News:

Want to get involved in developing SMF, then why not lend a hand on our github!

Main Menu

smf 1.1.4 and google results , seo4smf is a good choice?

Started by carlainz, December 14, 2007, 06:35:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

carlainz

SMF Version: SMF 1.1.4
Mods installed:
Using default theme: yes
Link to site: apollobb

hi all,

i have smf 1.1.4 and i want know if really help install a mod like seo4smf or similar ( for url rewrite )
i don't like install mods , but if this can help me a little bit with google search , i can do ...

thanks

karlbenson

Most of us do just fine without SEO style urls.
In my personal experience and opinion, SEO4SMF when I last tested it was buggy and produced many errorsi n my error log.  PrettyUrls maybe a better mod in my limited tests.

There isnt any real reason to fear mods.  They allow for lots of features that would be considered bloat if included in the default core of smf.

carlainz

do you know if i can use prettyUrls with italian language and the apollobb theme ?
thanks

karlbenson

I don't I'm afraid.  I don't currently use Pretty Urls, Italian language, nor ApolloBb Theme.

青山 素子

If your site has been active for some time without any fancy rewrites, installing something to "pretty up" the URLs can actually drop your ranking on search results (the change rate on your site will have jumped - causing a bit harsher review by the search engine -  and all the new URLs will need to be crawled and indexed). Keywords in your URL have very little influence on rankings, so there isn't a big reason to change things around if that is all you are going to do for SEO.

Besides, all the major search engines index dynamic URLs fine, and have been for the last few years.
Motoko-chan
Director, Simple Machines

Note: Unless otherwise stated, my posts are not representative of any official position or opinion of Simple Machines.


verbera

My site has been running SMF for well over a year and google and yahoo have yet to recognize any part of the forum even though the spiders are on there all the time.

I'm considering seo4smf as well as a last resort before dumping SMF completely. My only hesitation for this last experiment is because I'm not sure if it will work with 1.1.4.

karlbenson

verbera, what do you mean by have yet to recognise?

whats your forum link?

verbera

I loaded up a site map to google in December and am seeing better results.

BTW Yahoo sees the forum just fine. I put that in accidentally in the last post. Google sees the wiki, gallery, regular pages but wasn't seeing the forum at all.

I was search using strings like: site:bishie.org forum
Yahoo shows many threads in the forum. Now with the site map at least when I search site:bishie.org/forum I see threads. So definitely progress with google.

(Used GsiteCrawler to create the site map for any who are interested. Great program. Did need to do a lot of URL removal though to get rid of forum URLs that google should not see and might mistake as "repeats".)

billp

I think google is crawling you just fine. Try this query:

site:www.bishie.org anime con boston

shows a post from your forum as the top link.

humbleworld

DigitalPoint forum site is not using pretty urls. It runs on a dynamic url.
Spiders have no problems with dynamic urls.

Dannii

Quote from: carlainz on December 15, 2007, 06:27:47 AMdo you know if i can use prettyUrls with italian language and the apollobb theme ?
thanks
It'll be fine, you may have to copy the very few changes to modifications.english.php to modifications.italian.php, but that's only for the admin interface.

QuoteIf your site has been active for some time without any fancy rewrites, installing something to "pretty up" the URLs can actually drop your ranking on search results (the change rate on your site will have jumped - causing a bit harsher review by the search engine -  and all the new URLs will need to be crawled and indexed).
Is this this case with 301 redirects?
"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."

Advertisement: