Jump to content

realmaverickuk

Members
  • Posts

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Downloads

IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog

Forums

Store

Everything posted by realmaverickuk

  1. So out of the box, the suite will all still live under /forum/? Usability and good architecture are both lacking in the 3.x suite and I really hope these are improved in 4.0. /blogs/ /galleries/ and everything else should be independent from the forum. The fact "Forum" shows up in titles etc of unrelated sections really pains me. A focus group dedicated to SEO and another to UI should be setup if they haven't already been.
  2. Steven, don't confuse dofollow, nofollow with noindex. (assuming you are, as I couldn't figure out why you mentioned do follow comments). But beyond that, you need to backtrack a little, the entire point of this thread, is that page 2+ is seen as a different thread. So adding noindex to pages 2+, won't effect weight in any way, shape or form.
  3. Steven, seriously, for now, use the noindex on page 2+, that Brandon posted a few pages back. Nothing bad can come of it. Worst would be that it didn't help. Ensure you use noindex, follow. This means those pages wont get indexed BUT link juice will flow to the links on those pages and Google will continue to visit them.
  4. Without the issue with the pages being fixed first, it's not worth it. The two combined will be a great solution.
  5. Dunno if that was tongue in cheek. 1. IPB has masses of inbound links, more than 99% of websites in existence, it will rank much easier than most. 2. SEO rankings flying, isn't being targeted by anybody. In fact in the first few pages, nobody even has the term in the title. Of course it's going to rank. I won't go too hard on you, just incase your comment was tongue in cheek ;)
  6. Rand Fishkin from SEOMoz recommends Page 2 first, to un-optimise the second page and I definitely agree. I've also read various users modifying their VB install to do the same with good results. AND it makes sense. There are pro's and con's to everything and of course, they should always be weighed up. In this case, Page 2 first, pro's far outweigh the cons.
  7. I doubt you're a minority. Users are the whole reason you have a website. But "page 2" takes up 5 characters, so unless you've got 20 tabs open, you'll be fine. And even then, you've got favicons etc to help aid you. I really don't see it ever being an issue for users.
  8. Yep, page number first, on all pages >2 will help for a number of reasons. It also helps esentially un-optmising the second pages page titles. For now, those suffering from this issue, should really just noindex, follow pages 2+.
  9. Search/Tags are a mess IMO. They send Google on a loop of duplicate content. I have my dev hide the filter bar on important parts of my site, for both guests and Google. I always worry too much about using: <if test="$this->memberData['g_use_search']"></if> Because it's essentially serving one lot of content to users and another to bots. But these filter bars are nuts, they lead to so much duplicate content. Of course good use of canonical tags helps a ton, and I've seen Matt using canonical tags in many places for this issue, but still many places it's not implemented. Though I realise only so many hours in a day huh? Tag urls should all be FURL, with no option for Google to see the junk. Even when Google follows a FURL tag, the sidebar filter, actually then links to the other sections with no furls
  10. Lindy, that goes without saying. But if there are fundamental problems with the CMS, producing duplicate content, then that's a massive issue. I personally, haven't mentioned anything that would attempt to manipulate a search engine. In fact, I don't recall reading anybody making such recommendations. Unless you interpret adding noindex to duplicate content as manipulation, though hopefully that's not the case. While that's true, in some respect. Most of what "evolves" is that the bullfaeces loopholes, so called SEO's find to manipulate the results, end up causing problems. The foundations of SEO have not changed for a long time. All of the issues with IPB, are issues with the absolute basics. And even though they're basics, they're very often done wrong. While I'm glad you guys are listening, kinda, I still feel as though you've all got a belief that everything is fine but could perhaps be better. But there are a lot of improvements to be made. This entire thread focused on a single issue. But the entire system needs to be solid. One of the major things that has changed with Google over the past 18 months, is that it's now a LOT less forgiving. But this doesn't mean SEO has changed as such, just those doing things wrong, are now suffering. Don't get me wrong, I love IPB but I feel the SEO has a long way to go and just when I feel we're getting somewhere, comments from staff suddenly appear to be dismissive and I wonder if things are actually going to change. I've no doubt Matt's going to fix the issue as discussed here. But what about the future of IP.SEO? How do we move forward with that? Where is the best place to voice our concerns? The problem with doing it here, is that everybody jumps in, everybody thinks they're an expert and it ends up being a big debate and most of the fixes get lost.
