SEO

i noticed that the archives are being used as */index.php/*
Won't it b better if we could use it as archive and do a forcetype on it as php. So that the link becomes something like

*/index/*

Won't it be better than having an impression of .php directory? Btw whats the policy regarding such names? Does google and other engines take . in between directories

Hi acers,

vB would not use forcetype to avoid any portability issues since they are not tied only to Apache:

"vBulletin is designed to run on every server that has PHP 4.1.0 or greater and MySQL 3.23.33 or greater installed."
- http://www.vbulletin.com/faqsales.php

With thread archive links like "http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/archive/index.php/f-1.html", they are simply relying on the server to parse the URI and extract data.

Example with Explanation:

Consider http://domain.com/scriptname.php/arg...?var1=a&var2=b

In the above, there is a URI, the query string delimiter (?), and the query string:

URI : http://domain.com/scriptname.php/arg1/arg2/arg3.html
Delimiter : ?
Query String: var1=a&var2=b

When the server receives the request, it examines only the URI and works backwards:

- There is no /scriptname.php/arg1/arg2/arg3.html file
- There is no /scriptname.php/arg1/arg2/ directory
- There is no /scriptname.php/arg1/ directory
- There is no /scriptname.php/ directory

- There IS a /scriptname.php file.

It then executes scriptname.php. Scriptname.php has access to the URI via $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']. It can therefore parse out the other argument values in order to finish processing correctly.

NOTE: /arg1/arg2/arg3.html is a part of the URI, but is NOT a part of the query string. The query string "var1=a&var2=b" is accessed separately.

Therefore, the above scenario (used by vB) always requires that the full scriptname stays intact. They do not get rid of "index.php" because they do not rely on forcetype.

Of course, this is still an Apache feature. The archive is handled different on Windows servers:
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showt...ht=Archive+IIS

__________________
Joe Ward / Crawlability Inc.
Support Team Launches New DeskPro Powered Tool Enhanced Support at Your Service

vBSEO 3.2.0 Launched - Maximum Overdrive for Your Web Traffic! Over 100 Instant SEO Optimizations

6X Traffic - $1400 in One Day with vBSEO! Imagine What the vBSEO Patent Pending Technology Can Do For You.

In response to your question about Google's policy regarding .php within a directory, I used to think it would be an issue. However, time seems to have proven me wrong. Although almost all vB archives I've seen to date have been indexed successfully by Google, I have not yet found an archive with a very high pagerank.

Many directories contain dot (.) separators, so this really shouldn't be an issue. See http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/07/1...her/index.html for example.

NOTE: I've changed the structure to make threads appear as directories now on these forums

/*The following applies to vB version 3.0.x*/
Even though vB's archives do get indexed, there are still major issues (in my opinion) with vB's archive feature:

(a) It creates duplicate content. Thread content is displayed at both the static URL published in the archive and in the dynamic URL in the main forums.

(b) Forum members are more likely to link to the dynamic links in the forums since this is where they are more likely to be reading the forum content.

Both scenarios lead to Google pagerank leak or worse depending on how you believe duplicate content is handled by the engines.

There's a new feature in vBSEO RC3 which Rewrites + 301 Redirect Old Archive Pages, thus:

(1) Ensures that the links to threads listed in the archive are the same as the static URLs used in the main forums (no duplicate content), and

(2) Ensures that any of the old vB archive links that have already been indexed by Google prior to your installation of vBSEO will be 301 redirected to the new pages, ensuring that the user gets where he/she intended and (more importantly) Google updates its index to the new static URL.

I'm about to implement T2DMan's Google Sitemap hack (which is compatible with vBSEO's static URLs) - This might help as well.

Back to your original concern... We are now working on a new configuration option to allow the archive to be configured for other set ups such as "/archive/index/" or "/sitemap/", etc. vBSEO's rewriting structure will eliminate any script references just as we do everywhere else in the forums & will provide you the ability to customize the directory to suit your needs.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Juan

__________________
Juan Muriente / Crawlability Inc.
Support Team Launches New DeskPro Powered Tool Enhanced Support at Your Service

vBSEO 3.2.0 Launched - Maximum Overdrive for Your Web Traffic! Over 100 Instant SEO Optimizations

6X Traffic - $1400 in One Day with vBSEO! Imagine What the vBSEO Patent Pending Technology Can Do For You.

Hello Juan,

isn`t it a disadvantage in some respects that the archive-version now contains no longer text only?
Surely, this was necessary to avoid double content. However this is not a perfect resolution.
Maybe I make an reasoning error...we`ll see the results in a few month. :-)

Yours, Silmarillion (Tolkien Forever)

Hi Silmarillion,

Excellent observation. This particular idea falls into the realm of "conflicting topics". Should SEOs go tableless or not? We find info all over the net regarding the issue with all kinds of varying opinions expressed.

I am more inclined to believe, as a general rule of thumb, that your "relevant content" should outweigh your "code". The higher your C2C (Content to Code) ratio, the better. However, code stripping algorithms are fairly basic, and assuming that Google or any other engine would have difficulty parsing out code to get down to content is not likely to be considered a strong hypothesis. So, if we assume that parsing webpages to separate content from code is a simple matter, that leaves only the question: Do engines give precedence to pages with a higher C2C ratio (or, on the contrary, do they actually penalize pages with low C2C ratios)?

I believe there are certainly advantages of being as light as possible by:
(1) minimizing format definition within the page,
(2) maximizing migration of format definition to external files via CSS (where possible), and
(3) minimizing table usage, etc.

The value I see as of today (July 19th, 2005 ), is the fact that reduced file sizes allow the pages to load faster. This creates a better user experience and (in my opinion) is friendlier on the search engines since it is thought that many of them do not load external files, thus allowing them to retrive and process the info faster and easier.

All in all, I agree with you that the lighter archive pages would be more ideal. However, I do not think this outweighs the costs of:
(a) having duplicate content,
(b) page rank leak, or
(c) reduced features... i.e. the archive pages are completely stripped of useful vB functionality.

I think the ideal solution for SEO-conscious admins is to ensure FAST loading pages with static URLs (CRUs if possible). My recommendation for more advanced admins is to strip down their vB templates to remove as much unnecessary code as possible while still maintaining core functionality (this is the approach I've taken in my with my vBSEO forums)

Juan

__________________
Juan Muriente / Crawlability Inc.
Support Team Launches New DeskPro Powered Tool Enhanced Support at Your Service

vBSEO 3.2.0 Launched - Maximum Overdrive for Your Web Traffic! Over 100 Instant SEO Optimizations

6X Traffic - $1400 in One Day with vBSEO! Imagine What the vBSEO Patent Pending Technology Can Do For You.

My Search Engine Optimize vBulletin has got to second placing for vBulletin - and now in the top 5. Threads can get high placed. They just need everything done right.

The archive feature of vb threads should not be used. It creates duplicate content and means less Google PR to the real threads. I managed to convince vB of this and so for vB3.5 there is a feature that the archive can link straight through to the actual threads.

I have had no issues with getting the threads ranked on Google on many forums with the onpage SEO that I have done on my forums.

Onpage SEO is the most important part that needs fixing - more important than tables or lack of them, more important than stripping coding.

My very simple version is to have title with the search phrase first, and the key phrase mentioned twice in the meta description (both now on vB3.5 thanks to me), and then an h1 in the navbar and another description in the navbar with the search phrase repeated three times.

I then repeat the search phrase a number of times around the text.

There are many other things that I have done, but the above are the important ones.

This has been enough to get many sites ranking top for their thread search phrases. Real simple.

Add to the mix the url rewrite and Link Vault , and we have gold.

Hmmm...vBSEO 2.0 shouldn`t produce duplicate content, cause the URLs (Showthread and Archive) are not different.

Do you although think it`s better to disable the vBulletin-Archive?

Yours, Silmarillion

btw - your archive`s still working :

http://forum.time2dine.co.nz/archive/index.php/

Yours, Silmarillion

Note what the archive links into - on mine it links to the actual threads, not the "archive" version of them. The "archive" version is the duplicate issue - they are not different - the meat of the pages are the same. The words around the keyphrases. And anyway, they mean that the true threads get that much less Google PR.

vBSEO 2.0 does exactly the same!

Just Klick a Thread http://www.vbseo.com/sitemap/f-5.html

Yours, Silmarillion

Hi T2DMan & Silmarillion,

Excellent discussion - keep it coming guys. Bring on the advanced SEO talk!

I agree with T2DMan. SEO is far more complex than just enabling static URLs. It is sometimes hard to differentiate between the various aspects of SEO & how they relate to general marketing principles. Michael's forum homepage has a PR of 5 - this reflects a couple of things:

(1) He is very focused - and he has identified and is targeting a niche market. So his website has emerged as an authorative source of info on New Zealand restaurants - as a great source of info on SEO.

(2) He is building inbound links. Likewise, inbound links occur naturally because his website is considered an authority on the topic (see item 1). Others find him in the SERPs (or otherwise) & link to him.

Because of the above, his website is naturally going to build Google PR over time. Even if he took no specific SEO measures to improve his position in the SERPs, we would expect that he would eventually reach page 1 positions in the search engines (esp. Google) for many of the specific keyword phrases related to his niche.

