AVForums moves to Xenforo

[Chris D]

The classifieds posting form was coded by me. We are going to release most of them at some point, but it wouldn't be fair to do so until I have time to support them.

 

[Razasharp]

Nice to see AVForums has moved to XF

Hope it works out for you. Things aren't working so well for us currently, which is why we're back to shopping around.

Can I ask why? Is your board a big board? What platform were you on before? vB? I can't see why XF wouldn't be more attractive for users if you were upgrading from vB, unless they are either using old browsers (or Opera - which XF seems to be very slow in) or, because of a really bad skin/design.

When we trialled the software last year (pretty much the stock skin with just changed colours via ACP sliders) we had a very positive response - going live with it on a new forum next month, so am eager to learn why it didn't work out for you.

 

[AzzidReign]

Nice to see AVForums has moved to XF



Can I ask why? Is your board a big board? What platform were you on before? vB? I can't see why XF wouldn't be more attractive for users if you were upgrading from vB, unless they are either using old browsers (or Opera - which XF seems to be very slow in) or, because of a really bad skin/design.

When we trialled the software last year (pretty much the stock skin with just changed colours via ACP sliders) we had a very positive response - going live with it on a new forum next month, so am eager to learn why it didn't work out for you.

We had a positive user experience as well. There were a few people who didn't like it, but we also moved to 1.1 where a lot of features were missing (was banking on them releasing 1.2 a few months after converting but then the trial stress took hold and almost 2 years went by before we upgraded to 1.2 :/ ).

But looking at my numbers now, almost ALL of my stats are better on xf compared to IPB. The only one is new vs returning visitors, which just means we are getting a lot more returning users and still getting all that organic traffic (so really, it's not a bad number, but it shows up as a -%). Bounce rate is down around 13%, which was a huge thing for us...as I complained about it often on IPB's site, thought it was my design, made a new design, still just as bad...blamed IPB...I was banned a few times for pointing it out...now I'm happy I moved

 

[Razasharp]

I was banned a few times for pointing it out...now I'm happy I moved

Thanks for the post. Re the quoted bit, I noticed some there really do not like criticism - you tend to get the impression that they think anyone pointing out any flaws or things that could be better are trolls or not 'loyal customers' :rollseyes: more fool them.

That's what I liked about vB and like about XF - they don't take criticism as some sort of indictment.

Any company needs to ask itself - do we think this customer cares and wants a better product from us? Then maybe we should listen and see if they have a point (even if we don't like what they have to say.)

 

[Stuart Wright]

Thanks for the post. Re the quoted bit, I noticed some there really do not like criticism - you tend to get the impression that they think anyone pointing out any flaws or things that could be better are trolls or not 'loyal customers' :rollseyes: more fool them.

That's what I liked about vB and like about XF - they don't take criticism as some sort of indictment.

Any company needs to ask itself - do we think this customer cares and wants a better product from us? Then maybe we should listen and see if they have a point (even if we don't like what they have to say.)

You're right about this. If anyone cares enough to complain then it means we should listen. The problem is when their complaint is just an insult. You can't improve a situation when their feedback is only that they don't like it.

 

[ForestForTrees]

Hope it works out for you. Things aren't working so well for us currently, which is why we're back to shopping around.

@Rudy, were you referring to a bad experience with Xenforo or XenTrader? Previously in the thread you had been complaining about XenTrader and discussing it with Stuart. Other than XenTrader, has XenForo itself treated you well?

 

[Razasharp]

You're right about this. If anyone cares enough to complain then it means we should listen. The problem is when their complaint is just an insult. You can't improve a situation when their feedback is only that they don't like it.

Hi Stuart, I was referring mainly to software developers (in particular the IPB 'management').

With regards to forum users and them simply saying they don't like it - ask them what it is that they don't like (especially if a large enough percentage think the same). If they can't put their finger on it or they just don't like it, then you need to look at it as a whole - and try to figure out why that is.

You may even have to consider going back to the drawing board - not all designs are a hit, and unfortunately, sometimes a designer just gets it completely wrong.

