SEO - Obsolete?

Do not post support requests, bug reports or feature requests. Discuss phpBB here. Non-phpBB related discussion goes in General Discussion!
Suggested Hosts
User avatar
Noxwizard
Support Team Leader
Support Team Leader
Posts: 10343
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:41 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Name: Patrick Webster
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by Noxwizard » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:38 am

abrakadava wrote:I'm saying that if someone searches "cool posts about interesting stuff" Google is going to rank a forum post with the url
That is merely a conjecture, you can't state that like it's fact unless you know the algorithms used by the search engines. There are a lot of factors that go into deciding the ranking. Here is an example that runs counter to your claim:
Google search: is seo obsolete?
Google search: is seo obsolete?
seo obsolete.png (144.53 KiB) Viewed 747 times
Different search engines also have different methods of ranking:
Bing search: is seo obsolete?
Bing search: is seo obsolete?
seo obsolete bing.png (163.22 KiB) Viewed 747 times
On Google, this topic is directly between two topics with the same title, both in the URL. The one below us even has SEO in the domain name. However, Bing has those two ranked at the top. Does that mean that Bing's results are better ranked? Who knows.

There has been discussion for adding pretty/readable URLs to 3.1. It has its uses, like being able to glance at a posted link and seeing its title, but it's certainly not a make or break feature for search engine optimization.
[Support Template] - [Read Before Posting] - [phpBB Knowledge Base]
Do not contact me for private support, please share the question in our forums.

abrakadava
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:22 am

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by abrakadava » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:52 am

Noxwizard wrote:
abrakadava wrote:I'm saying that if someone searches "cool posts about interesting stuff" Google is going to rank a forum post with the url
That is merely a conjecture, you can't state that like it's fact unless you know the algorithms used by the search engines. There are a lot of factors that go into deciding the ranking. Here is an example that runs counter to your claim:
seo obsolete.png
Different search engines also have different methods of ranking:
seo obsolete bing.png
On Google, this topic is directly between two topics with the same title, both in the URL. The one below us even has SEO in the domain name. However, Bing has those two ranked at the top. Does that mean that Bing's results are better ranked? Who knows.

There has been discussion for adding pretty/readable URLs to 3.1. It has its uses, like being able to glance at a posted link and seeing its title, but it's certainly not a make or break feature for search engine optimization.
Umm... Are you even looking at your screenshots? This thread is outranked by quite a few pages with the search terms in the URL on both Bing and Google. I'm willing to bet that some of the posts outranking this one don't have anywhere near the root domain authority that phpbb.com carries which proves my point even further.

This has already been hashed out between SEO experts and tested extensively. If you don't believe me, go search for yourself and find the proof.

Again, this thread is totally ridiculous and the fact that phpbb doesn't already have search-friendly URLS in the core is unbelievable. Hopefully it gets added to the next major revision.

User avatar
/a3
Registered User
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:08 am
Location: /dev/random

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by /a3 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:06 am

abrakadava wrote:This thread is outranked
Perhaps the other links are more popular or have better content?
abrakadava wrote:I'm willing to bet that some of the posts outranking this one don't have anywhere near the root domain authority that phpbb.com carries which proves my point even further.
Again, that's speculation. Have you considered that individual pages on any given domain might be ranked separately, and not just the domains themselves?
$ git commit -m "YOLO"

abrakadava
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:22 am

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by abrakadava » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:18 am

/a3 wrote:
abrakadava wrote:This thread is outranked
Perhaps the other links are more popular or have better content?
abrakadava wrote:I'm willing to bet that some of the posts outranking this one don't have anywhere near the root domain authority that phpbb.com carries which proves my point even further.
Again, that's speculation. Have you considered that individual pages on any given domain might be ranked separately, and not just the domains themselves?
It's not speculation, it's been tested and proven many times over. URLs are very high on-page ranking factors. I do not understand why you disagree with this as there are case studies published all over the web. If the testing and numbers don't convince you, doing some Google searches will return plenty of evidence.

Individual pages are ranked separately from the domains, but the domain also passes weight to the internal pages. Again, all of this stuff has already been tested, written about, retested, and tested again.

If you want to get into speculation I will speculate that this page will fall off page one as soon as the thread goes cold and gets buried under newer threads. Right now it is showing up in the SERPs because it is fresh content on a very old, very well-linked-to, very high authority domain. http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?s ... pbb.com%2F It also helps that the page titles in phpBB are search friendly. It would help even more if the URLs were as well.

I don't understand the resistance to this. What is the argument for NOT including search-friendly URLS?

User avatar
/a3
Registered User
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:08 am
Location: /dev/random

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by /a3 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:44 am

abrakadava wrote:I don't understand the resistance to this. What is the argument for NOT including search-friendly URLS?
Firstly, most of the proposals for "friendly URLs" consisted of leaving the number in it, but with keywords in it as well.

As for having URLs without the number, the concept isn't too bad, and I'm not against it. But with a few considerations:
- topics can be renamed
- on large boards there are often duplicate titles
- the phpBB database structure will have to be changed significantly
$ git commit -m "YOLO"

abrakadava
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:22 am

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by abrakadava » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:03 am

/a3 wrote:
abrakadava wrote:I don't understand the resistance to this. What is the argument for NOT including search-friendly URLS?
Firstly, most of the proposals for "friendly URLs" consisted of leaving the number in it, but with keywords in it as well.

As for having URLs without the number, the concept isn't too bad, and I'm not against it. But with a few considerations:
- topics can be renamed
- on large boards there are often duplicate titles
- the phpBB database structure will have to be changed significantly
Leaving the full number as it exists right now would be a little ridiculous. If it were possible to reduce the amount of numbers in the URL it would be less-than-optimal but still better than the current situation.

There are already mods which make search-friendly URLs possible on phpBB, although I can't really speak to their quality, and there are quite a few other systems that could be referenced for ideas on how to handle redirection and duplicate titles...

User avatar
Marc
Development Team Leader
Development Team Leader
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:57 pm
Location: Munich, Germany
Name: Marc
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by Marc » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:23 pm

I find it rather amusing that you state your arguments as facts. Yet you do not prove your "facts".

Google doesn't care about human readable URLs. That's why they are called "human readable URL". It's for humans (Homo sapiens).

Even Google itself rarely uses human readable URLs. Examples being YouTube, Google Drive, Google Books.

The reason behind using human readable URLs is that real life persons can easily find what they are looking for.
Another example for that from Google again: http://www.google.com/nexus/

User avatar
callumacrae
Former Team Member
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: London, UK
Name: Callum Macrae
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by callumacrae » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:14 pm

Marc wrote:I find it rather amusing that you state your arguments as facts. Yet you do not prove your "facts".
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY PROVEN BY TOTALLY UNBAISED SOURCES!1
macr.ae = my website. you probably won't like it.
Proud user ofProud user of

User avatar
Lumpy Burgertushie
Registered User
Posts: 66573
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:11 am
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by Lumpy Burgertushie » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:25 pm

callumacrae wrote:
Marc wrote:I find it rather amusing that you state your arguments as facts. Yet you do not prove your "facts".
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY PROVEN BY TOTALLY UNBAISED SOURCES!1
If you look around you can find just as many "UNBIASED SOURCES" and just as many case studies that will "prove" just the opposite.


robert
I'm baaaaaccckkkk. still doing work on donation basis. PM your needs.

Premium phpBB 3.2 Styles by PlanetStyles.net

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound?

User avatar
Erik Frèrejean
Former Team Member
Posts: 9899
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:09 am
Location: The Netherlands, 3.0.x Support Forum
Name: Erik Frèrejean
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by Erik Frèrejean » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:43 pm

Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:
callumacrae wrote:
Marc wrote:I find it rather amusing that you state your arguments as facts. Yet you do not prove your "facts".
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY PROVEN BY TOTALLY UNBAISED SOURCES!1
If you look around you can find just as many "UNBIASED SOURCES" and just as many case studies that will "prove" just the opposite.
Which is the main problem. IMO it really doesn't matter, I've seen big successful sites/good indexed sites with and without fancy URLs. If you ask me it is a preference, for a BB I'd use non-fancy URLs every day, for more static sites I do rewrite them.
SEs are smart enough to handle whatever your URLs look like correctly.

Content is king, always, everywhere, by a massive distance.
Support Toolkit | Support Request Template | Knowledge Base | phpBB 3.0.x documentation
I don't give support via PM or IM! (all unsolicited pms will be trashed!)

User avatar
tbackoff
Former Team Member
Posts: 7022
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:41 am
Location: cheerleading practice
Name: Tabitha Backoff

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by tbackoff » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:52 pm

You keep stating that your opinions are facts, yet have not provided credible evidence. If you can provide a link from Google/Bing/Yahoo/your-favorite-search-engine where that search company states that topic titles in URLs are given higher ranking, than I'll shift my position and agree with you. Otherwise, please stop stating that your opinions are facts.
Flying is the second best thrill to cheerleaders; being caught is the first.

User avatar
callumacrae
Former Team Member
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: London, UK
Name: Callum Macrae
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by callumacrae » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:06 pm

Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:
callumacrae wrote:
Marc wrote:I find it rather amusing that you state your arguments as facts. Yet you do not prove your "facts".
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY PROVEN BY TOTALLY UNBAISED SOURCES!1
If you look around you can find just as many "UNBIASED SOURCES" and just as many case studies that will "prove" just the opposite.


robert
i was being sarcastic
macr.ae = my website. you probably won't like it.
Proud user ofProud user of

Peter77sx
Registered User
Posts: 3253
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:51 pm

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by Peter77sx » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:09 pm

If your wanting "seo" that bad for articles, try wordpress. besides the permalinks, its pretty awesome.

User avatar
Lumpy Burgertushie
Registered User
Posts: 66573
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:11 am
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by Lumpy Burgertushie » Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:48 pm

callumacrae wrote:
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:
callumacrae wrote:
Marc wrote:I find it rather amusing that you state your arguments as facts. Yet you do not prove your "facts".
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY PROVEN BY TOTALLY UNBAISED SOURCES!1
If you look around you can find just as many "UNBIASED SOURCES" and just as many case studies that will "prove" just the opposite.


robert
i was being sarcastic
:oops: sorry, I am a little slow these days.

:lol:
I'm baaaaaccckkkk. still doing work on donation basis. PM your needs.

Premium phpBB 3.2 Styles by PlanetStyles.net

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound?

User avatar
Dog Cow
Registered User
Posts: 2494
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:14 am
Contact:

Re: SEO - Obsolete?

Post by Dog Cow » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:41 pm

t_backoff wrote: I'm not sure what to tell you here. A normal (vanilla) install of phpBB is more search engine friendly than you think. For example, this board has no problem being indexed by Google, Yahoo, etc. Are you one that if topic titles are not part of the URL, then you scream that such-and-such software is not SEO? :?
Pony99CA wrote:
abrakadava wrote:The devs need to ignore this garbage and make SEO a higher priority if they want to continue to grow the platform...
I'm sure that your opinion will be given its due weight. :twisted:

Steve
Someone here at the phpBB Group thought that it was important enough to include it in the Titania MODs DB.

You should take a look around this web site before you start sandbagging people with the same line over and over again that SEO URLs don't matter at all.

Again, someone with the phpBB Group took the time to make SEO URLs for this a major feature on this very site.


t_backoff wrote:You keep stating that your opinions are facts, yet have not provided credible evidence. If you can provide a link from Google/Bing/Yahoo/your-favorite-search-engine where that search company states that topic titles in URLs are given higher ranking, than I'll shift my position and agree with you. Otherwise, please stop stating that your opinions are facts.
Where are your facts, t_backoff, that SEO URLs don't matter?
Moof!
Mac GUI Vault: Retro Apple II & Macintosh computing archive.
Inside Allerton bookMac GUIMac 512K Blog

Post Reply

Return to “phpBB Discussion”