Repeating content and topic links.

[abdurhman]

good morning ..
How are you doing ...
There is a problem with the feature of activating the friendly links for search engines.
  The topic has two links:
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=16.0
And
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php/topic,16.0.html

Isn't that supposed to links?
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=16.0
It does not work after activating the feature

And also the same problem with the forums works with two links:
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php/board,14.0
And
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php/board,14.0.html

What is the solution to this problem?

[Kindred]

Turn off that setting
its useless.

It used to be helpful,  10 years ago.

[abdurhman]

Turn off that setting
its useless.

It used to be helpful,  10 years ago.

Who said it is not useful
Php links from ancient times became the best way to link
Short like this:
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/topic,43.0/
I would like to know the benefits of having an (index) page in the link, as well as a comma and other symbols
The link should be like this
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/topic43/

[vbgamer45]

I have a mod prettyurls that replaces it https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=636 and does add the http headers to forward to the new link url.

[abdurhman]

I tried it there is a problem but it is not a complete copy
The full version is not free

[Kindred]

the "SEF" setting is utterly useless and even worse, it confuses things for people like you...

It is a hold-over from when search engines were unable to correctly process dynamic URLs.

having index.php or other characters in the URL does not hurt anything any more
for example:
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=254.0
and
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=573004.0
these links gets cataloged just fine -- and the use of Canonical URL setting in the HTML means that the search engines are told when something is actually the same page with a different URL.

the way you are talking about SEO - you're about 10 years out of date.

Pretty URLs is nice for humans -- but does next to nothing for Search Engines these days.

[Arantor]

I tried it there is a problem but it is not a complete copy
The full version is not free

Yes it is, the only thing missing is that you have to pay for not having it in the footer.

[abdurhman]

the "SEF" setting is utterly useless and even worse, it confuses things for people like you...

It is a hold-over from when search engines were unable to correctly process dynamic URLs.

having index.php or other characters in the URL does not hurt anything any more
for example:
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=254.0
and
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=573004.0
these links gets cataloged just fine -- and the use of Canonical URL setting in the HTML means that the search engines are told when something is actually the same page with a different URL.

the way you are talking about SEO - you're about 10 years out of date.

Pretty URLs is nice for humans -- but does next to nothing for Search Engines these days.

If it is according to what you say it is old
Why modern software now uses it like:
vbulletin 4
vbulletin 5
xenforo 1
xenforo 2
WordPress
Joomla
:
:
etc
Are all software outdated ...?

[Arantor]

You're talking about two different things.

The setting of using topic,1.0.html is old (and so is vb 3, and so is vb 4) and this does not help search engines. It did 15 years ago, not now.

Using regular topic names in links (like th others do) is still not especially helpful for SEO any more but they have it because people ask for it and because they have older forums that also have it so gotta keep the old links working.

New forums do not need it, do not benefit significantly. If titles in URLs were so important, why doesn't YouTube have names in links?

[abdurhman]

You're talking about two different things.

The setting of using topic,1.0.html is old (and so is vb 3, and so is vb 4) and this does not help search engines. It did 15 years ago, not now.

Using regular topic names in links (like th others do) is still not especially helpful for SEO any more but they have it because people ask for it and because they have older forums that also have it so gotta keep the old links working.

New forums do not need it, do not benefit significantly. If titles in URLs were so important, why doesn't YouTube have names in links?

It is not a requirement to contain names and addresses
Friendly links can come in many forms and formats:
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/topic566669/
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/topic566669.hrml
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/t566669/
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/t566669.html

What is the benefit of having ( (؟) (0) and (index) in the link ?

[Kindred]

the index.php is the primary driver

the ?, & and = are indicators to the server that you are sending an argument to be processed

.html is utterly and totally useless (which is why we don't bother with it and one of the reasons I said the SEF setting is usless

the .0 is another indicator for the server...


in other words -- everything in the URL is important to the server.
If you want to take those OUT, then you need to add more code on the server side to process what the server should think about doing with a url.

In other words.... everything we have already said.


your "knowledge" is 10 years out of date

[abdurhman]

the index.php is the primary driver

the ?, & and = are indicators to the server that you are sending an argument to be processed

.html is utterly and totally useless (which is why we don't bother with it and one of the reasons I said the SEF setting is usless

the .0 is another indicator for the server...


in other words -- everything in the URL is important to the server.
If you want to take those OUT, then you need to add more code on the server side to process what the server should think about doing with a url.

In other words.... everything we have already said.


your "knowledge" is 10 years out of date

your "knowledge" is 10 years out of date

We are here to discuss and benefit
Each one benefits from the other
And it is not from underestimating others and describing them with support for understanding and stupidity

The friendly links have told you that it is not related to html or php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSwjwpULShY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSwjwpULShY&feature=youtu.be
It was not used at the end with php or html

[Arantor]

So what that the URL doesn't contain ".php", that doesn't help or hurt SEO at all.

