Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 



IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog



Everything posted by sadams101

  1. All my authors all have detailed "About Me" info, and, since in IPB the About Me is more or less a hidden field (I mean you really have to work to find it, especially in mobile), I've added an "About Me" app that shows this content with the article. For me there is unique content there for sure, but, more importantly many of my authors are well known enough that people search their names in google. By assuming that google will--for ANY of your site's content--simply "follow the forum structure and find it" is exactly where you may run into a problem with a google crawl budget. The bot may waste lots of bandwidth on your site using this approach. My approach is to map everything so google only needs to hit the new content where the lastmod date changed, thus using less overall bandwidth, and more efficiently picking up ALL new content. In any case, I'll keep reporting how this goes, but so far, so good.
  2. So the profile's do exist in the default sitemap, and there are various settings for the profiles in the system, so doing another sitemap for them was unnecessary (I did add the Profile Meta Tags plugin, because profiles did not include that data by default). Given how important EAT is in google's ranking now, the profiles in IPS seem to have, at least until recently, been sorely neglected...especially for sites like mine that use Pages and have thousands of articles by authors with high EAT authority. I am currently using the mentioned custom posts sitemap: https://www.celiac.com/sitemap_posts.php and custom extra pages sitemap, so that posts on pages like this one, #11 in this thread, will be in my sitemap (they are not currently for an unknown reason): https://www.celiac.com/sitemap_pages.php and I will soon be launching a new article comments custom sitemap, that will basically do the same as the posts sitemap, but for comments on my articles. So far the improvement I am seeing has been across the board, so an increase in natural search traffic, total number of keywords for which my site ranks, etc. Of course this could all be just coincidence...has anyone else here who has complained about having a high rate of "Crawled but not in google's index" seen any improvement like I've demonstrated? If so, please share it here.
  3. I've added my RSS feeds, thank you because I did not know we could do this in Google sitemaps...I recommend everyone do this. My Crawled - Currently Not Index dropped another 17% on April 30th, and the number of search terms ranking doubled in mobile in the last week:
  4. Thanks, but I did not see a place in GSC to submit RSS, only sitemaps...is there a separate area for this? I do have RSS feeds.
  5. So the fact that you know of a crawl budget, yet haven't back-ported the lastmod date in your sitemap then is malpractice. And what is really meant here is just that, if your sitemap isn't efficiently guiding google to the latest content, then don't expect your latest content to get indexed in a timely manner. It may get discovered weeks later...like if you have no lastmod date in your sitemap. Google loves detail when it comes to efficiently guiding its bot to your newest content. If you do that, you'll never have to worry about any crawl budget--google will find the newest content each time it crawls with no issues.
  6. You guys do what you like...there is no sitemap for posts--there should be. If all sitemaps are set up correctly, Google only crawls everything in the maps once, then only crawls the new content when it sees the lastmod date change. There is no finite crawl budget for my site, this is nonsense. PS - If there were such a think as a crawl budget, certainly not putting a lastmod date in the sitemap would cause google's spider to waste a ton of time trying to find new content...IPB currently has this issue if you're not running 4.4.
  7. I've gone through this in earlier posts, but yes, much of this seems to be sitemap issues. I am also working on a sitemap for article comments. A full sitemap let's google know that the content is important enough to index. The lastmod date, which IPB did not have in their sitemap until 4.4, is crucial for efficiently crawling your site's latest content. Without that you just have to hope the spider will find it. Again, others don't need to follow me down this path of full and complete sitemaps that cover every inch on the site, with each having a proper lastmod date, but this is the path I am going down, and so far I do see positive results in both natural search traffic, which corresponds directly with the increase in the number of key words indexed. PS - Having 750,000+ pages of content that has been crawled but is not in google index cannot be helpful for you in google search, could it? I'd love to have someone here explain how that could be. This was where I was at in January, and now I'm down to 186K, with a vast change after the posts sitemap I explained earlier.
  8. As a general SEO rule, the more keywords your site is ranking for, the more organic search traffic you should see, and this is simply because there are more possible ways to find your site in search. I saw the number of keywords that my site was ranking for drop in unison with the number of pages that were crawled but not in their index--it looked to me like a direct correlation--and it makes sense, because if 85% of my forum's pages are de-indexed, then so are any key words associated with those pages. I think the first step for anyone with the same issue is to get de-indexed content back in the search engine, and to do this Google says to either submit each page one by one in GSC, or include them in your sitemap. Can anyone think of a reason, for example, why profiles would not need to be in the sitemap? In my case I have hundreds of profiles from doctors, researchers, etc., who have written articles for me for over 20 years, and they should give my site and very nice EAT score from Google, yet IPB does not include them in the sitemap, thus, sending a message to Google that the content is not valuable enough for their index. From what I've seen all my site's profiles are not in the index, not just the ones without content--ALL of them. Once I'm finished with the custom profile sitemap I predict all profile pages with content will actually be indexed.