With regards to how people articulate their feedback - you'd need to weigh that up with their usual posting style, are they usually insulting? Trollish? Or are they valued, regular members?

 

[Summit]

Feedback is the most important thing, if your users aren't happy, then your not happy.

 

[AlexT]

@Stuart Wright , I know I am late, but anyhow: congrats to the successful move. After spending some time browsing your site, I wondered about one aspect: duplicate content. Have you ever thought about it as an issue, or did it work OK for you in regards to Google, SEO , etc.

Specifically, take a look at these two links:

http://www.avforums.com/review/robocop-review.9932
http://www.avforums.com/threads/robocop-7-feb-2014.727299/

Basically both distinguished links lead to almost identical content, except one includes a review in addition. For the rest of the 32+ pages, content is virtually identical, which I think is a sure sign of duplicate content as defined in Google's post-Panda world.

 

[Brent W]

@Stuart Wright , I know I am late, but anyhow: congrats to the successful move. After spending some time browsing your site, I wondered about one aspect: duplicate content. Have you ever thought about it as an issue, or did it work OK for you in regards to Google, SEO , etc.

Specifically, take a look at these two links:

http://www.avforums.com/review/robocop-review.9932
http://www.avforums.com/threads/robocop-7-feb-2014.727299/

Basically both distinguished links lead to almost identical content, except one includes a review in addition. For the rest of the 32+ pages, content is virtually identical, which I think is a sure sign of duplicate content as defined in Google's post-Panda world.

Seems inefficient to me as well.

 

[Stuart Wright]

@Stuart Wright , I know I am late, but anyhow: congrats to the successful move. After spending some time browsing your site, I wondered about one aspect: duplicate content. Have you ever thought about it as an issue, or did it work OK for you in regards to Google, SEO , etc.

Specifically, take a look at these two links:

http://www.avforums.com/review/robocop-review.9932
http://www.avforums.com/threads/robocop-7-feb-2014.727299/

Basically both distinguished links lead to almost identical content, except one includes a review in addition. For the rest of the 32+ pages, content is virtually identical, which I think is a sure sign of duplicate content as defined in Google's post-Panda world.

Thanks. Well it's not malicious content duplication. And it seems pretty obvious that we should use threads for comments. And there is a distinct advantage in having the discussion about the editorial item within the forum to draw attention to it, and it also makes sense to have the comments directly under the editorial item. No idea what effect it is having, if any, on our SEO.

Seems inefficient to me as well.

Any alternatives you can think of?

 

[AlexT]

Thanks. Well it's not malicious content duplication. And it seems pretty obvious that we should use threads for comments. And there is a distinct advantage in having the discussion about the editorial item within the forum to draw attention to it, and it also makes sense to have the comments directly under the editorial item. No idea what effect it is having, if any, on our SEO.

I am 100% certain that it's not malicious. Just don't know if it's OK to assume that just because your intentions are good, Google will overlook common site wide duplicate content issues. On the other hand, perhaps I worry too much.

FWIW, I am contemplating similar duplicate content issues right now (frontpage blog (wp-bridge) with blog comments being duplicates of thread replies).

 

[Carlos]

Thanks. Well it's not malicious content duplication. And it seems pretty obvious that we should use threads for comments. And there is a distinct advantage in having the discussion about the editorial item within the forum to draw attention to it, and it also makes sense to have the comments directly under the editorial item. No idea what effect it is having, if any, on our SEO.

Don't worry about that.

@Stuart Wright , I know I am late, but anyhow: congrats to the successful move. After spending some time browsing your site, I wondered about one aspect: duplicate content. Have you ever thought about it as an issue, or did it work OK for you in regards to Google, SEO , etc.

Specifically, take a look at these two links:

http://www.avforums.com/review/robocop-review.9932
http://www.avforums.com/threads/robocop-7-feb-2014.727299/

Basically both distinguished links lead to almost identical content, except one includes a review in addition. For the rest of the 32+ pages, content is virtually identical, which I think is a sure sign of duplicate content as defined in Google's post-Panda world.

I think you mis-understand "duplicate" content. When google says "duplicate content" they mean like two links going to the same kind of content. Same exact content. Those copy and paste articles into a new page. That's duplicate content. Just because two areas of the site have the same thread title or topic title, doesn't mean it's a duplicate. This is true for any niche traffic gaming site, or niche traffic [insert niche here] site. In this case, AVForums is an entertainment site - somewhat (judging by the movie review).

I hope you know the RapGenius story where they [RapGenius] were making duplicate content in multiple pages just to rank high on google. RapGenius was marketing a few lyrics pages that point to the same lyrics content. For example, rapgeniusdotcom/JustinTimerlake, rapgeniusdotcom/JustinTimerlakeSong, etc. All went to the same lyrics.

 

[AlexT]

Don't worry about that.

I think you mis-understand "duplicate" content. [...] Just because two areas of the site have the same thread title or topic title, doesn't mean it's a duplicate.

UHHM. Have you looked at the two links I posted above? Each contains 32+ pages of comments - with 100% identical content! This has nothing to do with thread or topic titles.

I hope you know the RapGenius story where they [RapGenius] were making duplicate content in multiple pages just to rank high on google. RapGenius was marketing a few lyrics pages that point to the same lyrics content. For example, rapgeniusdotcom/JustinTimerlake, rapgeniusdotcom/JustinTimerlakeSong, etc. All went to the same lyrics.

You are comparing apples and oranges. RapGenius was caught by asking people to add links to Rap Genius pages on their sites. It was not about duplicate content. And either way, just because these were clearly "black hat" attempts to game Google, it doesn't mean that as long as your intentions are good, Google won't penalize you. Have you read about Panda, and how Google has tweaked its algorithm to combat duplicate content of any kind? You may not even notice it as a site owner, but fact is, a lot of people have noticed worse Google rankings since Panda came into play, and most of the time it was attributed to (non-malicious) duplicate content.

 

[Brent W]

UHHM. Have you looked at the two links I posted above? Each contains 32+ pages of comments - with 100% identical content! This has nothing to do with thread or topic titles.



You are comparing apples and oranges. RapGenius was caught by asking people to add links to Rap Genius pages on their sites. It was not about duplicate content. And either way, just because these were clearly "black hat" attempts to game Google, it doesn't mean that as long as your intentions are good, Google won't penalize you. Have you read about Panda, and how Google has tweaked its algorithm to combat duplicate content of any kind? You may not even notice it as a site owner, but fact is, a lot of people have noticed worse Google rankings since Panda came into play, and most of the time it was attributed to (non-malicious) duplicate content.

You'll learn to ignore him if you want to keep your sanity.

Any alternatives you can think of?

Did you think of just altering the look of the thread_view template and controllers for forums in which you want to use for your news and articles? You can recreate the entire thread_view experience for certain forums without actually changing the url. This allows you to keep the entire feature set of commenting while making the first post of the thread something completely different. Similar to what vBulletin.org did to their add-on sections.

Then you would simply have to create a front page that is paged that lists all the threads from your news and article sections, with a snippet of info for each one, linking to the article page which would be the thread url.

 

[Carlos]

You'll learn to ignore him if you want to keep your sanity.

If you've got nothing positive to say about someone, then don't say it. I'll report in a moment.

UHHM. Have you looked at the two links I posted above? Each contains 32+ pages of comments - with 100% identical content! This has nothing to do with thread or topic titles.

I did. But what you're describing isn't duplicate content. As long as the thread and the review isn't a copy of each other; it's not duplicate. Regardless of the comments.

Otherwise, ya know... vBulletin 4 sites would have been banned left and right. Mostly because the threads themselves "copies" their replies to the actual CMS articles.

