IPB 3.0 Idea

[djixas]

Search Engine Friendly Urls would be great, I won't need to install any mods for that anymore.

Also I would like to see pips for new sub-folder posts, like in http://www.getpaidforum.net for example.

[Guest]

I'd add a +1 to your first request, the problem is that they have to support windows users as well and aparently they don't have mod_rewrite...

[djixas]

What if you could select platform before downloading? Or then installing? If you are not using windows in server it would not install friendly urls?

Edit: I think IPB 3.0 Should be revolution btw ;)

[McQ]

+1

We should not have to install "mod" for something that 99% of admins want.

[robirming]

I agree on the URL's thing.

[n-k]

One more vote for better URLs.

[.Wolf]

Yeah same search freindly urls would be a nice feature.

[Michael]

If it means they have to make multiple sets of IPB, one with friendly URLs, and one without for Windows users, then I would say the odds of it happening are slim to none.

[.Timmy]

The images next to each subforum are useless and just clutter up the board index.

[djixas]

FuSoYa - with mod you need to change 2 files only, so I guess it won't be a big problem for IPB programmers to code something. They won't need to re-code whole board.

[Antony]

I'd think the URL rewriting could be done with a .htaccess file and a different default skin an optional. Also perhaps someone in the community could make a skin conversion tool to convert skins between the two types of URLs.

The images next to each subforum are useless and just clutter up the board index.

Agreed.

[Jinghao]

You gotta remember the links are mainly defined in the source files.

I say keep it as a MOD.

[Mat Barrie]

I think a better idea would be with IPB 3.0's hooks system, ensure that the ability to rewrite the URL from a hook function is possible. I.E. IPB gets data to make link, hook function registered - hand over control and let the hook make the URL. Problem solved. Install mod once, it persists installs.

[Mark]

Both Kim and myself have made FURL modifications that are very easy to install. I know from supporting the mod that about 40% of servers have problems with the FURL mods (which is why my one comes with a compatibility checker) it is near impossible to get a FURL mod that would work short of changing EVERY link thus making any old links to your board broken on upgrade, which is foolish. The URL system now is friendly enough, and it takes about 5 minutes to install a mod to make them moreso, you can even do it without file edits if you have the encoded version (it would take time going through the templates to correct the links, but it's possible).

For the second suggestion, -1. That would annoy me to no end.

[McQ]

You gotta remember the links are mainly defined in the source files.

I say keep it as a MOD.

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.

Wouldn't a mod wanted by almost every admin be something that SHOULD be worked into the base feature set? Do the majority of IPB admins NOT want their forums properly indexed by search engines?

I am a recent convert to IPB from Groupee (formerly UBB) using their hosted Eve forums. Prior to Groupee switching to search engine-friendly URLs my forums barely registered in the search engines beyond a few links from the forums' homepage. But shortly after Groupee converted to search engine-friendly URLs my forums shot to near the top of Google on several categories without ME changing a thing. Now, a few months after switching to IPB, I'm back to my forums being nearly-invisible again.

That being said, I am VERY happy that I made the switch to IPB due to MANY significant shortcomings in Groupee and its product development path (or lack thereof). My forums aren't particularly dependent on search engine traffic anyway.

But since I would IMAGINE that the GREAT MAJORITY of site admins WANT high search engine visibility for their websites AND simple website administration, working search engine-friendly URLs into the core IPB product seems like a good idea to me.

[Mark]

McQ: http://www.ipsbeyond.com/forums/index.php?...mp;showfile=515. Just install it. It is silly to implement something in the default structure that would completly destroy the system for certain users.

[McQ]

McQ:

http://www.ipsbeyond.com/forums/index.php?...mp;showfile=515

. Just install it. It is silly to implement something in the default structure that would completly destroy the system for certain users.

How?

If correctly implemented (as it was by Groupee), the new FURL links worked and the old links worked (part of the conversion process created the old URLs as aliases for their related new FURLs.).

What "structure" is jeopardy here?

More importantly, going forward shouldn't IPB be incorporating desired features into the base product? If so, is there a reason that MOST admins would not want their sites to be properly indexed by search engines? Is IPB marketing itself as the preferred option for sites that want to run in "stealth" mode on the Internet?

Mods can be wonderful things. But they aren't supported by IPB, so using them is inherently risky and can inject needless complexity into the site administration process.

But more to the point, FURLs would be a major advance for most board administrators and IPB, since FURLs significantly increase the search engine visibility of websites and IPB products.

To this day, Google has THOUSANDS more links to posts/threads from my old Groupee forums that had FURLs (no mod required), despite the fact that Groupee has been constantly accessing my IPB forums since May.

Admins should not have to mod a product to get the industry-standard search engine (Google) to properly index their sites.

[McQ]

To this day, Google has THOUSANDS more links to posts/threads from my old Groupee forums that had FURLs (no mod required), despite the fact that Groupee has been constantly accessing my IPB forums since May.

I'm sorry about the above confusing typo on my part. What I MEANT to say was...


"To this day, Google has THOUSANDS more links to posts/threads from my old Groupee forums that had FURLs (no mod required), despite the fact that Google has been constantly accessing/spidering my IPB forums since May."


I guess I can't shouldn't do three Yeager Bombs before posting anymore. :ermm:

[ellawella]

There is always the edit option...

