Enkidu

looking at topicsitemap.xml I can see that the listed URLs has this format:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9">

  <url>

    <loc>http://tabee3i.com/index.php?showtopic=1882</loc>

    <lastmod>2009-11-25T22:53:38+00:00</lastmod>

    <changefreq>hourly</changefreq>

    <priority>0.5</priority>

  </url>

  <url>

    <loc>http://tabee3i.com/index.php?showtopic=1881</loc>

    <lastmod>2009-11-25T22:03:06+00:00</lastmod>

    <changefreq>daily</changefreq>

    <priority>0.5</priority>

  </url>

  <url>

The task uses built in IP.B functions to come up with the FURL, do you have any other SEO mods installed ?

No I don't have any :unsure:

I'm getting a pile of re-direct errors and they all have this format:

http://tabee3i.com/index.php?showtopic=729

Now where did this showtopic come from?

I'm using FURL and never ever switched back to showtopic :blink:

where did this come from?

The only feature that I would like IPS to keep is to continue beating all other forum's softwares again and again and again :D

CentOS does come with PHP rpm's, I have always used it and worked fine.

yeah but not the version I want :) . I need version 5.2.11

Hello Guys

just wanted to ask about the best practice of installing php 5.2.x in Centos.

do you prefer to compile it from source or do you use a third party rpm? please tell me where, and how?

cheers

Enkidu

I like the idea :cool:

Did anyone sow the ajax quick quote of vb4? Wouldnt it be' great?

no how is it like?

Did you try ordering the applications in ACP. When I did, the order of my tabs changed with it. Just drag 'n drop in ACP

Elanor

yes, but you can't get them past the core application, that's what I'm talking about.

Hello

here the nav. bar goes like: IPS, Forums, Help, ...etc.

well I want to re-arrange that on my board to the way that suit my board's purpose. Say I want it to be:

IP.Contents, forum, shoot-box, help ...and so on.

the manage application ACP page is currently limited as you can't move IPC above the core application :unsure:

for sure I can edit my skins to get the job done but every-time you customize a skin's bit you're preventing it from being automatically upgraded when an upgrade is available.

what do you thing guys? is it worth implementing or is it one of those Enkidu boring dumb and topics? :blush:

I caught two so far, three to go :D ... any way, I haven't figured out how to upgrade my IP.Pikachu yet, can any one help me please? (w00t)

Not against the canonical tag and it's not that hard to do, just saying I don't think it's likely to make a huge amount of difference in the end.

on the contrary, from SEO point of view, the more back-links you have to a page , the better its ranking will be. So instead of having let's say:

1- 100 links to example.com/index
2- 50 links to example.com/index.php?lindex
3- 130 links to example.com/

when you use canonical tag, the search engine would treat all these link as if they are pointing to same page thus increasing your back link to 280.

Quite frankly I think too many people underestimate Google. It's not like this is year 1 of their attempt at indexing web sites. They know pretty well how to handle the indexing by now. ;)

Not against the canonical tag and it's not that hard to do, just saying I don't think it's likely to make a huge amount of difference in the end.

the issue is not with indexing at all it's about which one to use? just watch the presentation in the very post before yours. This one is given by Matt Cutts who works for the Search Quality group in Google, so he has an idea what he's talking about :)

Well, we do use canonical links in IP.Board where appropriate, but for some of the examples you gave:

 http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?/index.php?f=page-that-doesnt-exit

IP.Board wouldn't link to that.... and you could do that on any page, even Google's home page:

http://www.google.com/webhp?f=page-that-doesnt-exit

I don't think the idea is to add rel='canonical' to every dynamic page.



I'm by no means saying it's a bad idea or won't be included... I'm just thinking you underestimate Google's algorithms - I reckon it knows without the use of canonical tags that domain.com and domain.com/index.something are the same page.

well, Matt Cutts of Google in the presentation below is saying the exact thing that I talked about, so yeah, Google distinguish between the www version and the non-www, and home.html and non html versions

here is it:

here is a snap shot of what Google found in my webmaster account:



but that was under double meta-tag description :blink:

While I don't claim to be an SEO expert - I wold imagine that Google knows and expects domain.com and domain.com/index.something to point to the same location...

there are endless varieties of queries that point to the index page, here are some example:

http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?/index

http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?/index.php?f=page-that-doesnt-exit

http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?page=7437&forum=i-love-you

Hello

we have

www.example.com
www.example.com/index
www.example.com/index.php
www.example.com/index.php?/index

all pointing to the same page which might affect ranking. According to the Official Google webmaster Central Blog, it can be solved by rel="canonical".

I would love to see this one implemented

cheers

Enkidu

description is used by google, bing and yahoo actually ^^ The meta tag keyword is another question but is used in yahoo.

oh, I didn't know you were talking about meta description :huh: sorry :blush:

I've a suggestion: auto-compile the meta tag with the first 151 chars of the first thread's post. This can help all with SEO.

actually it won't, meta tags have been abused so many times in the past that search engines decided to pay them little to no attention :)

I wish IPS does something bad to me so I can rant about it (w00t)

How about a newsletter?

welcome on board BSchwarz.

IPB kicks ass :thumbsup:

+1 from me :)

social groups are becoming a must have as so many vB and BB users are hopping in :)

I suggest instead of the "tell me how to solve it" approach you're following right now, to just give them your board ftp and ACP info and let them investigate and solve the issue on their own.