this actually came up in an adwords ad when doing a site: search on my site for vbseo links.
looks like phpbb has a commercial seo engine now too.
Index - Magic SEO URL for phpBB
This is a discussion on phpbb has one now too within the Off-Topic & Chit Chat forums, part of the Focus on Members category; this actually came up in an adwords ad when doing a site: search on my site for vbseo links. looks ...
this actually came up in an adwords ad when doing a site: search on my site for vbseo links.
looks like phpbb has a commercial seo engine now too.
Index - Magic SEO URL for phpBB
Last edited by briansol; 06-05-2006 at 03:20 PM.
Hey now, I didn't say it was any good![]()
lol you too?Originally Posted by rob
One of the biggest mistakes/misconceptions in SEO: applying URL changes for spiders only.
Scenario:
- A user visits www.abc.com and finds it to be a valuable (worth of linking) resource.
- User refers his friends via a link to www.abc.com?s=0987239857214
- www.abc.com misses-out big time on the opportunity to strengthen it's incoming link consensus.
Wonder why 'WikiPedia:consensus' ranks high for the search: "consensus"?? Because there is a consensus of links pointing to a unique URL.
Maximize link consensus, use vBSEO![]()
Juan Muriente / Crawlability Inc.
Security vbulletin - Patch Level for all supported versions released!
Unveiling the NEW vBSEO Sitemap Generator 3.0. - available NOW for vBSEO Customers!
My forums: General Forums | Admin Talk (running xenforo)
Last edited by Freeezer; 07-26-2006 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Edited HTTP status code.
403? ROFL.
so it sends them an Access Denied error message.
even better.
dude, give it up. you obviously work for or know the people that do work for the proudct.
to bad the site his incredibly hard to navigate also ...lmao
My forums: General Forums | Admin Talk (running xenforo)
Well personally I don't trust it, if it's not mentioned here
While I don't use or recommend Magic SEO (I've never even heard of it before), I do have to agree that the removal of the "sid" param won't matter to Google.
Heck, if that were a problem, then anyone that links to a site with Affiliate or Referrer parameters could result in the target site getting penalized.
Google, as mentioned on Google's own page regarding cloaking, is only concerned with actual misrepresentation of content. Additionally, if a url has the sid value, vs a url that doesn't have the sid value, and both display the same content, how is this cloaking in any form or fashion?
Google's entire point regarding cloaking, is to try to protect the user from being mislead by malicious websites or black hats. They want to be able to present legitimate data.
I'm the author of XCSEO Basic (a free, open-source SEO module for X-Cart), and it also reacts to Google, as it displays links with extra *embedded* parameters for users (such as -print-), while stripping out those extra params for Google (so -print- gets 301 redirected with that embedded param stripped out). The intention is to prevent SEs from indexing printable pages.
This solution has worked well for everyone that has used XCSEO Basic, it hasn't ever upset Google, and no users have *ever* reported their website having problems with Google due to this method.
BTW, doing this still isn't cloaking, as the page content is still the same (while the appearance is different, the same content still exists).