realmaverickuk

Members
  • Content count

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About realmaverickuk

  • Rank
    Community Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

13,571 profile views
  1. So out of the box, the suite will all still live under /forum/? Usability and good architecture are both lacking in the 3.x suite and I really hope these are improved in 4.0. /blogs/ /galleries/ and everything else should be independent from the forum. The fact "Forum" shows up in titles etc of unrelated sections really pains me. A focus group dedicated to SEO and another to UI should be setup if they haven't already been.
  2. If your users are able to create blogs for any topic, it will most certainly dilute the theme of your website. I'd personally add a noindex tag to all of the blogs and perhaps even bar Google from indexing them in the first place. If the blogs all shared a common theme, it wouldn't be an issue.
  3. Steven, don't confuse dofollow, nofollow with noindex. (assuming you are, as I couldn't figure out why you mentioned do follow comments). But beyond that, you need to backtrack a little, the entire point of this thread, is that page 2+ is seen as a different thread. So adding noindex to pages 2+, won't effect weight in any way, shape or form.
  4. Steven, seriously, for now, use the noindex on page 2+, that Brandon posted a few pages back. Nothing bad can come of it. Worst would be that it didn't help. Ensure you use noindex, follow. This means those pages wont get indexed BUT link juice will flow to the links on those pages and Google will continue to visit them.
  5. Without the issue with the pages being fixed first, it's not worth it. The two combined will be a great solution.
  6. Dunno if that was tongue in cheek. 1. IPB has masses of inbound links, more than 99% of websites in existence, it will rank much easier than most. 2. SEO rankings flying, isn't being targeted by anybody. In fact in the first few pages, nobody even has the term in the title. Of course it's going to rank. I won't go too hard on you, just incase your comment was tongue in cheek ;)
  7. Rand Fishkin from SEOMoz recommends Page 2 first, to un-optimise the second page and I definitely agree. I've also read various users modifying their VB install to do the same with good results. AND it makes sense. There are pro's and con's to everything and of course, they should always be weighed up. In this case, Page 2 first, pro's far outweigh the cons.
  8. I doubt you're a minority. Users are the whole reason you have a website. But "page 2" takes up 5 characters, so unless you've got 20 tabs open, you'll be fine. And even then, you've got favicons etc to help aid you. I really don't see it ever being an issue for users.
  9. Yep, page number first, on all pages >2 will help for a number of reasons. It also helps esentially un-optmising the second pages page titles. For now, those suffering from this issue, should really just noindex, follow pages 2+.
  10. Search/Tags are a mess IMO. They send Google on a loop of duplicate content. I have my dev hide the filter bar on important parts of my site, for both guests and Google. I always worry too much about using: <if test="$this->memberData['g_use_search']"></if> Because it's essentially serving one lot of content to users and another to bots. But these filter bars are nuts, they lead to so much duplicate content. Of course good use of canonical tags helps a ton, and I've seen Matt using canonical tags in many places for this issue, but still many places it's not implemented. Though I realise only so many hours in a day huh? Tag urls should all be FURL, with no option for Google to see the junk. Even when Google follows a FURL tag, the sidebar filter, actually then links to the other sections with no furls
  11. Lindy, that goes without saying. But if there are fundamental problems with the CMS, producing duplicate content, then that's a massive issue. I personally, haven't mentioned anything that would attempt to manipulate a search engine. In fact, I don't recall reading anybody making such recommendations. Unless you interpret adding noindex to duplicate content as manipulation, though hopefully that's not the case. While that's true, in some respect. Most of what "evolves" is that the bullfaeces loopholes, so called SEO's find to manipulate the results, end up causing problems. The foundations of SEO have not changed for a long time. All of the issues with IPB, are issues with the absolute basics. And even though they're basics, they're very often done wrong. While I'm glad you guys are listening, kinda, I still feel as though you've all got a belief that everything is fine but could perhaps be better. But there are a lot of improvements to be made. This entire thread focused on a single issue. But the entire system needs to be solid. One of the major things that has changed with Google over the past 18 months, is that it's now a LOT less forgiving. But this doesn't mean SEO has changed as such, just those doing things wrong, are now suffering. Don't get me wrong, I love IPB but I feel the SEO has a long way to go and just when I feel we're getting somewhere, comments from staff suddenly appear to be dismissive and I wonder if things are actually going to change. I've no doubt Matt's going to fix the issue as discussed here. But what about the future of IP.SEO? How do we move forward with that? Where is the best place to voice our concerns? The problem with doing it here, is that everybody jumps in, everybody thinks they're an expert and it ends up being a big debate and most of the fixes get lost.
  12. I disagree. Hire the right SEO and you'd never have any such problem. Proper SEO doesn't and hasn't changed. For the issues with IP.board to be fixed, you need a very good and firm understanding of on site SEO, that's not going to change any time soon. Build IPB on a solid base of what's been proven to work, what Google themselves recommend and what makes good logical sense. I am happy to list actionable fixes. Pretty dangerous attitude Brandon and annoyed me a little, seeing as I was one of those who talked about Google being confused. First of all, we've PROVEN Google's confused and that's why it's listing multiple pages of a thread, as separate threads. If Google's not confused, what is it? Misinformed? It all amounts to the same thing really. You're in a position of power Brandon, and whether you're implementing changes based of false assumptions, or telling Matt that we're talking nonsense and he shouldn't listen to us, it's going to hinder the development of IPB. But assuming Google is smart enough to interpret bad infrastructure or duplicate content, isn't a good attitude to have. There are millions of websites, thousands of platforms and Google will make mistakes, when left to interpret what I see as errors in design.
  13. Yup until I get a CLEAR and official explanation of EXACTLY what I need to do, I am doing nothing. Maybe if all webmasters stood united and refused to do it, we'd have more power. They can't shut the internet down.
  14. What are we trying to prove? or disprove? Because the platform is important. The structure is important. The inbound links are important. Lots of important stuff. Also, you just mentioned your forum doesn't suffer this problem? But you'd earlier also said you'd not upgraded beyond 3.1? If you'd upgraded to 3.2+ it would have. IPB have themselves acknowledged it's an issue and what they're going to do to fix it. I don't even understand what you're trying to say or claim here. "My forum isn't effected so it's all your own faults?"
  15. That's part of your internal bloody structure. The url structures at least. And the title tag is massively important. I'm not even going to waste anymore time debating. You're wrong, completely.