| Re: Xoops SEO features - Your experience |
| by bjuti on 2010/5/25 21:20:26 Yup! As they say about SEO 'Content is the king!', but there are many tips and tricks how to be even better! That's what I'm talking about. :) |
| Re: Xoops SEO features - Your experience |
| by trabis on 2010/5/25 20:03:22 My opinion: What really matters is unique and fresh content. I have 10 pages that drive 2000 unique visitors to my site but the most important are the 20 000 pages driving one visitor each. I would choose quantity instead of quality, but again, unique content. But of course, you can only have unique and fresh content with users helping you, and to have users, you have to provide unique and fresh content. The problem for me, is to engage people to publish on the site and keep them engaged. After you get a snow ball effect (when people come just because others are coming), the top results will come without effort. |
| Re: Xoops SEO features - Your experience |
| by bjuti on 2010/5/25 19:15:47 Hehe. :) This is my example. I start running a website in september 2009. The problem was that there was other 10 websitees with same thematics. My chances were poor. I started with Articles module. I've found it pretty. But! There was no some features (that I don't remember now) so I switched to smartsection. I hacked smartsection a little to fit my own needs, but since that I'm not a programmer - there is a lot of work to do. From what I've done - I became one of top 5 websites, and no 1. if you search some other keywords. I had a little time to became popular since that I was in Google's sandbox, but I've made it, even in sandbox  Eventually, Google will index every viewable page on the internet. The problem is in rank of those pages. That's why I've opened this topic. Every module should have easy indexable page with propper tags. Few modules have title= tag in a href tags with description or title of the link, etc.. I've said it in the first post. :) |
| Re: Xoops SEO features - Your experience |
| by Peekay on 2010/5/25 17:19:41 I have never found Xoops to be an obstacle to getting good SEO results. In my experience, most modules are correctly spidered provided (as you point out) articles have well constructed title and meta descriptions. Use of heading tags is also important, but most WYSIWYG editors allow these tags, plus you can hack the Xoops DHTML editor to recognise H1, H2 etc., although it would be nice to have this as a standard feature. The only real chore is debugging modules to make them W3C valid. I'm sure that validation is less significant for high-traffic sites, but a valid site adds another brownie point to the search engine scorecard. The htmlValidator plugin for Firefox is really useful (this page currently has 110 errors, but it increases with each post). I do use URL re-writing on a couple of non-Xoops sites. It doesn't cause a problem but I cannot say for sure whether it actually makes any difference to SEO. From what I understand, Google don't encourage the use of re-written URL's and I found conflicting opinions as to the benefits of using re-writes or Pathinfo. I would certainly be interested to see the results of a test, provided it was truly independent and not part of some SEO company's hype. At the end of the day, although there are guidelines for module developers, there are no enforced requirements. So, a module might validate, it might not. It might build titles and meta tags dynamically, or it might use the same tag as the site pref on every page. It might work, or.... 
|
| Re: Xoops SEO features - Your experience |
| by bjuti on 2010/5/25 15:00:00 No one is interested in improving Xoops SEO features? No body have experience to share? |
Search
Recent Posts
Who's Online
Donat-O-Meter
| Stats | |
| Goal: | $15.00 |
| Due Date: | Jul 31 |
| Gross Amount: | $0.00 |
| Net Balance: | $0.00 |
| Left to go: | $15.00 |
|
|