display content the way they can and have been doing on so many CMS'? Unfortunately this ultra rigid "we provide the one optimal way" notion seems prevalent in IPS 4 and makes the system well suited only for a limited set of customers. I'm not going to wait years more for plugins that give me the basic needs which Wordpress did 5 years ago. That's why. But thanks for listening.

[opentype]

Creating a CMS with one category and not looking at other SEO essentials is a concern.

​One category‽ What are you talking about?

And what SEO essentials?
My 3.4 site is by far the best ranking site in my niche. There is nothing wrong with the SEO. I am so tired of these SEO discussions, because people throw around all sorts of opinions and myths around this topics. Things which can never be backed up by credible sources or which were true 8 years ago, but then the algorithms have changed a long time ago. 4.0 comes with reasonable defaults for SEO-friendly URLs and there is a system in place for making edits to all URLs if you know what you are doing. I don’t see any problems with that which seriously could affect the success of my 4.0 sites in a negative way. 

[esquire]

​One category‽ What are you talking about?

And what SEO essentials?
My 3.4 site is by far the best ranking site in my niche. There is nothing wrong with the SEO. I am so tired of these SEO discussions, because people throw around all sorts of opinions and myths around this topics. Things which can never be backed up by credible sources or which were true 8 years ago, but then the algorithms have changed a long time ago. 4.0 comes with reasonable defaults for SEO-friendly URLs and there is a system in place for making edits to all URLs if you know what you are doing. I don’t see any problems with that which seriously could affect the success of my 4.0 sites in a negative way. 

And what niche is this? Unfortunately taking a few individual examples isn't good enough proof. Sizable efforts in smaller specific niches can overcome some limitations that otherwise make a huge difference in large, highly competitive industries. I express confidence in saying that my sources regarding SEO and webmastering would be deemed more than satisfactory. I have also worked with several very large IPS sites in highly competitive industries with little margin for mediocrity and not forgiving. 

Some things I notice about your site -- which does have good content (although mostly written by yourself, a power user): 

• How do you generate header tags, e.g. h2, h3? Don't see a button for this.
• You don't have any images that wrap around text - is alignment possible?
• Is there an ability to have excerpt text so that your teaser text for an article isn't using the first paragraph or letters of the actual post?
• Are meta descriptions fields that can be displayed to users? Doesn't seem to appear when I create "new article" on my site. (Friendly note - look at some of your own article meta descriptions on the new site)

Regarding URLs...Quite frankly, I don't know of anyone who thinks that designing the Suite so that content could not be placed in subdomains was a wise idea, both from an SEO standpoint and usability. Take your pick. I can also list a good number of reasons why you might want to use unique article/topic/page numbers which you don't in the URLs for your journal, from performance to syndication specifications. I respect your product expertise here and appreciate your efforts. And I'm not here just to rain on anyone's parade. I've spent a great deal of time in online publishing.

 

.  

[opentype]

I wasn’t talking about the page you have looked at, but you were missing the point anyway. I have nowhere said that my sites were SEO-optimized down to every little detail that can be optimized. Not sure why you felt the need to check that out. We were talking about about data structure and URL structure in the IPS software in general. And regarding this, I feel like that you have just started poking around in 4.0 and you already make a lot of complaints before having fully understood how it all works and what options you have to change things the way you want. And that you voice certain SEO opinions as if they were facts. For example, you complained about the /sub/sub/sub/ structure. Look around in the old SEO discussion in this forum. How often have I heard exactly the opposite: the “SEO experts” say all sub categories need to appear in the URL (but they don’t in the forums here) so IPS doesn’t know what they are doing and the software has “bad SEO” … That’s why I get tired of these discussions. 

[esquire]

I wasn’t talking about the page you have looked at, but you were missing the point anyway. I have nowhere said that my sites were SEO-optimized down to every little detail that can be optimized. Not sure why you felt the need to check that out. We were talking about about data structure and URL structure in the IPS software in general. And regarding this, I feel like that you have just started poking around in 4.0 and you already make a lot of complaints before having fully understood how it all works and what options you have to change things the way you want. And that you voice certain SEO opinions as if they were facts. For example, you complained about the /sub/sub/sub/ structure. Look around in the old SEO discussion in this forum. How often have I heard exactly the opposite: the “SEO experts” say all sub categories need to appear in the URL (but they don’t in the forums here) so IPS doesn’t know what they are doing and the software has “bad SEO” … That’s why I get tired of these discussions. 

It's frustrating because I never ever said anything about how including category keywords in the URL will or will not affect the algorithm's interpretation in search engines. At the most basic level, any time you require categories and subcategories in the URL, you will cause 301 redirects any time you want to make a change. And as numerous website owners know, that happens. Much more upon request. And the inability to offer any variation such as the common practice used even here in the Forums by IPS is ridiculous. And don't even get me started about why certain types of content generally appear on subdomains - but IPS gives you no option. Many will not want to move or place them in subdirectories for good reason.

I love the guys, the people here, Lindy always seems to try to make good and I want to use IPS 4. But there are quite a number of significant limitations that make moving or constructive sites using the suite of products trying to fit a round peg in a triangular hole. Even trying to figure out how to move an IPB 3 site with Best Answers, Friends and Post-based Awards will be a challenge going to IPS 4. And common operations like content management are challenging too with its rigidity. So the way I see it is we got two choices now that decisions were made that did not involve the input of many of us -- even though I made several impassioned posts years ago.They are:

(1) We agree that some of these things can be very important to a significant number of current/potential customers and figure out what can and cannot be done.

(2) The rest can sip from the community Kool Aid, convince themselves these things really aren't such a big deal, and see whether the room fills or empties.

