Find content
Male
The simple answers? There is no purpose and there is functionality.
This seems to be yet another of the "I re-coded it because I can" changes foisted upon the customers. But for every customer who voices their dissatisfaction about purposeless changes, we have Brandon to remind us we are wrong.
Posts I've Made
In Topic: Features removed from 3.1.4
28 June 2011 - 10:25 AM
blair, on 28 June 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:
BTW, I think one of the issues with IPB3 is that there is no way for search engines to discover individual posts. For example my post is #179 of a 9 page topic, the URL is: http://community.inv...ost__p__2128501
However, If you view the source of that link you'll find
However, If you view the source of that link you'll find
<link id="ipsCanonical" rel="canonical" href="[url="http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/339466-features-removed-from-314/page__st__160"]http://community.inv...4/page__st__160[/url]" />which means search engines should consider all links to this post as a link to the page instead. How is this good for long tail results? How are search engines supposed to index individual posts? Semantic HTML markup may have been used correctly, but unlike vB there is no other accommodation for linking to specific posts.
)I don't mean to take anything away from any of the IPS coders, please understand. But coding a forum is one thing. Coding an SEO application is something quite different. I am employed by one of the fastest-growing and highest-recommended SEO companies in the business, but I wouldn't know where to start, when it comes to coding a forum or a forum app. I question what kind of SEO background Mark actually has. Does he have any SEO background, or is he merely trying to sort through the pieces of what Dan left behind and trying to make it integrate with IPB 3.2.0?
What, me worry?
That being said, I'm looking forward to seeing how well 3.2 performs in the wild. I suppose it is nigh on impossible to get a perfect 100 out of 100 score from every admin, but after using my test site for several days, I give 3.2 a solid 98. I like it and really look forward to using it. But I would sure love to get my hands on some Analytics data for this site, over the last 24 months, to see how well 3.2 is really playing with the search engines. I've already suffered one, hasty IPB upgrade, from which it took 8 months of effort to recover. And, as a teaser, I found a way to improve my long tail along the way. My long tail was at 2.21 prior to the upgrade and fell clear back to 3.74 after, which was worse than my pre-vBSEO vBulletin days. I'm pleased to say my long tail is now at 2.11. It took me a bit of head-scratching to get it there, but it shows it can be done. And I think there's more left in it. My traffic is now starting to establish new records again and, thank Heaven, my revenue is back to where it was. So I'm going to ca' canny and lay back a bit before upgrading to 3.2. As much as I admire 3.2, I don't care to fling myself off any more cliffs.
In Topic: What do you think of 3.2?
14 June 2011 - 05:51 PM
Matt, it sure looks like a lot of love and a lot of hate are being expressed. I used to get wound up when I was having to take a lot of static over various things. An old friend taught me a lesson he had learned as a radio operator on a B-17, during WWII - the flak is always the worst when you're directly over the target. Perhaps that will allow you to find a bit of breathing room in all this.
I've been doing a lot of testing with 3.2 and must admit I'm really impressed. Earlier today, I told a friend that we humans are resistant to change, by our very nature. But it seems as if 3.2 has brought a lot of change to the table, without much of the resistance I would have expected. I expected to be disappointed with having to sort a lot of changes, but even though I've found several areas in 3.2 that seem completely different, they are different in a much simpler and more intuitive way.
Change upsets people, because it means they are going to have to do things differently than what they've become used to doing. Even when change is obviously made for the better, it still requires people to give up what they've become comfortable doing.
From where I sit, it looks as if you're directly over the target. I recommend you continue to focus on your target and carry out your mission.
In all fairness, I think it's fair to point out IPB 3 was the product you had available when your arguably largest competitor decided to turn their product upside down and set it on fire. Had that not happened in the other house, I would not have been looking for alternatives and I suspect I'm not the only one who would say that. I don't mean it in a negative way, but I do think a large part of IPB 3's success was a result of that competitor's developmental implosion.
I suppose it just proves the theory that in business, timing can be everything.
I've been doing a lot of testing with 3.2 and must admit I'm really impressed. Earlier today, I told a friend that we humans are resistant to change, by our very nature. But it seems as if 3.2 has brought a lot of change to the table, without much of the resistance I would have expected. I expected to be disappointed with having to sort a lot of changes, but even though I've found several areas in 3.2 that seem completely different, they are different in a much simpler and more intuitive way.
Change upsets people, because it means they are going to have to do things differently than what they've become used to doing. Even when change is obviously made for the better, it still requires people to give up what they've become comfortable doing.
From where I sit, it looks as if you're directly over the target. I recommend you continue to focus on your target and carry out your mission.
Matt, on 14 June 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:
I hardly think you can say "IP.Board 3 was a flop". It's the product that took us from middling psuedo professional forum to arguably the market leader in community software.
I suppose it just proves the theory that in business, timing can be everything.
