About SEO

[Dark_Hunter]

Hey, I noticed in the URL that the title of the thread, I also noticed it does words below 3 or less, like "the" and "is" not sure if you all know this but Google ignores words less than 3 letters. Sorry if you don't get it.

 

[ked38]

About VxSEO, forget it. No comments ......

My friends got pr1 ranks only for 3.8.x forum script with it,
but pr5 with another from a free forum script with some code modifcation by old-hand coders.

Two different years age domains for testing.Our true experience or no luck.

Maybe an individual market/code team for xenforo seo (XfSeo) , just suggestion only.

 

[Kier]

It drives me nuts that a whole industry exists on the premise that Google is some kind of idiotic entity that needs to be force-fed content in some kind of 'magic format' in order for it to index it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea that URL format a is in some way favourable to format b is frankly laughable. Provided your URLs work (ie: reliably point to content) and are not a billion characters long, Google will index them without a problem. Further, it would be ridiculous for search engines to in some way prioritise the content of a URL string over the content of the page to which it points, and surprise surprise, no search engines do so.

There was a time when URLs that included textual references to their content were called human readable. Nothing has actually changed since then.

 

[ked38]

Yes, commander

Agree,
This is the real world.Big G is dominant in market share.
Long way to run within the seo industry field.

It drives me nuts that a whole industry exists on the premise that Google is some kind of idiotic entity that needs to be force-fed content in some kind of 'magic format' in order for it to index it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea that URL format a is in some way favourable to format b is frankly laughable. Provided your URLs work (ie: reliably point to content) and are not a billion characters long, Google will index them without a problem. Further, it would be ridiculous for search engines to in some way prioritise the content of a URL string over the content of the page to which it points, and surprise surprise, no search engines do so. There was a time when URLs that included textual references to their content were called human readable. Nothing has actually changed since then.

 

[Forsaken]

It drives me nuts that a whole industry exists on the premise that Google is some kind of idiotic entity that needs to be force-fed content in some kind of 'magic format' in order for it to index it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea that URL format a is in some way favourable to format b is frankly laughable. Provided your URLs work (ie: reliably point to content) and are not a billion characters long, Google will index them without a problem. Further, it would be ridiculous for search engines to in some way prioritise the content of a URL string over the content of the page to which it points, and surprise surprise, no search engines do so. There was a time when URLs that included textual references to their content were called human readable. Nothing has actually changed since then.

Only reason I would favor a certain URL structure is due to preference and legibility.

 

[Cupara]

It drives me nuts that a whole industry exists on the premise that Google is some kind of idiotic entity that needs to be force-fed content in some kind of 'magic format' in order for it to index it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea that URL format a is in some way favourable to format b is frankly laughable. Provided your URLs work (ie: reliably point to content) and are not a billion characters long, Google will index them without a problem. Further, it would be ridiculous for search engines to in some way prioritise the content of a URL string over the content of the page to which it points, and surprise surprise, no search engines do so.

There was a time when URLs that included textual references to their content were called human readable. Nothing has actually changed since then.

But here lies the issue, top rankings go to those who have an added bonus in search engines, SEO is that added bonus. It makes the URL look pretty but spiders can easily read the URL then archive the content for future searches. I never believe that SEO was created solely for Google which is why I say search engines. Overall I'm brain dead and can't seem to get my point out so I'll come back to it later. LOL

 

[David Thomas]

Why can't people just create great sites, semi-logical URLs, and move on? Yes, search engine ranking is important, but to go off on these tangents is just pointless.

 

[Shamil]

Why can't people just create great sites, semi-logical URLs, and move on? Yes, search engine ranking is important, but to go off on these tangents is just pointless.

And semantic HTML.

Basically, primary content delivery to site viewers is key. We need to maximise the chance of this.

 

[gordy]

Why can't people just create great sites, semi-logical URLs, and move on? Yes, search engine ranking is important, but to go off on these tangents is just pointless.

+1 It really is modern day snake oil, never used any SEO, vbSEO or magic Oreos and google's been really good to me

 

[Shamil]

+1 It really is modern day snake oil, never used any SEO, vbSEO or magic Oreos and google's been really good to me

With newer sites, it's more difficult to break the ice.

 

[Nick]

With newer sites, it's more difficult to break the ice.

Is 2 1/2 years still considered "newer"? If so, one of my forums hasn't had trouble "breaking the ice" without vBSEO or any SEO customization.

I have the content, and Google has found it and valued it as it sees fit. Everybody always wants to be #1 in the search results, but they never stop and think, "hey - maybe there's a reason Google hasn't put me in the top spot... perhaps because my content isn't worthy."

 

[Shamil]

Is 2 1/2 years still considered "newer"? If so, one of my forums hasn't had trouble "breaking the ice" without vBSEO or any SEO customization.

I have the content, and Google has found it and valued it as it sees fit. Everybody always wants to be #1 in the search results, but they never stop and think, "hey - maybe there's a reason Google hasn't put me in the top spot... perhaps because my content isn't worthy."

No, anything 18 months or less is considered new. 18-36 months is developing. 36+ is pre-maturity. 5 years + is mature. This is my scale, don't know how Google or other SE works out though.

 

[Kier]

SEO is that added bonus

I have yet to see any empirical evidence to substantiate such a claim.

It makes the URL look pretty but spiders can easily read the URL then archive the content for future searches.

I think if you suggested to any search engine developer that his search engine was not able to index example.com/randomasdasdasda/asadsad?a=1&b=2222&c=33 just as readily as example.com/my-human-readable-url/page-16 they would probably feel somewhat insulted.

 

[jmurrayhead]

If you have content relevant to a person's search, it will show in the search results, regardless of URL structure. I've seen some pretty ugly URLs show at the top of some search results.

 

[vord]

I'm an SEO (even did it for work for a while so can speak with overflowing expertise). I run standard vB3 URLs on my forums (showthread.php?t=xxxxx). I noted the default on vB4 beta was for SEO friendly URLs and was very pleased that the competion would be knocked out if they weren't paying attention. Changing URLs is a very bad thing if you have a bunch of poorly indexed pages like you end up with in a forum.

For new forums the words in the URL might offer a little extra, but I don't like the things and don't do it.