Note: We are moving the topics of this forum and it will be deleted at some point
Publish your own request for comments/change or patches for the next version of phpBB. Discuss the contributions and proposals of others. Upcoming releases are 3.2/Rhea and 3.3.
juliokr wrote: Sun May 01, 2016 9:28 pmSorry this is not really true there is no "lack of interest" one the board owner side and even the developer of the only SEO extension https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... &t=2288486 says always that he cannot finish because he can't get get the event he needs to finish ! So who believe ?
But it's true
There is certainly a lack of interest in creating an extension, otherwise there would have been a few extensions for this, but there isn't. Or are you saying that the fact that you yourself stating that the makers of phpBB SEO abandoning their extension is not an indication of lack of interest in development?
I don't know if there is a lack of interest on the developer side because I don't know him. You could also ask the question isn't there a "general" lack of interest of developers to make extensions for phpBB ? And if it's true what is the reason ?
In anyway there seems not to be a lack of interest by board owners to have "SEO (or nice or readable) URLs
juliokr wrote: Mon May 02, 2016 11:11 am
You could also ask the question isn't there a "general" lack of interest of developers to make extensions for phpBB ?
With 160 extensions approved into the CDB and well over 400 still in development I would say that there is a considerable interest in developing extensions (and those are just the ones on phpbb.com)
David Remember: You only know what you know -
and you do not know what you do not know!
juliokr wrote: Mon May 02, 2016 11:11 am
I don't know if there is a lack of interest on the developer side because I don't know him. You could also ask the question isn't there a "general" lack of interest of developers to make extensions for phpBB ?
Not at all, no. There are plenty of other extensions and interested persons in making them. Just not any interested in one for this feature. 😉
Interesting annecdote: upgraded a client from 3.0 to 3.1 and within a month they reported that their searchability (SEO) improved by a lot. Certainly there are things we did correctly in 3.1 to improve on this. Not saying pretty URLs aren't important or that they won't happen but there are certainly many other things that improve on SEO a lot more than just these URLs.
DavidIQ wrote: Mon May 02, 2016 12:11 pm
Interesting annecdote: upgraded a client from 3.0 to 3.1 and within a month they reported that their searchability (SEO) improved by a lot. Certainly there are things we did correctly in 3.1 to improve on this. Not saying pretty URLs aren't important or that they won't happen but there are certainly many other things that improve on SEO a lot more than just these URLs.
The big difference between 3.0 and 3.1 is that 3.1 is responsive so it's just normal that is helps for SEO because more than 50% of web users using mobile devices.
Those who still use 3.0.x will have the opposite SEO experience !
juliokr wrote: Mon May 02, 2016 5:02 pm
Those who still use 3.0.x will have the opposite SEO experience !
Those are strongly suggested to upgrade to the latest 3.1.x, or even better to the incoming 3.2.0-rc1.
And in any case, if you do not have real and good content that satisfies the bigG you are still on your own.
This matter has been discussed to death here and there, there is nothing more to say IMHO.
3Di wrote: Tue May 03, 2016 12:50 pm
Those are strongly suggested to upgrade to the latest 3.1.x, or even better to the incoming 3.2.0-rc1.
And in any case, if you do not have real and good content that satisfies the bigG you are still on your own.
This matter has been discussed to death here and there, there is nothing more to say IMHO.
Content of forums depends 100% on users. And if persons who wants to write something don't find your forum you will have no content !
Yes it has been discussed to death here ... and nothing happened !!!
That's what is frustrating.
I'm not a coder but I think it would be much easier to provide this feature directly with the core than to make an extension for this !
Why don't they just ask the phpBB board owners if they would like to have this feature ?
Is the URL of the FAQ page constitutes a "human readable" url? If so, then that style will come to multiple places in the future (slowly, but it will).
If not, then as far as i know any other sorts of modification to this is on the very bottom of the priority list.
juliokr wrote: Tue May 03, 2016 5:32 pm
I'm not a coder but I think it would be much easier to provide this feature directly with the core than to make an extension for this !
CHItA wrote: Tue May 03, 2016 5:46 pm
If not, then as far as i know any other sorts of modification to this is on the very bottom of the priority list.
juliokr wrote: Tue May 03, 2016 5:32 pm
I'm not a coder but I think it would be much easier to provide this feature directly with the core than to make an extension for this !
This is not necessarily true.
As I already told I'm not a coder but I can not believe that it would be so difficult to give out a URL instead of :
juliokr wrote: Tue May 03, 2016 6:57 pmAs I already told I'm not a coder but I can not believe that it would be so difficult to give out a URL instead of :
The approximately 7,500 lines of code that the phpBBSEO group has done to get these URLs displaying might give you a hint as to how difficult it might be.
CHItA wrote: Tue May 03, 2016 5:46 pm
If not, then as far as i know any other sorts of modification to this is on the very bottom of the priority list.
That's just the same like to say never !
Never say never i guess, also the URLs with routes are probably easier to rewrite, so in that regard, as we naturally go towards that direction it possibly gets more simple to solve it for extension authors.
I would also note, that if anyone interested in implementing this, they could do that, either as an extension or a core feature. However, as of now it seems to me that anything we would write, would have to be thrown out as we rewrite the core (which we actively do), therefore it doesn't seem to be a viable solution for now.
