393 replies to this topic

[Enkidu]

OK. Some examples to prove my point

vB (random topic - page 2)
https://www.vbulleti...-Software/page2

I don't see any page 2 added to the <h1>. Do you guys think google is penalizing every vB based website out there because of this?

phpBB (random topic - page 256)
http://www.phpbb.com...3592&start=3825
same as above
SMF (random topic - page 3)
http://www.simplemac...topic=428569.40
same as above


the reason why this is a very bad idea is that if you have 5k topics with at least two pages then that's 5000 occurances of the word page. Who want to have the word page as a top keyword?

[Steven UK]

OK. Some examples to prove my point

vB (random topic - page 2)
https://www.vbulleti...-Software/page2

I don't see any page 2 added to the <h1>. Do you guys think google is penalizing every vB based website out there because of this?

No, because the page 1 of that thread, the original thread is showing at the top of Google for the title:

http://www.google.co...iw=1348&bih=755

phpBB (random topic - page 256)
http://www.phpbb.com...3592&start=3825

Same for this, and the third example is too generic a title to rank for.

Does this prove that it is worth testing?

I have just checked some sites on: xenforo.com forum software too, which is also becoming popular, and they do exactly the same with page numbers:

page-6, for example.

I don't think having 'page' in the title of every thread would be detrimental, not if this is the standard of known forum software, proven to rank very highly indeed, and the standard of acceptance by Google.

Enkidu, what are your suggestions to fix the obvious duplicate content issues, and the string issues, which is the same issue?

I need these fixes ASAP, and I am also prepared to pay anybody who can fix these issues, then I will never upgrade again, and just stick with what I know to work.

[realmaverickuk]

That's a horrible idea.

Evidence that this is a horrible idea please?

Because that's a pretty bold statement.

I'll show evidence that it's a good idea, as posted by some of the top SEO's in the world AND a Google employee!

Cheers

[Traaginen]

Evidence that this is a horrible idea please?

I Google a question and am led to page 23 of some forum thread with an answer several times daily. Making guests sift through that many pages from the OP is going to help usability? Bounce rates on forums are high as it is, people aren't going to sort through 30 pages when 2 is probably about all even the most patient will sit through.

[realmaverickuk]

OK. Some examples to prove my point

vB (random topic - page 2)
https://www.vbulleti...-Software/page2

I don't see any page 2 added to the <h1>. Do you guys think google is penalizing every vB based website out there because of this?

phpBB (random topic - page 256)
http://www.phpbb.com...3592&start=3825
same as above
SMF (random topic - page 3)
http://www.simplemac...topic=428569.40
same as above

the reason why this is a very bad idea is that if you have 5k topics with at least two pages then that's 5000 occurances of the word page. Who want to have the word page as a top keyword?

You've not proven anything, you've just misunderstood a lot about this topic and SEO in general.

First, <title> tag is FAR more important than the <h1>, VB has page 2 in the title.
Second, VB pages are being seen as part of the same thread, IPB are not, which is the issue here. This is what will be causing the penalisation.
Third, why would having page 2, in a title, make page a top keyword? It would not, I assure you.

Maybe I take too much for granted but it's quite astonishing how little people know about SEO. IMO as a webmaster, you should better understand this stuff.

[realmaverickuk]

I Google a question and am led to page 23 of some forum thread with an answer several times daily. Making guests sift through that many pages from the OP is going to help usability? Bounce rates on forums are high as it is, people aren't going to sort through 30 pages when 2 is probably about all even the most patient will sit through.

I agree it happens, but several times daily? No. People search for problems, not answers. The problem is in the page title. People WILL read through a thread, that holds the same problem that they are experiencing and click through, until they find somebody with the solution.

Can you show me an example, of a PROBLEM you've searched, that leads you to page 23?

As I said it should be an option. Any potential loss, which would be small, would be far outweighed by the extra traffic bought in, by higher ranking threads.

