Code: Select all
https://www.phpbb.com/community/PHPBB3 [3.1.2] worst forum for SEO URL that I saw in my life
Code: Select all
Have you got anything to back that up?shawbo wrote:And for those saying it dose not matter, don't know what they are talking about
https://productforums.google.com/forum/ ... wYr-Xjq1IJWhich can Googlebot read better, static or dynamic URLs?
We've come across many webmasters who, like our friend, believed that static or static-looking URLs were an advantage for indexing and ranking their sites. This is based on the presumption that search engines have issues with crawling and analyzing URLs that include session IDs or source trackers. However, as a matter of fact, we at Google have made some progress in both areas. While static URLs might have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates because users can easily read the urls, the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking. Providing search engines with dynamic URLs should be favored over hiding parameters to make them look static.
Getting back to your question about the URLs ... I'd recommend *not* changing them, if you'd just change them for SEO reasons. There's a bit more background at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. ... -urls.html about this kind of situation. We'd need to recrawl & reindex your whole website, and afterwards we'd be able to understand it less than before, so in short: there's no advantage to making that change on your website.
I guess your point with this is that the forum parameter is in the URL even though the software doesn't actually do what you just posted (randomize the forum parameter)? Does that affect SEO in any way? FYI there is already a discussion to remove the f parameter from topic URLs for 3.2 since it is no longer needed in 3.1.
First time I've ever seen that search parameter. Learn something new every day. I can't see that used very much though. Searching for that actual topic title, the type of search that would be used way more often, yields additional relevant results I think:thecoalman wrote:Nobody sees this as a problem especially where server resources are concerned?
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%26t ... l&filter=0
SEO is not just about how well your site ranks.