The thing is, you are telling us that we should be supportive and understanding, but you're not listening to what we're saying, and I work as a web developer as a day Jon, I assure you the URL does not matter as much as you think. 15 years ago it mattered, now it only really matters for looking nice, not ranking.

[Kindred]

and I have told you, several times...


.html (in this case) is useless. don't bother with it.

the index.php in the URL is part of SMF because content is parsed through the index.php file.
it CAN be removed...  but removing it can also lead to complications because the system expects it.
Since there is no penalty for HAVING it and no benefot for NOT having it, we're not going to waste resources to recode the system.

I am not underestimating you -- I am telling you that every argument you have brought forward so far is based on knowledge which is 10 years out of date.


as for why youtube doesn't have it...    well -- maybe they are not using php?   or if they are, they decided to remove the file (it CAN be done -- we've just decided there is no real benefit for us to waste time and resources doing it)


the PrettyURLs mod puts URL content in human friendly format by use of redirects and a matching table...     which, of course, adds overhead (more data in the database, more processing time for each and every link)  for most sites, that is negligable -- but, if you start to get into the 5-10 million pages realm, it could become painful for people who don't have a server farm, like Google...

[Bobby]

Abdurhman, "SEF" doesn't make sense for SEO today! But there is a mod that could help for what you want. It's SimpleSEF mod by Suki (original by MattZuba) https://github.com/MissAllSunday/SimpleSEF

[Arantor]

YouTube uses Java, but the point I was making is that they don't have the name of the video in the URL

But honestly, it really doesn't matter whether you put .php in the URL or not. No-one cares any more. If the point is 'security', I assure you that there are easier ways to find out what your server is doing than to trust the URL isn't lying.

[abdurhman]

I don't know how the smf works because I am a new user
  I am using vb3 from 10 years until today
This is the first time I've been using a program
TThe reason I came up with the topic is that I care a lot for not duplicating the site's content and the appearance of links in search engines that do not have the value of such links :
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=43.msg48#new
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=36.msg0;boardseen#new

[Arantor]

So, let me reiterate.

This is NOT considered duplicate. The first link includes a 'do not index' message, and includes a 'canonical' link to point to the actual topic specifically to avoid duplication.

And AGAIN, search engines cared about those links 15 years ago. They don't now. If they cared so much, why is it that Google - who owns YouTube - didn't bother to fix YouTube's links? Instagram also doesn't have nice links. Neither does Pinterest.

I can go on and on about the number of sites that don't have 'nice links' and that appear just fine in Google.

[abdurhman]

So, let me reiterate.

This is NOT considered duplicate. The first link includes a 'do not index' message, and includes a 'canonical' link to point to the actual topic specifically to avoid duplication.

And AGAIN, search engines cared about those links 15 years ago. They don't now. If they cared so much, why is it that Google - who owns YouTube - didn't bother to fix YouTube's links? Instagram also doesn't have nice links. Neither does Pinterest.

I can go on and on about the number of sites that don't have 'nice links' and that appear just fine in Google.

https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=43.msg48#new
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=36.msg0;boardseen#new

Come back and tell you
The following links have been indexed and manually deleted via Web Master for Google

[Arantor]

-sigh- I give up trying to explain that Google doesn't need you helping it, it'll be fine just as it is.

[Kindred]

I'll try this one more time, for the folks who refuse to comprehend...

let's take one of those links.
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=36.msg0;boardseen#new

if you then look at the SOURCE of the page that gets loaded, you might notice the following line


   <link rel="canonical" href="https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=36.0">

this tells the search engines that -- whatever the URL is in the browser bar -- this is the SAME CONTENT as the page accessed by the URL without extra arguments.




... and, I fail to believe your statement -- If you actually see something incorrect, then I believe that YOU have misconfigured your google webmaster tools, because google (by itself) has been smart enough to correctly catalog EVERY OTHER SMF SITE....



So...  I say, once again.  Your knowledge is 10 years out of date. You are just plain wrong.

[abdurhman]

I'll try this one more time, for the folks who refuse to comprehend...

let's take one of those links.
https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=36.msg0;boardseen#new

if you then look at the SOURCE of the page that gets loaded, you might notice the following line


   <link rel="canonical" href="https://www.anime-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=36.0">

this tells the search engines that -- whatever the URL is in the browser bar -- this is the SAME CONTENT as the page accessed by the URL without extra arguments.




... and, I fail to believe your statement -- If you actually see something incorrect, then I believe that YOU have misconfigured your google webmaster tools, because google (by itself) has been smart enough to correctly catalog EVERY OTHER SMF SITE....



So...  I say, once again.  Your knowledge is 10 years out of date. You are just plain wrong.

Okay
I do not understand and do not know anything
thank you