Advertisement:

Author Topic: Search Engine Friendly  (Read 33352 times)

Offline [Unknown]

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Master
  • *
  • Posts: 36,102
  • Gender: Male
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #60 on: December 31, 2003, 07:04:21 AM »
Fizzy, (see, now almost all this post is gonna be towards you... not all but almost.)

When I say complaining, I speak of repeating the problem.  If someone posts a bug report twice, I would call that complaining.  Maybe it's not... maybe it's simply double posting.  But in my vocabulary, flawed as it is, I call it complaining.  I don't mean to cause problems by having different definitions than you.

Your opinion was helpful, was welcome.  However, all I could read from your previous replies was that you wanted this mod added and that you felt this issue was over-rulingly important.  So, to respond to that, I replied saying (to both you and Fizzy) that it was not going to be added.  That was paragraph one, which was directed at both of you.  The next part I directed at you was to say that this feature was not the end of the world (or the end of a forum account) and that I was not going to follow what I felt your advice was, and bend over backwards to break everything I've tried to do in SMF just so a few more URLs can be indexed.

Perhaps some changes I make here go more than un-noticed.  In fact, I could probably name at least one feature that not a single soul except me knows about.  I try to make people aware of these changes, and even post about them.  However, the fact is that repeating the problem (saying again and again that pages are not getting indexed.) is not going to make me more likely to solve it - it's going to make me less.  This is just how I am, personally... if I've started working on something, and someone goes on about it more and more, I stop.

Right now I'm waiting.  I'm waiting to see if this change fixed anything.  Even if it were the most important feature in not only the world but universe, I would be powerless to get Google to tell me whether my last change solved anything.

I'm sorry if my post was unclear.  I'm sorry if it was difficult to see what I meant by some of it, or difficult to see who I was talking to.  I'm sorry if the amplitude of my reply was unguagable.

Again, Fizzy, I listen to your input.  I listen to all input - I have read every single topic in this board, meaning even every single post in those topics.  I have not skipped one single topic, whether it was yours, Jack's, John's, Clark's, or Mike's.  However, once I read it... I am the only person who can tell my self how to take that input.

Perhaps I will put it off.. perhaps I will ignore it simply because I don't care.  But, in this case, I am doing things about it - your input is being heard and something is being done.  But, now that I've done something, going left and right on it is just going to cause problems like people deleting their accounts.

-[Unknown]

Offline pulpitfire

  • Sophist Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
  • Gender: Male
  • This is what the php parser looks like.
    • Pulpitfire Devotionals
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #61 on: December 31, 2003, 10:09:13 AM »
some have already tested url variables for months, know what works, and have furnished these examples from Google with oodles of pages being indexed.  i guess we don't really need to sweat it now, because others have already offered to mod these things in if it's not included in the official release. maybe we can all just move on with some form of pro-grade url development that will benefit users and SMF.

Offline Fizzy

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,676
  • Gender: Male
  • SMF World Domination
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #62 on: December 31, 2003, 11:32:51 AM »
Guys and especially to [Unknown],

One of the major drawbacks of using cold text is that it can very difficult to read the true nature of a post or more importantly of the personality of the person making that post.
It seems that Unknown and I have mis-read each other and it ended up with me throwing my dummy out of the pram and upsetting the course of this thread.

Jeff was kind enough to re-instate my membership, so, many thanks for that.
I think I now have a better understanding and appreciation of things now and more importantly of where [Unknown] is coming from and how he works.

I just wanted to offer my apologies for flying off the handle like that to all the members and especially to [Unknown] and the Team.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - A.E.


Offline RoCKeT-88

  • `Creature of the D4rKNeSs`
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
  • RoCKeT 88
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #63 on: December 31, 2003, 11:36:02 AM »
Welcome back Fiz!
Insert Witty Signature Here.

Offline Jeff Lewis

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,426
  • Gender: Male
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #64 on: December 31, 2003, 11:44:07 AM »
I just wanted to offer my apologies for flying off the handle like that to all the members and especially to [Unknown] and the Team.