  9. Yes, it has. I am seeing the early signs of a recovery in organic search, accompanied by an increase in the total number of key words in the index for my site (in Moz). Any upward trend at this point is welcomed.
  10. After further examination, many of the profiles currently in my list of crawled but not in index SHOULD be in the index--but I don't believe that profiles are in the sitemap. If this is correct, my next project is a sitemap for profiles, and I am also looking into this for article comments as well. The more detailed the sitemap the better.
  11. Indeed that is currently what is not in the index due to the "noindex" tags now in profiles without data, but 80% of the pages in this list were regular forum topic and post pages, and those appear to be going back into the index now. It was a 61% drop in the crawled but not indexed. So what you used to see here were lots and lots of links that SHOULD HAVE BEEN in the index...many of those are now gone.
  12. I want to report a HUGE drop in my site's pages that are no longer in Google's index. As mentioned, I implemented the new custom posts sitemap on April 4th, and that is the day I also added the new sitemap to Google Search Console. As you can see below, since January I was seeing VERY SLOW drops in the number of pages not in google's index, and then on April 8th I saw a dramatic drop from 488,367 crawled but not indexed, to only 186,713. This is clearly a dramatic drop in non-indexed pages. I realize that this isn't necessarily proof of concept here, but certainly my new sitemap has not hurt me as some of you predicted, and in my opinion it is solving this issue. I've read lots of Googles posts on this topic, and the bottom line is that if it isn't in your sitemap you are telling Google's spider that it isn't important.
  13. After closer inspection I believe I found the issue, which was caused by an errant div tag for code I changed. If anyone is interested I have SuperTopics and SuperGrid working with defer image load.
  14. I am having an issue with SuperTopics where I have created a latest posts feed block that is in my bottom-right area in the right column. If I put any other block below it, the additional blocks are broken and pushed into the center main area--so they are not in the right column. I have 3 items in my SuperTopics post bloc, and have noticed that the last item at the bottom doesn't accept the font formatting that the top 2 items use. Because I was not able to edit any blocks that I added below my SuperTopics post feed in the right column, I created a support ticket with IPB, and they said that there is an issue with SuperTopics that is causing this. I am reporting this as a possible bug.
  15. The extra pages sitemap is now finished...anyone interested can contact @DawPi https://www.celiac.com/sitemap_pages.php
  16. Ok, but this never happened until I ran SuperGrid, and the grid gets broken somehow. It seems to be intermittent, as sometimes the cache seems fine, but other times it breaks. Also, and I saw your comment to another poster here with this issue, but on the article/page view there seems to be a lot of white space to the left of the article. I do have my database page set to one column, which was the recommendation to fix this issue. Is there any way I can make this article widen out to the full page?
  17. I am using the latest version of SuperGrid, and am having an issue where if I use the "Cache page output for guests" all of the pages that use the SuperGrid template are malformed. If I turn off this cache they look fine. The problem is that I need to use the cache. I would appreciate any help to fix this. See below with cache on: With cache off:
  18. I appreciate your input here, and concerns with the new posts sitemap. As you know it will take time to see whether or not this will be a good or bad thing. I do understand the canonical link situation, but one positive I can think of for this would be that it will still direct google search to include all topic pages that have more than one page. For example, this is not in the sitemap: https://invisioncommunity.com/forums/topic/442742-large-community-you-have-a-problems-with-sitemap/page/10/ nor are pages 9, 8, 7. 6, etc. Only page 1 is in the sitemap. To Google, at least how I've learned to interpret their sly "Google Speak," the message you are sending to Google by not including these pages in your sitemap is that the content on those pages it not important enough to include in their index. After all, they do say that if you want it included in their index, submit the page to their index. They have 2 ways to do this--1) manually; 2) use a sitemap. On a side note, we're also developing a separate sitemap just for those extra topic pages. Overkill? Maybe. We'll see...
  19. @DawPi has completed the custom sitemap application that I mentioned which handles all posts. You can see an example of it here: https://www.celiac.com/sitemap_posts.php but it is modeled after the existing sitemap--but this one handles just forum posts. We were not able to add a minimum word count to this application, as one person suggested, because it slowed things down and put a load on the CPU. We were, however, able to add the ability to exclude certain forums, for example my site has around 25 different forums, so I was able to exclude a general chit chat and a technical support forum that are more or less off the main topic of my site. Whether or not this will be a benefit or liability in Google search is an open question, but I'll follow up here with any noticeable changes, positive or negative. I believe this will have positive results, simply because we are making it easier for Google to index specific content and allow them to provide more relevant search results for any given query. Currently Google's results may send people to a topic page like this one /page/10/, and the person who searched will still have to fish on it for the specific results of their query. With all posts indexed, Google should be able to send the person directly to the content that answers their query...at least that is my hope here. Anyone interested in this app can contact @DawPi Here is a screenshot of the admin page:
  20. So I'd like to follow up about the terrible downward spiral of my site that began around August 2018--it dropped from a USA site rank of ~15K to 85K. Certainly part of it was caused by Google's Medic update, however, a good deal of it, I believe, was also caused by flaws with the IPB sitemap that came back into play on my site (I should have been watching this more closely), and the flaws with how the topics are indexed, both of which were corrected in 4.4. Around April 2018 I used this thread to fix the lastmod issue in the sitemap in version 4.3, which had a very positive impact in Google search--my site rose from a ~30k rank to ~15K in the USA. The problem was that the modifications I did were done in a way in which they could get overwritten, and at some point after August 2018 they were overwritten, and I did not notice this. My site rank kept dropping for months. I updated to 4.4 on March 10th, and since that moment my site is gradually climbing back. This leads me to believe that IPB should really port those fixes now to 4.3 (maybe even 4.2), because they really are flaws in the software that are dragging down the search rank of any site using those versions. The main reason I am posting this, however, is to get an opinion of a possible new plugin that would create a per post sitemap, totally separate from the original sitemap.php, so it would be something like sitemap2.php, that would map every forum post. So, for example all forum links like to individual posts would be in that sitemap: https://www.celiac.com/forums/topic/109854-searching-for-refractory-friends/?do=findComment&comment=933769 The sitemap functionality would work exactly the same as it does now, but it would just focus on the forum posts. I would like to hear pro an con opinions of this approach. To me, I don't see any reason why it would not have a positive impact in google search. Please let me know your thoughts.
  21. The following tables were converted back to MyISAM when I upgraded: forum.ibf_core_search_index forum.ibf_core_output_cache forum.ibf_blog_rss_import forum.ibf_calendar_event_reminders forum.ibf_calendar_import_feeds forum.ibf_core_acp_notifcations_dismissals forum.ibf_core_acp_notifications forum.ibf_core_acp_notifications_preferences forum.ibf_core_admin_logs forum.ibf_core_advertisements forum.ibf_core_announcements forum.ibf_core_clubs forum.ibf_core_edit_history forum.ibf_core_error_logs forum.ibf_core_follow forum.ibf_core_incoming_emails forum.ibf_core_ips_bulletins forum.ibf_core_pfields_data forum.ibf_core_polls forum.ibf_core_post_before_registering forum.ibf_core_profile_completion forum.ibf_core_ratings forum.ibf_core_rc_comments forum.ibf_core_rc_index forum.ibf_core_reputation_index forum.ibf_core_security_answers forum.ibf_core_sessions forum.ibf_core_social_promote forum.ibf_core_soft_delete_log forum.ibf_core_streams forum.ibf_core_sys_social_groups forum.ibf_core_tags forum.ibf_forums_answer_ratings forum.ibf_forums_forums forum.ibf_forums_question_ratings forum.ibf_forums_rss_import
  22. Does anyone know why after upgrading from 4.3 to 4.4 about 25 of my InnoDB tables were converted back to MyISAM? All tables were InnoDB before the upgrade.
  23. I would recommend other SEO tricks rather than the noindex. For example, you could have made the cannonical link on profile pages with no content be the main site's URL, so that if there were any benefit from having those pages in Google's index, it would be transferred to the site's home page, rather than lost completely, as happens with the noindex.
  24. So the thing is, all of my 86,000+ member profiles have been indexed already, and now I'm see warning from Google about the noindex on them. I think for things like this it is best to have an on/off when rolling them out, as some users may want them indexed. Thank you very much for sharing the plugin, and what an absolute shock that the profiles on my site have no meta tag info by default...this is crazy, especially for a site like mine running Pages and having over 4,500 articles, and EAT in search being so important. If there was one improvement to make with this plugin it would be to use the "About Me" as the meta description for the author, if there is content in the About Me.
  25. How is this an improvement? Where is the setting to turn that off?
  • 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