Jump to content

Community

Paulo Freitas

Friends
  • Posts

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Downloads

IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog

Forums

Store

Posts posted by Paulo Freitas



  1. I don't know where they're coming out, but the results with "page__f__" seems a bit buggy and probably dangerous for SEO. Can you take a look on it? :)



    I'm running against time to have more time to analyze these things, I think we still can optimize a lot more. :D



    Regards,


    Could any dev take a look into this? I think it's another SEO improvement we can get, a time it's causing SERPs with duplicated content (which isn't good).

    I think this issue is a good one to pick for 3.1.2, you're taking SEO seriously in the last releases. :-)

    Cheers,
  2. I'm still very busy here but what I can say for now is that there is an quite strange behavior in user profile pages, as you could see here: http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:"community.invisionpower.com/user/94759-paulo+-freitas"&filter=0

    I don't know where they're coming out, but the results with "page__f__" seems a bit buggy and probably dangerous for SEO. Can you take a look on it? :)

    I'm running against time to have more time to analyze these things, I think we still can optimize a lot more. :D

    Regards,

  3. Are you going to add a new rule to your robots.txt everytime you move a topic to a private area or delete it ?


    Not, but I know it has very negative impact in not doing this. It seems that IP.Board 3.1 will help this, but the "fix" is not immediate - crawlers are quite slow to remove pages from their index.

    Regards,
  4. Ip.Board 3.1 uses the correct HTTP headers on error pages, so this won't be a problem in future.


    I didn't know precisely, but I think that even returning 403 errors crawlers will waste your traffic unnecessarily. Blocking URLs in robots.txt avoids compliant crawlers to follow these addresses. I can imagine how much this would cost to huge traffic boards. :ermm:

    Just my POV. :)

    Regards,
  5. Hi there,

    I want to start here a discussion in how we can optimize our default robots.txt file to get it updated in future IP.Board versions. :)

    It's simple: share your experiences. Use services like Google Webmaster Tools, Bing Webmaster Center and Yahoo! Site Explorer to identify wich pages is getting duplicated or is throwing errors/problems in these the crawlers.

    From what I already detected, (if I'm not wrong) we can block 5 more URLs:

    Disallow: /*?s=
    
    Disallow: /*&s=
    
    Disallow: /index.php?app=core&module=global&section=login&do=deleteCookies
    
    Disallow: /index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=rating
    
    Disallow: /index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=markasread


    I still haven't put these lines in my own robots.txt but I tested them in Google Webmaster Tools (GMT) and I'm convicted that will have positive impact to 1) reduce useless indexed pages, 2) reduce duplicated content and 3) reduce HTML suggestions from GMT.

    For the record: Crawlers hates this: http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3A%22Board+Message%22+%22An+Error+Occurred%22+site%3Acommunity.invisionpower.com&filter=0

    All these duplicated and useless pages have negative impact to our rank in rigorous crawlers (like Google). We need to block them to reduce our penalty. :(

    I'm still analysing my GMT reports and I'll update here with all new useless URLs I find. But I want more people involved to share your knowledge. :)

    Sorry if my english is not perfect, I still need to dedicate more time to learn it. :huh:

    Best regards,

  6. The expected input format should be also improved:

    Something like Custom Media BBCodes should be done to custom profile fields, improving expected input format, code replacement, et al.

    Nowadays it isn't so easy to reach these approaches:

    post-94759-126783089894_thumb.png

    Many people input junk data in these fields. :(

    Regards,

  7. Ok, as we are talking about signatures, while I was editing some settings in my local board I noticed that System Settings > Members > Members Profiles has another 3 signature settings (max_sig_length/sig_allow_html/sig_allow_ibc_yes). Shouldn't all signature settings be configured in the same place for consistency 'n (perhaps) usability?

    Regards,

  8. I suggested this but in a big feature request topic that evolved very fast and then it probably became forgotten. :ermm:

    For the record, we already have good settings for them:

    post-94759-126760990373_thumb.png

    But we lack a very important one: filesize limit for images.

    You dev guys probably know that an 1x1px picture could be bigger than an 1920x1080px in filesize, right? We just need to explore a certain header and... Well, I don't need to go into details, right? I can see problematic users doing this and thus it's not what we want, right? :)

    I can remember IP.Board 2.x days when we got used to use Signatured Limitation mod that had this setting among many others. Do you remember? :)

    [nostalgia]post-94759-126761112344_thumb.png[/nostalgia]

    That's it. Feedbacks are apreciated. :D

    Regards,



  9. This is already a per-group feature of IPB. You can setup signature restrictions for each group from the Manage Groups area of the ACP.


    Ok, you guys are talking about image dimensions. But how about file size limit? You know that we could have for example a PNG with 1x1 px dimensions with a lot of megabytes in it's file size, right? :whistle:

    Regards,
    Paulo Freitas
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy