SEO URLs

[sooskriszta]

That is english...

French origin

In any case, based on the meaning of the word,
1. To approach.
2. To accost.
the sentence doesn't make any sense

By just throwing googles preferences to us is not making us abording our pov's...

Seem to have been used more in the sense of abandon.

But thanks for correcting me

And I do get the fun you had in providing a wiki link

[sooskriszta]

Ok, let's say it were

By just throwing googles preferences to us is not making us abandon our POV's...

In that case, I thank you for honestly accepting that your mind is made up and that you are not open to suggestions, and any amount of reasoning is not going to change that fact.

I, however, am not trying to make you change your belief system. I am just trying to get the phpBB developers to add an option which a lot of people think is important for them, and does not harm the people who don't think so.

[/a3]

I still am not convinced that SEO URLs should be a part of the core, though, because:

1. They do not add any usability, except when publishing links with no explanation.
2. It can be added as a MOD/plugin without many/any problems.
3. There are a few different possible implementations.
4. Even the SEO URLs themselves are controversial regarding whether they even work (including in other search engines).
5. They are harder to remember because the IDs as well as the forum name and topic name must be remembered.
6. Privacy is still a concern.

It almost seems like the only reason why you want SEO to be in phpBB by default is so that it is "developer quality" for your own purposes, because I don't see any other reason why it should be core besides the hype over SERP rankings. 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.

[sooskriszta]

I still am not convinced that SEO URLs should be a part of the core, though, because:

1. They do not add any usability, except when publishing links with no explanation.
2. It can be added as a MOD/plugin without many/any problems.
3. There are a few different possible implementations.
4. Even the SEO URLs themselves are controversial regarding whether they even work (including in other search engines).
5. They are harder to remember because the IDs as well as the forum name and topic name must be remembered.
6. Privacy is still a concern.

It almost seems like the only reason why you want SEO to be in phpBB by default is so that it is "developer quality" for your own purposes, because I don't see any other reason why it should be core besides the hype over SERP rankings. 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.

And you won't be as your mind is made up - logic won't change that. So do us a favor and go troll at http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=2100309

[DavidIQ]

This is supposed to be a discussion. So please simmer down and stop the name calling or I'll have to put a stop to this discussion and any glimmer of hope you may have for SEO. Thanks.

[sooskriszta]

Well, the problem with staying on topic is we really need 2 topics - one for WHETHER and one for HOW. Since we had discussed WHETHER here earlier, I started the HOW part on phpBB Discussions. But I was sent off from there, back here.

I have no issues having a discussion - but want to separate the 2 issues and have pointed more than a few times that there is another topic already with a lively debate on WHETHER, so how about we discuss HOW here. If someone keeps repeating the same thing over and over again, even though they have been addressed, isn't that intentionally provocative?

[sooskriszta]

Okay, so let me try that again, nicely this time.

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.

[*]They do not add any usability, except when publishing links with no explanation.

Actually, they do.

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.

[*]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.

[*]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

[*]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.

[*]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.

[*]Privacy is still a concern.

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.

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.

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).

[/a3]

The issue was whether the URL should contain the title (i.e. keywords).

In that case something like this would make sense:

Code: Select all

http://www.example.com/community/viewtopic.php?ftitle=your-forum&f=44&ttitle=your-topic-title&t=72

[sooskriszta]

something like this would make sense:

Code: Select all

http://www.example.com/community/viewtopic.php?ftitle=your-forum&f=44&ttitle=your-topic-title&t=72

Yes, from an SEO perspective this is a good start. It would be helpful for both SEO and human readability to remove the noise, though (i.e. increase keyword density)...so something like this would be even better;

Code: Select all

http://www.example.com/community/topic.php?id=topic-id&title=topic-title&p=2

(where p is page number, of course)

[Rotsblok]

And TBH sooskriszta you say our points are invalid (most of the time) or saying we don't read the entire topic. But sometimes I wonder if you really read our posts and the objections we have.

What do you mean "our" and "we"? What are you, a posse? I don't remember engaging in any sort of conversation with you here before just now.

I mean the ppl against your idea.. thought that was obvious in the sentence.. guess not

By just throwing googles preferences to us is not making us abording our pov's...

English, please!What in God's name is "abord"?

I'm sorry for not being an native english speaking person.. And did you notice the time of that post (in my TZ it was nearly midnight on a friday)..

What I am saying is, use
phpbb.com/phpbb/topic/21396/SEO-URLs/6
instead of
phpbb.com/phpbb/21396/SEO-URLs/6
for improved readability, and that this addition of /topic/ is not beneficial for SEO but only for readability. Adding the topic title is for SEO.

but you have just created a problem that wasn't there.. in the "old" urls one can easily see what what is
?f=105&t=35616 means forum 105 and topic 35616

Err...no! Search Engine Marketing is composed of 2 elements:
Search Engine Advertising i.e. placing CPC ads on SERPs
(surprise) Search Engine Optimization
Since I haven't been talking about advertising, therefore by process of elimination, I am talking about SEO.

I'm not sure if you really have read your first post

However, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, since pretty URLs potentially provide additional information, therefore they'd have an edge, however slight, over non-pretty URLs. For small businesses in competitive markets, this edge may actually have a huge impact, because there are snowball effects - the higher you rank in SERP the more traffic you get, the more traffic you get the higher you rank on SERPs.

To me small businesses are companies with commercial ideas But enough of that

I'm not after
funkyboard.com/funky-1/board-subject-1323
but rather
funkyboard.com/topic/1323/rotsblok-does-not-like-seo-urls

I just dont like pretty urls I have no problem with seo urls
But that just doesn't make sense.. why adding the stuff of topic and id to your pretty urls when the old one already have it in them..

Code: Select all

http://www.example.com/community/viewtopic.php?ftitle=your-forum&f=44&ttitle=your-topic-title&t=72

Yes, from an SEO perspective this is a good start. It would be helpful for both SEO and human readability to remove the noise, though (i.e. increase keyword density)...so something like this would be even better;

Code: Select all

http://www.example.com/community/topic.php?id=topic-id&title=topic-title&p=2

(where p is page number, of course)

Then I would go for an combo of the 2.. (don't say I'm an old stubborn fool I can give a little bit )

Code: Select all

http://example.com/community/viewtopic.php?id=1234&title=Im-a-stubborn-guy&p=5

because viewtopic.php already exists. But that is just nit picking... (but the p is not the page number.. it's the post number.. you link to a post instead of a page )