I have read postings on SEO for vB that question the validity of taking a static URL approach & seem to rely on the logic that many vB forums have achieved "Big Boards" status in a short period of time - all without static URLs or any particular efforts in SEO whatsoever.

This is true. But it fails to differentiate between SEO, general marketing, and (some might argue) luck. Scenario: Two vB forums launch on the same day, out of the box, with no attempts at SEO whatsoever. Which might you expect to grow in popularity more quickly?

(a) "Waldo, Wisconsin Widget Shop - Customer Support Forums", or
(b) "Paris Hilton's Official Forum - How to Make Home Videos"

Q1. Which appeals to the larger demographic?
Q2. Which is more likely to promote discussion and thread building?
Q3. Which is more likely to spread via word of mouth?

/* This is not a trick question. */
Q4. Which one would not benefit by employing SEO strategies to:

(a) make the SE crawlers index more of their content, faster, & more often
(b) make their pages appear higher in the SERPs than they would without SEO for their most targeted keywords?
(c) give themselves a (small to large) competitive advantage over similar forums that do not have the vision to make use of SEO tactics?

The answer is that you have to be able to isolate the variables. Understand the difference between general marketing and SEO. Then commit to maximizing your efficiency to achieve even the smallest of improvements that can give you an advantage over a rival, etc.

Star Trek's, Jordy Laforge (or the recently belated Mr. Scott) never seemed to get tired of squeezing just a little more power out of the warp drives - and neither should we!

Static vs. Dynamic
General SEO concensus is that dynamic pages are not crawled as efficiently as static pages. Therefore, using static CRUs (content relevant URLs) makes sense as "one component of your full SEO strategy".

Onpage SEO

Onpage SEO is extremely important as Michael has indicated. Issues include keyword density, keyword positioning, tag emphasis, meta keywords & description, image alt tags, tables vs. tableless, etc... When I modified these forums I took these factors into consideration as well. Other than the static rewriting capabilities, the current 2.0 vBSEO release includes optional features for:

(a) CRUs (content relevant URLs) with stop-word and foreign character removal,
(b) Meta keywords and description replacement (this should not be underrated, I'll explain later),
(c) Acronym Expansion (see example)
(d) Keyword placement in images
(e) Keyword placement in the filenames of attachements
Items (b) through (e) are all Onpage SEO strategies. As an admin, you can configure/enable/disable them as you see fit, depending on your SEO approach.

Code Stripping & Table-less Design

Code stripping and table-less design (CSS) is less of a task for vBSEO and more of a template modification task, but I feel that both (in my opinion) will result in better SEO. With this forum, I have employed several of these strategies. For instance, I decided to strip the nav template (and corresponding js) getting rid of 182 lines of code that resides between the header of the page and the start of the actual content. I also used CSS so that my H1/H2 tags with the document will appear at the very top of the physical document (within the HTML) so that the engines discover it close to the top of the document, etc.

Notes on the vB Archive

As you both noted, vB versions 3.0.x do create duplicate content in the archive. Luckily vB 3.5.x has the feature to enable the archive links to point directly to the actual thread links, thus avoiding the duplicate content issue.

For forum admins that have 3.5.x installed without vBSEO, I recommend configuring the archive to point directly to the actual thread. Then the archive will function as a convenient site map without creating duplicate content.

For forum admins that have 3.0.x installed, my recommendation is split. If you believe that the sitemap function of the archive outweights the cost of duplicate content, keep it enabled. If you feel that duplicate content is too detrimental and that the engines will index your content via the actual forums, then disable it.

Would you be surprised if I said that my recommendation for either vB 3.0.x or 3.5.x is to install vBSEO to eliminate any issues with duplicate content in the archives, and to make your forums more SE friendly overall? I didn't think so!

Thanks for making vBSEO a small part of your SEO strategies!

Juan

@acers:

I am happy to you let you know that the feature Juan mentioned earlier, regarding configuration of the vB archive URLs, has been completed. It is now included in RC4. Once you have RC4 installed, look for it in your vBSEO control panel under the heading "Rewrite Archive Root:" in the "Archive Settings" section.

NOTE: I created a new thread to discuss this feature:

http://www.vbseo.com/f5/quot-rewrite...vbseo-rc4-152/

__________________
Joe Ward / Crawlability Inc.
Support Team Launches New DeskPro Powered Tool Enhanced Support at Your Service

vBSEO 3.2.0 Launched - Maximum Overdrive for Your Web Traffic! Over 100 Instant SEO Optimizations

6X Traffic - $1400 in One Day with vBSEO! Imagine What the vBSEO Patent Pending Technology Can Do For You.