Okay, so let me try that again, nicely this time.
/a3 wrote:I still am not convinced that SEO URLs should be a part of the core
You have said that several times during the course of the discussion, and we get it that you don't like SEO URLs. What we don't get it is how you will be harmed if the option is added to phpBB. Also, what we don't get it is that since we are discussing HOW here and WHETHER here
, why you feel the urge to post your opinions on WHETHER here.
/a3 wrote:[*]They do not add any usability, except when publishing links with no explanation.
Actually, they do.
sooskriszta wrote:After SEO, the second objective of Pretty URLs is human friendliness or readability - in other words, by looking at the URL can you understand the overall context of the page that it leads to, without actually clicking on it.
/a3 wrote:[*]It can be added as a MOD/plugin without many/any problems.
Yes, so there could be 3 types of functionalities - critical, important, and superficial. All critical functionality should be in core. For the people who use SEO URLs, it would become a critical functionality at the moment they implement it, because that would be their address in the world.
/a3 wrote:[*]There are a few different possible implementations.
That's true for pretty much anything
Also, that's why we were discussing which implementation would be appropriate for phpBB before your comment
/a3 wrote:[*]Even the SEO URLs themselves are controversial regarding whether they even work (including in other search engines).
In your mind, maybe. For many others, they certainly help.
The discipline is such that no search engine will go out and tell you unequivocally how to *game* their system. So there will always be some doubt in this regard. Question is, is the potential benefit worth the effort? For admins, it would seem so. For developers, that's another story.
/a3 wrote:[*]They are harder to remember because the IDs as well as the forum name and topic name must be remembered.
Maybe you are special. For most of us remembering topic titles is easier. Remembering forum name is not needed if you want to go to a topic.
But once again, that is moot. Memorability is not really something we are after. People don't type URLs or give them to others over phone.
/a3 wrote:[*]Privacy is still a concern.
nn- wrote:The issue of privacy is I think quite easily solvable - add a note about private forums next to the SEO checkbox and add a note about SEO next to the private forum option.
/a3 wrote:I don't see any other reason why it should be core besides the hype over SERP rankings.
SERP rankings are the raison d'être for SEO. We understand if you don't want anyone to find you, but for a lot of us, it is important to rank well on the search results pages.
/a3 wrote:I mean, what would happen if Google decides to treat dynamic and static URLs the same? Because, from what I've heard, search engines are very slowly transitioning to this.
What would happen if the sky fell down? Interesting philosophical question. Unfortunately not very relevant or enlightening
That said, let me take a stab at it. If Google started treating static and dynamic URLs the same, then hopefully some of your reasons for not having SEO URLs will go away (apropos..phpBB is dynamic and should have dynamic URLs). The way I look at it, the current URLs are *static* in that they don't change
The issue never was whether the URL should be dynamic or static. The issue was whether the URL should contain the title (i.e. keywords).