[realmaverickuk]

My iPhone keeps turning off

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=my+iphone+keeps+turning+off#q=my+iphone+keeps+turning+off&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=dsc&ei=wCnET5T1JMWP8gOX-aDfCg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CFQQ_AUoAw&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ab2f8053f80aa012&biw=1190&bih=591

My nintendo Wii wont turn on

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=my+iphone+keeps+turning+off#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=my%20iphone%20keeps%20turning%20off&cp=19&gs_id=2v&xhr=t&q=nintendo+wii+wont+turn+on&pf=p&safe=off&prmdo=1&tbm=dsc&sclient=psy-ab&oq=nintendo+wii+wont+t&aq=0&aqi=g3g-K1&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ab2f8053f80aa012&biw=1190&bih=591

My dog is being sick

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=my+iphone+keeps+turning+off#hl=en&safe=off&prmdo=1&tbm=dsc&sclient=psy-ab&q=my+dog+is+being+sick&oq=my+dog+is+being+sick&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0l4.41351.43476.0.43547.20.13.0.6.6.0.118.1046.10j3.13.0...0.0.wopieIxK7O4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ab2f8053f80aa012&biw=1190&bih=591

Totally random choices, not one of them, leads to a forum on any page but page one.

As I say it does happen. But right now, IPB based forums are getting a LOT less traffic than they would, if these issues were fixed. And this would help sort them faster than waiting for Google to figure it all out for itself.

Duplicate content is a big issue these days. And because IPB multi pages of a thread, are being seen as completely new threads, it's a huge issue. I don't think some of you appreciate how big a deal this could be.

By noindexing page 2+ the problem would resolve a lot faster.

But again, it should be an advanced option for those who want to employ it.

By default, I would recommend fixing the paging and making the titles of page 2+ a little less optimised as explained earlier.

It's not a coincidence that all of the biggest forums are VB based. I know there are some big IPB, but the biggest are VB based.

[Rimi]

Evidence that this is a horrible idea please?

Because that's a pretty bold statement.

I'll show evidence that it's a good idea, as posted by some of the top SEO's in the world AND a Google employee!

Cheers

Well if Google hadn't indexed page 75 of a certain thread then I would've never found the most amazing...err..."adult" site in the world.

[realmaverickuk]

Well if Google hadn't indexed page 75 of a certain thread then I would've never found the most amazing...err..."adult" site in the world.

hah!

Let me explain one last thing. It's rare for a thread to rank, based words in it's content vs the title of the page. On the instances they do, it's because no other threads or pages on the internet, have a similar page title, which means its gonna be a VERY low traffic term. Meaning it will never drive any traffic that will change anything. Even accumitively it won't add up to much, compared with the benefits.

But this would be a personal choice anyway. Pros and cons aside, I'm pretty confident that noindexing the page 2+ would result in far more traffic.

[Rimi]

which means its gonna be a VERY low traffic term.

...this makes me look pretty weird right now.

Ok I'm done now. Sorry.

[Traaginen]

I agree it happens

That is pretty much reason enough not to completely abolish it. I'm not going to go drudge through my history and fetch examples as you've already admitted it happens. You don't have to believe that it occurs frequently, but it has happened to me several times today (granted I'm a power Google user) and I'm willing to bet others have had similar experiences. Generally it's going to appear when you're searching for something more specific than the example phrases you provided. Phrases with lower traffic, possibly, but if you're beating out Yahoo Answers and Apple's own forum/site for common Iphone queries you probably don't have much to worry about with SEO anyways.

Should page 1 get more "juice" than the following pages? Yes. Should only page 1 be indexed? No, not in my opinion. Several of your other suggestions are great and they could help, but I have to disagree there.

Things that can be agreed upon (for the most part)...

• Despite being superior in many areas, IPB is lagging behind competitors in SEO (at the very least in some areas of it).

None of us really know why, and although we can have threads like this guessing at the issues... I don't think anything less than a consultation with some Google engineer writing the algorithm is going to answer anything definitely.

[Matt]

I know what I need to do now.

If there is an issue with Google getting confused over pages it's because we're not being clear enough. We use the page__ suffix to denote pagination but also to find a specific post, etc. It pollutes the pagination structure.