You are comparing apples and oranges. RapGenius was caught by asking people to add links to Rap Genius pages on their sites. It was not about duplicate content. And either way, just because these were clearly "black hat" attempts to game Google, it doesn't mean that as long as your intentions are good, Google won't penalize you. Have you read about Panda, and how Google has tweaked its algorithm to combat duplicate content of any kind? You may not even notice it as a site owner, but fact is, a lot of people have noticed worse Google rankings since Panda came into play, and most of the time it was attributed to (non-malicious) duplicate content.

T'was one of the reasons, yes... but in general, they were using duplicate content. Yes, I'm sticking with duplicate content. I read all about it; it was ranked high on google through multiple "like-minded" pages. They went around the grey areas (so to speak), and gamed the system.

 

[AlexT]

I did. But what you're describing isn't duplicate content. As long as the thread and the review isn't a copy of each other; it's not duplicate. Regardless of the comments.

And how do you know this, considering that the comments make the majority of the content (unsurprisingly, as comments are what define a forum).

Otherwise, ya know... vBulletin 4 sites would have been banned left and right. Mostly because the threads themselves "copies" their replies to the actual CMS articles.

a) I wouldn't use vBulletin as the benchmark for proper SEO
b) vBulletin makers have been heavily criticized by license holders for ignoring matters related to SEO
c) this is not about getting banned. It's about getting penalized by having a lower search result ranking than otherwise. It happens automatically, you may not even be aware of it.

T'was one of the reasons, yes... but in general, they were using duplicate content.

No, their link scheme wasn't one of the reasons. It was _the_ reason. Duplicate content had nothing to do with them.

Anyhow, believe what you want, disregard anything that's written about Panda and duplicate content, it's up to you.

 

[Carlos]

And how do you know this, considering that the comments make the majority of the content (on 32+ pages)?

Because the OP of the thread was NOT the same as the actual Robocop review. Likewise, the comments are "similar." Call it "duplicate" but it's not really.

a) I wouldn't use vBulletin as the benchmark for proper SEO
b) this is not about getting banned. It's about being penalized by having a lower search result ranking than otherwise. It happens automatically, you may not even be aware of it.

What you're describing is teetering on the edge of being banned. If you do only repeat the practices - as my example with RapGenius was - you get banned. You're right, it's about being penalized. You're right, but what I'm saying is that the comments aren't really "duplicates" to google. Like I said, as long as your thread has unique content - and your review is unique content on it's own it's not duplicate. Where the thread started, it was asking the community's reaction to Robocop, while the other link is discussing the Robocop review.

I'm not saying vBulletin [4] is the benchmark for proper SEO. In fact... quite the opposite. I was saying that if that what you were saying were true - every single one of the CMS-powered vBulletin [4] site(s) on the internet would have their hands slapped by google and in the end be banned.

No, it wasn't one of the reasons. It was _the_ reason. Duplicate content had nothing to do with them.

Anyhow, believe what you want, disregard anything that's written about Panda and duplicate content, it's up to you.

I'm not believing what I want. I'm saying the truth. There were multiple pages that use the same song artist, only with different topic titles, that link to the same lyrics content, and RapGenius was marketing all of them over and over again - to people that would "spread the word" about them via exchanges. It's black hat, and it's one part of the whole situation. Google doesn't ban you just because of ONE thing, it's multiple rules that has been broken.

 

[Daniel Hood]

Because the OP of the thread was NOT the same as the actual Robocop review. Likewise, the comments are "similar." Call it "duplicate" but it's not really.

I stopped reading at this point because, well.... what? lol

The comments/replies are literally the exact same. Different html markup between the two templates maybe but the words, exactly the same..

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic. I think avforums looks good. Glad you got some of the css issues (font was horribly rendered when first installed), and other technical things sorted out. Looks like everythings going well.

 

[Carlos]

I stopped reading at this point because, well.... what? lol

lol at yourself.

The comments/replies are literally the exact same. Different html markup between the two templates maybe but the words, exactly the same..

Google doesn't care about the comments, dude. The OP is the only thing they care about. As long as your main subject is different - the comments don't matter. Not really. Like I said - vB4 sites (with CMS enabled) would have been slapped hard if that were the case.