Jump to content

Community

AaronP

+Clients
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Downloads

IPS4 Documentation

IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog

Forums

Everything posted by AaronP

  1. I registered on the preview site via Facebook and it took like 4 minutes to figure out where it is I could change my username from my real name. Any ability to have username chosen during the social registration process so users who don't want their real name being used can do so, without going on a safari? Also, it automatically takes the user's facebook profile pic and header, again having to figure out where to change all that was a huge pain. I can see people easily being pissed off by that. Would seem much more practical to have those checkbox options during registration than having to dig through settings to enable/disable that.
  2. Is there any released documentation thus far? For example, can we remove the pointless /topic/ section? It's not a directory/leads to nothing - there's no real use for it.
  3. When IPB logs their IP addresses, does it only log registration and post IP's or does/will it log log in IP's and page viewing IP's? Thank you
  4. "Mommmmmm, are we thereeeee yet?" "What about now?" "Are we there yet?" "What about now? Are we there yet?"
  5. I didn't get into forums until 2010 and have never started an IPB forum before so no, I haven't heard of CSEO and don't know what they did differently than IPB. If you change your URL structure naturally you're going to lose traffic instantly. You have to have a way to redirect old links to new ones, probably using 301 redirects so you don't lose any link juice. In Google Webmaster Tools you'll have logs full of spider errors about broken or missing content, otherwise. If you correctly forward visitors/spiders to the new content, your rankings won't be affected and if they are it would be a short term correction followed by an increase in rankings. This is a fact. I've done it before, and Google has instructions on doing it as well. They even have a tool in Webmaster Tools for changing your entire domain name so you can bring your rankings with you if you want/need to change your domain. It's not rocket science, you just have to do it right.
  6. That's pretty much exactly what I expected -- so I can at least be thankful for the honesty. I think you guys are way, way off in the thinking behind URLs and their hierarchy but hey, can't do much about that :sad: Maybe I could pay you guys to develop this and then you could sell it as an extension and make some money! :P
  7. Here's a question for IPS: What sort of testing would I need to have done to at least convince you guys that the proposed URL structure is viable from an "efficiency" standpoint. >Would this be sufficient? If that turned out to be true, would it even be considered or would I be wasting my time? I'd hate to go through the trouble of hiring someone to do something like this to "prove" it, only to find that there'd be no interest in including this as an option in the first place. Can Matt or someone high up tell me whether this would be a waste of time or not? Thanks
  8. You don't take one person's word for it (including mine) that the query result they copy/pasted is engraved in stone. Not only that, you have to compare both the new query structure proposal to the old, under the same circumstances. What I plan on doing: Take a database with 5,000,000 topics and run a script that queries the database. One test using the current query structure and one test using the new query structure. Gradually increasing the queries from 1 per minute until a bottleneck is reached and we can compare the performance of the two. This is more towards determining the viability of the structure than one person doing a query and saying "Ah ha! This one query took this long! See!"
  9. TSP did not demonstrate inefficiency. I provided two examples of large forums: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/ http://wordpress.org/support/ ... that work just fine. The excuse for WordPress's forums are "they must be on super expensive servers to make up for the inefficient queries". Disagreed. Everything should be relevant. And I've said this probably a dozen times: No one is going to force large forum owners to adopt this URL structure. It should be an "option" for those who want to use it. Does anyone here object to me using this structure or anyone else who wants to use it? This isn't an "either or" thing I'm arguing. Nothing wrong with innovation and accommodation.
  10. Yes I sent him an email yesterday and am awaiting a response.
  11. Incidentally, WordPress's forum software is "BBPress" -- their open source forum software. Their "about" section references building it for speed (ironic, maybe you guys should tell them how inefficient their URL queries are). Here's some BBPress forums that handle the "No IDs in URL" structure just fine: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/ (604k topics) http://boards.weddingbee.com/ http://www.econjobrumors.com/ http://www.howtogeek.com/forum/ Here's a duplicate topic from singletrack world: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/noisy-neighbours-2 Notice how all it does is add the 2?
  12. No need for the sarcasm/mockery.
  13. 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/
  14. I like this guy ^ He tests :)
  15. 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.
  16. Likewise if you want to bury your head in the sand and throw away better rankings, then be my guest :)
  17. 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! Wizardry!
  18. 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?
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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?".
  22. 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.
  23. Not according to Google: "Simple-to-understand URLs will convey content information easily" "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." Sorry but community.invisionpower.com/topic/url-enhancements/ is far less prone to user error than "community.invisionpower.com/topic/397771-url-enhancements/ When I was big into domaining it was common knowledge that shorter URL's perform better for type-ins. Less opportunities for keystroke mistakes when typing in, easier to remember. 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! Suprise! It should be fairly easy to assume Users remember a string of words better than 7 numbers in a row (can you remember a phone number after hearing it once? No. But you can remember the name of someone or the name of a book quite easy)
  24. I stand by three things: 1) Suggesting that removing the ID will result in a decrease in performance noticeable to humans (slower load times, etc) is hearsay until you can actually prove that in testing. It took 0.0003 seconds to query 60,000 titles on my forum 2) I've been dong SEO for 7 years and it's a fact that including redundant ID's in the URL anywhere is bad for SEO. This is through experience and testing. If ID's were so important for performance and had no effect on SEO, myself and others would be using them in our links to improve site speed. I already made it clear how successful I am with my practices. You're right. Everyone seems to want to be an "SEO expert". If someone else has more fruit on the tree than me, I'd be glad to hear what testing they've done. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...