Out of the box phpBB 3 is awful for SEO

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:06 pm

It's not being addressed since it's a non-issue, really.

ascensions · Post by **ascensions** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:34 pm

I was kind of referring to mods.

Omarvelous · Post by **Omarvelous** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:34 am

Think about it though... how many "FORUMS" are SEO optimized out the box???

Post by **thecoalman** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:18 pm

iWisdom wrote:It's not being addressed since it's a non-issue, really.

Are you referring to the f= variable, that is an issue as far SEO if you are converting from a phpbb2 forum. In addtion to all the old duplicate URL's that still work you now have a whole new set of duplicate URL's.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:35 pm

thecoalman wrote:
iWisdom wrote:It's not being addressed since it's a non-issue, really.
Are you referring to the f= variable, that is an issue as far SEO if you are converting from a phpbb2 forum. In addtion to all the old duplicate URL's that still work you now have a whole new set of duplicate URL's.

SEO in and of itself is a non-issue when it comes to developing forum software. People can make MODs, etc. to solve it, but the reality is it's not going to be focused on in the default install for some time. I'd much rather have software that runs well with poor SEO than software that runs like crap but is an SEO miracle.

ascensions · Post by **ascensions** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:15 pm

I think, what gets me iWisdom, is it's almost easier, in this case to implement it though, then not do it. Coders actually went out of their way to over complicate it.

I really have to thank them though, because of having to write out the code- It did, made me pick up a programming book, which I hadn't done in 15 years. I had become accustomed to having the mods already here for me, but when they weren't I was forced to learn. Ordered a book on PHP from Amazon last night... So I guess, thank you.- It's been an educational experience.

But... I'm just saying, I think PHPBB could be even "more" superior if it implemented these small changes, many of us have been using for several years.

Post by **thecoalman** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:34 pm

iWisdom wrote: I'd much rather have software that runs well with poor SEO than software that runs like crap but is an SEO miracle.

I agree 100% but to quote the original OP again these aren't "fluffy bunny" requests but just basics. Considering phpbb is at the forefront of forum software at the very least basic SEO should be taken into consideration. If for example the f= is used only for the "who is online" it's certainly not required to make phpbb run well, IMO that is a "fluffy bunny" feature. Doubling the already bloated duplicate URL's to implement such a feature is actually taking a huge step back instead of going forward as far as SEO is concerned.

bbrian017 · Post by **bbrian017** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:47 pm

it's not that bad I don't see what the issue is. I can search in google many things on my site and it comes up on the first or second page.

ascensions · Post by **ascensions** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:17 am

bbrian017 wrote:it's not that bad I don't see what the issue is. I can search in Google many things on my site and it comes up on the first or second page.

This is a statement that is borderline questionable. You would need to give us an example to prove your point.

I recommend this: Let's create a unique word with no competition. Then how about everyone write a post on that topic, and we will wait a week. Let's see if the SEO crowd out-performs the "It don't really matter crowd." I'm game.

Omarvelous · Post by **Omarvelous** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:12 pm

Omarvelous wrote:Think about it though... how many "FORUMS" are SEO optimized out the box???

phpBB3, believe it or not, has to cater to a LOT of ppl.... And i'm sure, as great as SEO optimization is for a lot of forums, i'm sure it's not with most forums.

As I mentioned previously, how many of the major boards come SEO optimized, or more optimized then the new phpBB3?

Ty this if you want SEO:
http://getvanilla.com/
http://bbpress.org/

Although smaller, come SEO optimized... I think being that with the addition of MODs, the SEO optimization can become on par with these alternatives, and still b the beast "phpBB" that it is.

SamG · Post by **SamG** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:00 pm

thecoalman wrote:I agree 100% but to quote the original OP again these aren't "fluffy bunny" requests but just basics. Considering phpbb is at the forefront of forum software at the very least basic SEO should be taken into consideration. If for example the f= is used only for the "who is online" it's certainly not required to make phpbb run well, IMO that is a "fluffy bunny" feature. Doubling the already bloated duplicate URL's to implement such a feature is actually taking a huge step back instead of going forward as far as SEO is concerned.

This, of course, perfectly illustrates the priorities problem software developers always face. Development priorities are easy to sift through from out here, less easy from the captain's chair. Especially for a long overdue release.

As you can see from this thread, there are people who think tight SEO overkill in the core product. Also evident is that there are people who think otherwise. Ascensions wants to see which approach out performs the other, but of course that simply begs the priorities question.

I still think it'd be nice if this discussion (sans provocative title) restarted at area51 when 3.1 rolls out. At this point the discussion seems too easily bogged down in the competing priorities rather than in a more productive (IMHO) technical discussion of making SEO work with the feature set at hand. But I suspect the pong game will go on since there appear to be too many vested interests in SEO to let the thread drop to page two here.

dcz · Post by **dcz** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:16 pm

Maybe you want to take a look at what we are on with phpBB3 and SEO : [spam removed - karlsemple]

dcz · Post by **dcz** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:10 pm

Some time, an example is handier than a long post, but, of course, you decide.

++

Raimon · Post by **Raimon** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:09 pm

phpBB3 is to my opinion not to awful for SEO.
When i take a look at phpBB2 and 3 its just much better , no strange sidn, google can Handel the topics much better to the search engines.
When i had phpBB2 there where for some categories just a page rank, after i use phpBB3 for 7 months its increase to a PageRank of 2.
in that cause i can not say that phpBB3 awful is.
I don't now if SEO much hulp is to give you a better position for google, maby the url are better like topic2-helpme.html, but viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2 is not so bad for google is it?
Or is SEO much better?
I seeing some SEO friendly MODs are available, but give it you a better position and more result on the search engine i don't thinks so.

Virtual-R · Post by **Virtual-R** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:47 pm

Why is there so much complaining, phpbb is free and modifiable. If you were paying for it then yes complaints are fair, but the developers have put so much work in and are giving it freely to the community. If there is such a problem why not consider making a mod and releasing it to help others out. phpbb is the first step for a quality board, legally being able to modifying it and having access to hundreds of additional free modifications from here is what makes it great.

advertisements