Vbseo url structure in Xenforo: possible or not?

[Markos]

I have a project in my mind for a clan hosting, and i absolutely need a full url structure (like: http://domain/community/forum-a/thread-title). I have readed various topics about this but i haven't see if is possible to have this url structure in xenforo with a code modification, or not....it's possible?

 

[Ryan Kent]

http://techforum.it/

horrible

This is an example of what the current system is designed to avoid.

1. http://techforum.it/software/ That is the first category. There is no node id. If the category name changes, all links are broken.

2. http://techforum.it/NGXdg This is a link to the first post in the "software" forums. It does not contain /software in the link. Also, it replaces the thread id with an ugly hash.

 

[Markos]

Oracle, i'm agree with you. My point is that you can tecnically remove the "threads". And this i wonderful for me. But i want to have also the "full url" for the reason explicited in my previous posts.

 

[Kier]

IF I understand what I do about zend, that's really not possible because the threads portion of the URL is what tells the framework what code to load to process the request.

We don't actually use Zend's controller, so in this case it has nothing to do with Zend at all, but you are right that the /threads/ element is fundamental to XenForo understanding what part of the system to load.

 

[bambua]

We don't actually use Zend's controller, so in this case it has nothing to do with Zend at all, but you are right that the /threads/ element is fundamental to XenForo understanding what part of the system to load.

I guess I should have said when you are using MVC architecture in php that's usually what it uses the URL for, so that the software knows which scripts to load.

 

[Markos]

We don't actually use Zend's controller, so in this case it has nothing to do with Zend at all, but you are right that the /threads/ element is fundamental to XenForo understanding what part of the system to load.

In my mind i've immaginated that your choice to use the "threads" is because in the future you want to have another virtual folder like "articles", "galleries" etc. etc.

Bad info for me

 

[Forsaken]

In my mind i've immaginated that your choice to use the "threads" is because in the future you want to have another virtual folder like "articles", "galleries" etc. etc.

Bad info for me

Its used for everything, including forums and conversations.

 

[Markos]

Its used for everything, including forums and conversations.

Ok!

 

[Ryan Kent]

You mentioned a primary reason for needing this URL structure is to ad a forum to robots.txt so search engines don't index specific content.

It is my understanding if you change that forum's permissions to where only members can view it, then search engines wont index it. Just a thought.

Also, I wanted to ensure I am understanding the problem correctly. If you add /forums/tweets/ to the robots.txt file, the category would be hidden from search engines but the threads would still be indexed because XF files all threads in the /threads/ structure? Is that correct?

 

[danneu]

Not sure why anyone is trying to "convince" Maximilian that non-hierarchal URLs are superior. It wasn't really the question and a simple "no" would've sufficed, only then appended by reasons the current structure was chosen during Xenforo's design.

In most frameworks, the main reason you'd edge away from hierarchal URLs is because you're nesting three resources in each URL: Forums, Threads, and Posts. With nested URLs, if you choose to take the full readability approach, you get some long URLs that detract from URL usability, so you're inclined to take a concise approach ("f1", "f2", "f3",...).

I agree with Maximilian in that hierarchal URLs convey usable information. Did someone just link you to General Discussion or the Smut subforum?

But as a developer, since having the full forum name in the URL generated URLs that were too clunky for my taste, and moving to a "f1", "f2", "f3" system would end up removing the entire readability of the hierarchy (except for long-time users who've learned which forum f1 refers to), I tend to prefer a routing system that doesn't need a forum identifier in the URL.

I'm sure Xenforo uses a RESTful routing system, so flippantly changing the URL structure internally probably isn't such an arbitrary decision. I'm a Rails developer that's working on a forum application (for practice), and I'm not sure how I'd go about offering different URL structures without an external rewriter. But even something like mod_rewrite can't add value to a URL (like forum ID) that isn't already there.

 

[Markos]

You mentioned a primary reason for needing this URL structure is to ad a forum to robots.txt so search engines don't index specific content.

It is my understanding if you change that forum's permissions to where only members can view it, then search engines wont index it. Just a thought.

Yes, but is a little limited. I've readed in a Google guide by a seo expert that if you have a indexed content and you want to remove this content from the index, the best rule is to have "noindex, follow". He suggests that the standard should be the "follow", because with this the pagerank go with all pages. Another problem i have: i have 3 forums that i don't want to index, but i want to preserve the "worth" of links in this forums. And also i need to have these forums readable by guests, for various reasons (please see my previous posts). I have asked in many forums and the reponse is: you have to set the "noindex, follow". With this rule you can mantain the worth of links in the non-indexable pages. Many seo suggests this "trick".

 

[User]

This thread is relevant to my interests. Just to confirm, I can't have:

xenforo.com/public-forums/xenforo-pre-sales-and-feedback/vbseo-url-structure-in-xenforo-possible-or-not.12949 ?

 

[Weppa333]

it seems not, and that's a serious show stopper for a lot of people. Wether or not XF realizes it is another story. We'll see.

 

[Ryan Kent]

it seems not, and that's a serious show stopper for a lot of people. Wether or not XF realizes it is another story. We'll see.

There are hundreds of components to forum software. You can't look at any one and say it is a show stopper for many people. It is simply not true. If you want to influence the developers, state your need and they will make a determination.

XF is the most advanced forum software on the market, period. It is only version 1.0 at the moment. In time, additional features and flexibility will surely come. The question isn't so much "will you add the feature I want" but "will you add the feature I want ahead of the 100 other things you are working on".

I don't believe a single person on the planet would ever say "I can't/wont move to XF because their URL's don't use a folder structure". Even if such a case arose, it can be changed through programming as others have done.

 

[Weppa333]

I don't want to influence the devs, I already bought their product... I bought each and every forum product I could think of in fact, and compared them. I'm simply saying that won't be using XF in a live env. until this URL structure gets added.
That's my opinion.

Saying that XF is "the most advanced" is simply not true. It's indeed a fresh look built from the ground up with new ideas in mind. That's great. But feature wise, it's not there, far from it.
You cannot even subscribe to a forum with XF, and be notified of new threads. Looks like a pretty basic feature to me for a forum. Followed threads are not marked in "forumdisplay". You cannot mass move/delete in the ACP. You cannot change your nickname. You cannot use a CDN or a static content webserver. The search system cannot cope with lots of threads (try putting 4M posts in there for lots of fun.) The "like" system can be abused by groups of users (just like any other "award" system). There is no promotion system. Etc.

By the way, I cannot find any live forum with more than say, a couple thousands threads. Is there any ?

 

[Paul B]

By the way, I cannot find any live forum with more than say, a couple thousands threads. Is there any ?

http://xenforo.com/community/threads/big-bigger-biggest-xf-forums.15638/

 

[Weppa333]

thanks Brogan.
The first one in the 1M list should be removed, it certainly has not >1M posts.
Nucastle is impressive, I found a forum with >1000 pages. It reacts WAY faster than my own copy (loaded with 2M posts from an old VB import). I cannot think of a reason why their search engine seem to work better than mine. Frustrating.
It's good to see a live implementation.

Again I must add that I simply had to dump VB search and replace it with Sphinx ! Saying that XF search is slow is not giving it the credit it deserves : it's way better than VB ever was .

 

[Weppa333]

I've tested again my own copy, it takes 4-15 seconds to make a search (especially all messages by a user) and it's way faster on nucastle. Is this a "stock Xenforo" or does this use anything out of the ordinary ?

On my test site, the search db is a ridiculous 2.3G, no surprise it lags... I'll stick with VB/SPhinx for now I know Kier is working something for big boards, I proposed my help betateting to him, no answer...

 

[Forsaken]

I've tested again my own copy, it takes 4-15 seconds to make a search (especially all messages by a user) and it's way faster on nucastle. Is this a "stock Xenforo" or does this use anything out of the ordinary ?

On my test site, the search db is a ridiculous 2.3G, no surprise it lags... I'll stick with VB/SPhinx for now I know Kier is working something for big boards, I proposed my help betateting to him, no answer... After all, you've got your "big boards".

Sphinx is also available for XenForo in the form of an add-on: http://xenforo.com/community/threads/sphinx-search-engine.6447/.

 

[Weppa333]

Yeah I need to test that. I first wanted to give the built-in search a chance I'll test it later this week.

 

[Robbo]

For the record this is something I am interested in making happen. The best way I can think to do it would be to add a route for each forum when they are created, make them use a base route class which will convert the hierarchy into what xenforo wants and then pass it into xenforo that way. Then extend some routes to build the new links. Just thinking about it like that, I don't see how this is complicated at all, am I missing something?