[bigPaws]

Having read a few of @esquire's amazingly detailed and constructive topics I genuinely hope that the powers that be ( @Charles ) may consider temporarily taking him on board? He's doing an awesome unpaid job here - great service

[esquire]

​When there is no content tab, it is a WYSIWYG page. Just click on the button “open in page builder” to edit the content. That’s another great improvement of 4.0. 

I don't know why anyone would think to open up a page in "page builder" to connect the content to the Page. That would appear to be a layout function. The control panel area for Pages sets up the characteristics of a Page, which includes what database is connected to the Page. It should be a tab or a field listed in characteristics. Having it disappear seems more like a bug. And note, even when I connected it in Page  Builder it didn't put the tab back. 

@bigPaws - Thanks, very kind. Hoped it would be helpful in moving things forward.

[opentype]

And note, even when I connected it in Page  Builder it didn't put the tab back. 

​Of course not. There is no content tab, because that page is not in a mode where you could edit it in a content tab. What do you expect to find in that content tab? The only thing that could be in such a content tab would be a message, that this page can’t be edited in a content tab. 

[esquire]

​Of course not. There is no content tab, because that page is not in a mode where you could edit it in a content tab. What do you expect to find in that content tab? The only thing that could be in such a content tab would be a message, that this page can’t be edited in a content tab. 

​So the tab only appears when it's in the mode where you could edit the content tab or it disappears. Well, the content tab doesn't appear when I try to create a new Page these days. So evidently I have to figure out what "mode" it is that I can't see and without any warning given as to why it's now invisible in order to connect a new Page with a database.

If this is not a bug or something to be refined, then my gut feeling is some may find Pages confusingly similar to IP.C. 

[DesignzShop]

Bottom line, esquire brought the proof to the table right from Google. I've followed the nay saying people who constantly attack others over SEO. Awesome to see Karma in its truest form.. The ones who argue with everyone on SEO have been a deterrent to progress and understanding. They argue with those who are trying to provide answers only to not know anything themselves to argue their point. Many of us have suffered long and hard over Content and SEO.

 

[opentype]

​So the tab only appears when it's in the mode where you could edit the content tab or it disappears.

Yes. And I think that makes sense. ;-)

So evidently I have to figure out what "mode" it is that I can't see and without any warning given as to why it's now invisible in order to connect a new Page with a database.

The mode you are in can be seen from the pages overview page. And you actively choose it when you set up the page. Also, you don’t even “connect” a page with a database. A page is just a container holding “something”. You may choose to PLACE a database output on a page. 

If this is not a bug or something to be refined, then my gut feeling is some may find Pages confusingly similar to IP.C. ​

​Again: this is a release candidate without official documentation. Just because things work differently than you expect while poking around in the ACP, doesn’t mean there is something wrong with it. I am sure there will be an introduction page which explains the workings of pages in a ten-minute read. If there won’t be anything like that, I might write it myself. After a user has read such an introduction it should be no problem to set up databases and pages and style them. And yes, it’s now much easier than in 3.4.

Bottom line, esquire brought the proof to the table right from Google. 

​Which proof? Where?

[esquire]

Yes. And I think that makes sense. ;-)

The mode you are in can be seen from the pages overview page. And you actively choose it when you set up the page. Also, you don’t even “connect” a page with a database. A page is just a container holding “something”. You may choose to PLACE a database output on a page. 

​Again: this is a release candidate without official documentation. Just because things work differently than you expect while poking around in the ACP, doesn’t mean there is something wrong with it. I am sure there will be an introduction page which explains the workings of pages in a ten-minute read. If there won’t be anything like that, I might write it myself. After a user has read such an introduction it should be no problem to set up databases and pages and style them. And yes, it’s now much easier than in 3.4.

If I can "place a database output" on a Page then why am I limited to 1 database per Page? That's the error message I received and it doesn't work. I get what Pages is supposed to be. (As I'm sure you know, you can do the same with Wordpress although it would require static PHP pages to create a "category" page or a plugin to do the same and then just stick in the widgets or content blocks.)  It shouldn't be this hard and convoluted to say the following:

1. Create a database - define the type (text, images, files, etc.) e.g. (ArticlesDB, ID 3, text)

2. Create a Page to Display that database, e.g. "Articles"

-- Note to User: Don't worry about layout on that page - you'll use the Page Builider.

3. Choose the database you're going to use for this Page, e.g.  ArticlesDB (ID 3)

4. Define the URL to represent this page, e.g. (yoursite.com/<xxxxxx>) or using ID#  (yoursite.com/<xxxxxx>-d3) 

5. Define the URL for pages appearing for this database

• post title only (yoursite.com/<your_db_url>/post-title-d123 )
• post title with category  (yoursite.com/<your_db_url>/<category>/post-title-d123
• post title with all categories  (yoursite.com/<your_db_url>/<category>/<subcategory>/post-title-d123
• etc.

This is simple. Categories created independently per DB with "records" aka articles being able to be assigned to categories, etc. And there are ways you can deal with validation (as you know from other software). The real problem I had was trying to understand why you'd be constructing the URL for Pages solely using internal categories. I had a conversation years ago with the team about this and they said "long URLs don't matter, it just has to be unique." Yes, that's true but it works only in a vacuum. Given how many moving parts there are these days, you need to consider how other things interact with your software, which is why other CMS' do have options like these.

My desire is to know as follows -- can I or can I not have URLs that don't rely on the category structure as they do now? If the answer is "no" then I can set my expectations on whether or not I feel this system is able to accomplish what I want for certain sites. I'm not saying great or sucks, just making my own judgment on whether it will work for certain things.

​Which proof? Where?

He's probably talking about the other thread I posted on my initial impression where we were having a discussion with me about how some search engines work with regard to status codes and how they may be treated by search engines. 

[esquire]

Editing posts now not working. Results in the appearance that the message is missing.