  11. I disagree. Hire the right SEO and you'd never have any such problem. Proper SEO doesn't and hasn't changed. For the issues with IP.board to be fixed, you need a very good and firm understanding of on site SEO, that's not going to change any time soon. Build IPB on a solid base of what's been proven to work, what Google themselves recommend and what makes good logical sense. I am happy to list actionable fixes. Pretty dangerous attitude Brandon and annoyed me a little, seeing as I was one of those who talked about Google being confused. First of all, we've PROVEN Google's confused and that's why it's listing multiple pages of a thread, as separate threads. If Google's not confused, what is it? Misinformed? It all amounts to the same thing really. You're in a position of power Brandon, and whether you're implementing changes based of false assumptions, or telling Matt that we're talking nonsense and he shouldn't listen to us, it's going to hinder the development of IPB. But assuming Google is smart enough to interpret bad infrastructure or duplicate content, isn't a good attitude to have. There are millions of websites, thousands of platforms and Google will make mistakes, when left to interpret what I see as errors in design.
  12. Yup until I get a CLEAR and official explanation of EXACTLY what I need to do, I am doing nothing. Maybe if all webmasters stood united and refused to do it, we'd have more power. They can't shut the internet down.
  13. What are we trying to prove? or disprove? Because the platform is important. The structure is important. The inbound links are important. Lots of important stuff. Also, you just mentioned your forum doesn't suffer this problem? But you'd earlier also said you'd not upgraded beyond 3.1? If you'd upgraded to 3.2+ it would have. IPB have themselves acknowledged it's an issue and what they're going to do to fix it. I don't even understand what you're trying to say or claim here. "My forum isn't effected so it's all your own faults?"
  14. That's part of your internal bloody structure. The url structures at least. And the title tag is massively important. I'm not even going to waste anymore time debating. You're wrong, completely.
  15. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I know more about SEO than almsot all of the idiots who troll that forum combined. It's full of idiots who are there for nothing more than to troll. To post their same generic BS, to pull people down and criticise them for stuff like basing their business model on Google etc. Hate that place. You may think you know a lot about SEO, which leads you to believe I'm wrong in anything I've said thus far. But sadly, you're the one who's wrong.
  16. Great, can't wait to watch IP.SEO develop and kick VBSEO ass :D
  17. . Hi Matt, I'm not sure whether topics are being sandboxed, but I believe it's a strong possibility due to the nature of the issue. When doing any testing, you need to keep in mind, that not all pages/sites are treated equal. IPB has the advantage of a massive PR7 page rank, while PR doesn't mean great rankings, it means there are a lot of powerful links being pointed here, giving a LOT of trust. Google will therefore be a lot more forgiving, trust me ;) Well as you'd expect with the current issues. Not as you'd expect a thread to be displayed, right?
  18. I must admit, I too think patches are a good idea. Even if 3.3.3 is rushed out and includes the fixes for this particular issue, that'd be great. Waiting to 3.4 I feel will be longer than some have to wait.
  19. Marcher, it all helps. Just sometimes a lot more to consider, than people realise. SEO is like fire, you need to know exactly what you're doing or you get burned. All we can do, is offer our own experience and knowledge. Fortunately, as a group, we can find flaws and come up with best solutions.
  20. # is used to comment in a robots.txt file. Not block all robots. However, # needs to be at the start of the line to be classed as a comment. # Sample robots.txt User-agent: * Disallow: /
  21. Few things to keep in mind. 1. Robots.txt prevents the pages being crawled, NOT indexed. A page can still be indexed. Though over time they will likely get dropped. But not nearly as fast as a noindex robots meta tag. Block with Robots.txt - Don't bother visiting the URL, but feel free to keep it in the index & display in the SERPs Block with Meta NoIndex - feel free to visit, but don't put the URL in the index or display in the results It can also cause the results to stay in the index, and display as only URL's. 2. You'll be wasting a lot of link juice, on pages that you don't want indexed and Google can't crawl. So ultimately, it's not IDEAL and worth considering those points above.
  22. However That's a little too generic. That will catch the word unread, anywhere in any post. Add something a little more specific. Otherwise you'll catch threads and posts that you didn't mean to i.e I have an unread book on making money for sale..
  23. Wow, I was just about to post the same thing. As a temp solution. My robots.txt is full of IPB stuff that hasn't been ironed out yet.
  24. Perfect. Out of the box the best solution. Remember to add Canonical from /topic/123-test-topic/?p=123 to /topic/123-test-topic/ unless that's already in place? Would love a future option to nofollow page 2+, I'm really keen to see what impact it would have in a post Panda world. Both Rand Fishkin and a Google employee recommend it. Anyway, some great steps Matt! Because you were worrying about the <h1> when it doesn't matter nearly as much as the title. Steven, the solution Matts posted will address the entire situation. Query strings are not an issue, the way IPB currently handle them are. As long as a canonical tag links back to the non-query string version, we're good.
  25. :D hah! Let me explain one last thing. It's rare for a thread to rank, based words in it's content vs the title of the page. On the instances they do, it's because no other threads or pages on the internet, have a similar page title, which means its gonna be a VERY low traffic term. Meaning it will never drive any traffic that will change anything. Even accumitively it won't add up to much, compared with the benefits. But this would be a personal choice anyway. Pros and cons aside, I'm pretty confident that noindexing the page 2+ would result in far more traffic.
×
×
  • Create New...