Anyway, the deal with friendly URLs is this: not all servers can use them, even if they can compatibility often varies, and not everyone wants to bother with them either. Hence, modification.

[McQ]

There is always the edit option...

Anyway, the deal with friendly URLs is this: not all servers can use them,

Incorrect.

Not all servers can handle the FURL mods.

But any web server can handle a FURL. In fact, it wouldn't be much of an Internet at all if Google and the other search engines could not easily index all the sites with FURLs.

A enhancement to IPB base(as opposed to a mod) would be a one-time conversion of all existing URLs to FURLs, as well as an aliasing of those existing URLS so that any old links (or links within forum postings, etc.)from other sites would still work. Obviously any new links would be created as FURLs only.

That would be the END of the process. No stand-alone, third-party mod to maintain or worry about. No headaches for the many IPB site admins who value simplicity in site administration.

I'm sure that there are many admins who like tweaks and mods. But if IPB surveyed their users, they would quickly learn that many MORE admins prefer simplicity, with the option to mod.

Since Internet search engine visibility is a powerful driver for GROWING a site and its related REVENUE, why would ANYBODY be resistant to moving FURLs to IPB's base product? Base should reflect core customer needs. Mods should address the variations from those core customer needs.


Also, just as an example, below are two Groupee threads (identical) discussing FURLs during the period when Groupee made their conversion to FURLs. Note that one is a FURL and one is an alias for the same thread:

Alias (not search engine friendly): http://community.groupee.com/eve/ubb.x?m=1...p;f=32010334563

FURL: http://community.groupee.com/eve/forums/a/...3/m/13410621763

[ellawella]

Not all servers can handle the FURL mods.

But any web server can handle a FURL.

Technically, this is true. All servers, when configured somehow, can probably be eventually encouraged into handling FURLs. But it varies so much, there is little point in IPS providing this as a default option. If the server is Apache, mod_rewite will probably be an installed module (in all likelihood), but you can't know for sure. So IPB would have to figure out whether it was installed, then either enable the rewrites, or disable it, telling the (possibly bemused, inexperienced) user that it's not possible to rewrite.

Compatibility and behaviour may vary across Apache versions.

IIS, on the other hand, varies a lot more. I think IIS has no rewrite capability by default, so a 3rd party module would have to be installed.

These are the problems. This is why FURLs aren't included in IPB as standard. This is why IPB admins are free, at their discretion and provided their system supports it, to download a mod.

[McQ]

Technically, this is true. All servers, when configured somehow, can probably be eventually encouraged into handling FURLs. But it varies so much, there is little point in IPS providing this as a default option. If the server is Apache, mod_rewite will

probably

be an installed module (in all likelihood), but you can't know for sure. So IPB would have to figure out whether it was installed, then either enable the rewrites, or disable it, telling the (possibly bemused, inexperienced) user that it's not possible to rewrite.

Compatibility and behaviour may vary across Apache versions.

IIS, on the other hand, varies a lot more. I

think

IIS has no rewrite capability by default, so a 3rd party module would have to be installed.

These are the problems. This is why FURLs aren't included in IPB as standard. This is why IPB admins are free, at their discretion and provided their system supports it, to download a mod.

You can't see the forest through all the trees.

Forget that any mod exists for FURLs, because they--and their limitations--have nothing to do with the feature request for FURLs.

This is a BASE CHANGE to IPB that would require a one-time conversion of existing URLS to FURLS. Any web server on the planet earth can handle FURLS. Nobody is asking Apache or IIS to rewrite anything.

This conversion would benefit almost EVERY IBP site SIGNIFICANTLY within one month in terms of search engine visibility. IPB could easily test this claim by mirroring THIS forum with an identical FURL-converted forum and then watching WHICH links rise to the top of the Google results.

[ellawella]

You can't see the forest through all the trees.

Forget that any mod exists for FURLs, because they--and their limitations--have nothing to do with the feature request for FURLs.

This is a BASE CHANGE to IPB that would require a one-time conversion of existing URLS to FURLS. Any web server on the planet earth can handle FURLS. Nobody is asking Apache or IIS to rewrite anything.

This conversion would benefit almost EVERY IBP site SIGNIFICANTLY within one month in terms of search engine visibility. IPB could easily test this claim by mirroring THIS forum with an identical FURL-converted forum and then watching WHICH links rise to the top of the Google results.

If you can show me that IIS supports rewrites by default, and that rewrite implementations etc. don't vary across Apache versions, then I'll accept your point of view. But to the best of my knowlege, you are mistaken in assuming such wide compatibility.

[Luke]

The biggest problem with doing this is there are dozens of source files with redirects and custom links. Adding a mod_rewrite is easy, but the biggest issue is making all the links and redirects be used on the board as navigation (old links would still work since mod_rewrite translates them to the 'old' links anyway).

Doing something like this, the right way, would take a lot of effort. And even if it was included, it would be something optional. Right now, there are more important things to think about like improving existing features. If search engines couldn't read the boards at all, then it would be a more critical matter. But many search engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc...) understand query string url's anyway. The real reason behind search friendly url's is (1) it looks nice, (2) it's easy to read. Right now I think you might be more interested in the operation/optimizations of the board rather than what the url looks like :D

Don't know one way or another about this one... We'll just have to wait and see what Matt & Brandon have up their sleeves :).

[=Charles]

SEO URLs +1

They can always be /index.php/test/ if mod_rewrite is not available.