And we apologize for the miscommunication and welcome you back :)

For now on, lets all count to 10 and then see where we stand ;)

As for Google and search engines - I understand the importance of making things as search engine friendly as possible but the one thing that does bother me is the way the search engines are always changing the way they handle sites....makes it very tough for developers to set thigns up one way and then have to change it all around another time.
Jeff Lewis
Co-Founder, Lewis Media
Co-Founder, SMF
http://www.lewisonline.ca

Offline Anguz

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,430
  • Gender: Male
    • cristianlavaque.com
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #65 on: December 31, 2003, 12:22:28 PM »
I agree Jeff... it is a pain to keep up with their changes

I've been reading and reading on SEO lately and there's so many ways that worked yesterday and won't tomorrow...

and we're talking about the indexing here... then comes the ranking... lol
Cristián Lávaque http://cristianlavaque.com

Offline RoCKeT-88

  • `Creature of the D4rKNeSs`
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
  • RoCKeT 88
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #66 on: December 31, 2003, 01:18:14 PM »
I agree Jeff... it is a pain to keep up with their changes

I've been reading and reading on SEO lately and there's so many ways that worked yesterday and won't tomorrow...

and we're talking about the indexing here... then comes the ranking... lol

I just redid about 200 pages for google and your right who knows when what I did will no longer work. 


I just wanted to offer my apologies for flying off the handle like that to all the members and especially to [Unknown] and the Team.

And we apologize for the miscommunication and welcome you back :)

For now on, lets all count to 10 and then see where we stand ;)

As for Google and search engines - I understand the importance of making things as search engine friendly as possible but the one thing that does bother me is the way the search engines are always changing the way they handle sites....makes it very tough for developers to set thigns up one way and then have to change it all around another time.

Far as google goes if you follow thier guidelines you have a pretty good chance of it being consistant.  After the Florida update alot of people were screaming thier sites fell way off the SR.  Well most of the sites complaining were not following the guidelines and were doing what google calls "spamming the search engine" and google gave them negative weight for that.  Anyone who was doing ethnical SEO for google should not have a had a problem with the Florida update.  My sites and most of the people on my SEO group on yahoo I belong too had no problems at all with that update.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2003, 01:27:51 PM by `Z0mB|e` »
Insert Witty Signature Here.

Offline pulpitfire

  • Sophist Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
  • Gender: Male
  • This is what the php parser looks like.
    • Pulpitfire Devotionals
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #67 on: December 31, 2003, 02:50:02 PM »
wb Fizzy

Offline dschwab9

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 5,320
  • Gender: Male
    • Technology, Ministry and Other Ramblings
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2003, 09:56:16 PM »
Just like there are a million ways I could make SMF even faster by using features of MySQL 4, but I can't.

What would be involved in optimizing it for MySQL 4?  Is it feasible to make that an option, or have a different Querrystring.php file for MySQL 4, or would it require changing every file?

Offline [Unknown]

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Master
  • *
  • Posts: 36,102
  • Gender: Male
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2003, 11:13:28 PM »
When I say "make it faster" I mean, I could make ALL of SMF faster by using new things MySQL 4 can do.  But it would mean completely different queries, and yes I plan to make a mod or for at least some of it.

-[Unknown]
« Last Edit: January 01, 2004, 05:11:16 AM by [Unknown] »

Offline Anguz

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,430
  • Gender: Male
    • cristianlavaque.com
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2004, 01:37:56 AM »
cool :)
Cristián Lávaque http://cristianlavaque.com

Offline pulpitfire

  • Sophist Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
  • Gender: Male
  • This is what the php parser looks like.
    • Pulpitfire Devotionals
Re: Search Engine Friendly
« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2004, 11:28:15 AM »
here's what Google says about formatting URLs:

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

* "Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page [emphasis mine] should be reachable from at least one static text link. "

* "...If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a '?' character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them small."