Hope it works out for you. Things aren't working so well for us currently, which is why we're back to shopping around.
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 :/ ).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.
I was banned a few times for pointing it out...now I'm happy I moved
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.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.)
@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?Hope it works out for you. Things aren't working so well for us currently, which is why we're back to shopping around.
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.
@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.@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.
Any alternatives you can think of?Seems inefficient to me as well.
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.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 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).@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.
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.
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.
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.
Any alternatives you can think of?
If you've got nothing positive to say about someone, then don't say it. I'll report in a moment.You'll learn to ignore him if you want to keep your sanity.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
T'was one of the reasons, yes... but in general, they were using duplicate content.
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.And how do you know this, considering that the comments make the majority of the content (on 32+ pages)?
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.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.
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.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 stopped reading at this point because, well.... what? lolBecause 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.
lol at yourself.I stopped reading at this point because, well.... what? lol
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.The comments/replies are literally the exact same. Different html markup between the two templates maybe but the words, exactly the same..
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.