So the fix for 3.4 is quite simple:

Introduce a static and unique page identifier in the URL: topic/123-test-topic/page-2/
Move the "Page X" closer to the topic title in the <title>
Add "Page X of series - " in the meta description
Clean up internal linking so it correctly uses the topic FURL with an anchor where possible
Use a query string for all other variables so if we do need to find a post, we can do /topic/123-test-topic/?p=123

This should send a clear signal to search engines and reduce confusion.

[Axel Wers]

Introduce a static and unique page identifier in the URL: topic/123-test-topic/page-2/

Yes, I agree. This is a good solution.

[Enkidu]

You've not proven anything, you've just misunderstood a lot about this topic and SEO in general.

First, <title> tag is FAR more important than the <h1>, VB has page 2 in the title.
Second, VB pages are being seen as part of the same thread, IPB are not, which is the issue here. This is what will be causing the penalisation.
Third, why would having page 2, in a title, make page a top keyword? It would not, I assure you.

Maybe I take too much for granted but it's quite astonishing how little people know about SEO. IMO as a webmaster, you should better understand this stuff.

where did you see <title> in my post? I was talking about h1

[Enkidu]

No, because the page 1 of that thread, the original thread is showing at the top of Google for the title:

http://www.google.co...iw=1348&bih=755



Same for this, and the third example is too generic a title to rank for.

Does this prove that it is worth testing?

I have just checked some sites on: xenforo.com forum software too, which is also becoming popular, and they do exactly the same with page numbers:

page-6, for example.

I don't think having 'page' in the title of every thread would be detrimental, not if this is the standard of known forum software, proven to rank very highly indeed, and the standard of acceptance by Google.

Enkidu, what are your suggestions to fix the obvious duplicate content issues, and the string issues, which is the same issue?

I need these fixes ASAP, and I am also prepared to pay anybody who can fix these issues, then I will never upgrade again, and just stick with what I know to work.

I don't have any of the issues you guys describing in this thread and I'm using 3.1.

[Matt]

Just a note to say that for 3.3.3, I've made the following changes:

- Moved the "Page X" in the <title> to just after the topic title.
- Added "Page X of Y - " into the meta description.

[AngryDeVo]

I have not read the whole thread, also I am by far no self called SEO-Expert. I have a basic understanding but never would call me good at SEO or something. But I see that IPB has huge problems with SEO, and that kinda sucks.

I just want to ask, why don't you use the same links as XenForo, I mean XF has by far the best SEO of all Forum Systems out there.

Links for Forum:
http://xenforo.com/c.../announcements/

Link for Threads:
http://xenforo.com/c...released.27329/

So for IPB it could be:
community.invisionpower.com/topics/seo-rankings-flying-all-over-the-place-and-why-is-this.363264

And than
community.invisionpower.com/topics/seo-rankings-flying-all-over-the-place-and-why-is-this.363264/page-2

for the Sites.

Why don't you use that method?

[Matt]

I am by far no self called SEO-Expert

I mean XF has by far the best SEO of all Forum Systems out there.

The two seem contradictory?

The minuscule benefits gained by restructuring our entire FURL system, forcing Google to drop millions of indexed pages, the hassles of 301 redirecting old to new formats and the general hassle of breaking hundreds of templates are simply not worth it.

If XF has good SEO (and what constitutes good is entirely subjective), then it's almost certainly not solely based on having the topic ID at the end of the link.

[AlexJ]

Just a note to say that for 3.3.3, I've made the following changes:

- Moved the "Page X" in the <title> to just after the topic title.
- Added "Page X of Y - " into the meta description.

If possible can you please post the patch for this one so we don't have to wait till 3.3.3 and in the mean time we can make sure if patch works or not? Thanks!

[Steven UK]

Please guys.

This situation is NOT **just** about page issues. The indexing/conflicting of [strings] instead of original page 1 of threads, is just as damaging, as they too are competing just as much as page2+, etc. Sometimes more so.

Matt, is there anyway I can have a temporary fix to stop search engines indexing any type of thread string, other than the first page of a thread?

Also, when is version 3.4 due out?

Thank you.

If possible can you please post the patch for this one so we don't have to wait till 3.3.3 and in the mean time we can make sure if patch works or not? Thanks!

I also feel this situation is way too serious to wait.