I'd love nothing more than to see XOOPS move away from it's complex url structure (newtopic.php?forum=10), but more than that, I'd love to see XOOPS include seo feature like that are included with Synapse.

* the ability to set custom, keyword-rich URLs
* the ability to set title, keywords and description meta tags
* the ability to set image ALT text

EDIT: That's not just site-wide, but also PER PAGE.

SEO analysis based on:
* Keyword density - how often the keyword the user is optimizing for appears in the link text, image ALT tags and body copy,
* Keyword prominence - how close to the beginning the keyword appears
* Length of body text, title tags, etc.

I realize some of the above is acheivable with XOOPS now if you know how to do it. But for the average Joe just getting started, it isn't so easy.

Some may argue, well, the XOOPS site gets spidered daily, what's the problem?

1. XOOPS runs Adsense. With Adsense, the site would be spidered regularly regardless of content. My site's are spidered daily too [Even my parked domains].
2. How many thousands of sites link to Xoops. I've visited hundereds that were not CMS based.

I'm in the final stages of information collection for my new site. One of the final issues I must address is what way I want to display my content. I would like to run Xoops. It's a good CMS and there are a lot of really useful modules for it. However, given that my new site is targeted at a very competitive market, SEO has become a primary concern.

I know there has been a lot of "talk" about XOOPS and SEO, but here is what I want to know...

Are the Devs actively working on SEO for Xoops?
What kind of SEO plans are there for XOOPS Future?
Should I just say the heck with CMSs and code from scratch?

Not trying to open a can of worms, just expressing my opinion on a very important subject. Sorry, it started as a suggestion/feature request, but ended as a rant as well.

Quote:
Yes
Quote:
Easier URL Rewriting
Quote:
This got me a little on the edge of my chair here.

I simply cannot comprehend why people (in general) tend to think that the reason why suggestions like these are not immediately incorporated is because we cannot be arsed.

We are 3-5 busy guys and it is certainly not lack of willingness that there are these intervals between new features.
What I would really like to see is more guys actually doing MORE than merely suggesting improvements. What does it take? How could it be implemented? How should it be administered? How can we make this implementation dynamic?

You don't have to be able to program it, but at least give some suggestions to HOW it could be specified.
ALT text is all very fine for images, but how should it be input? My suggestion to that would be that when selecting an image in the image manager, it would prompt you for an alt text that would be put inside the [img ] tag like with the alignment. But that's just an example.

Developing XOOPS is a community effort...

First and foremost... It's not that I don't think the Devs have no interest. Quite on the contrary. Also, I understand all too well what it's like to be busy. I'm juggling quite a few chainsaws myself.

My comment...
Quote:

Was NOT meant as, "They're not going to do it so why bother". It was meant as, "What is the most feasible approach for SEO; CMS or code from scratch?"

Now, about the how.....

I like your idea for the alt tags. Also, adding a center alignment option would be nice as well.

Unique meta data: Define a global handler. Module coders could assign input feilds that define: <{mod_title}> , <{mod_keywords}> , <{mod_description}>. Maybe I'm just a moron, but that seems like the easiest approach for all.

SEO analysis: I have no clue how it is done, buy you can find several tools at http://www.seochat.com/ that can be linked to remotely. They are good examples of what I'm thinking of.


Is this the input you had in mind? If not, I'll try again.

Again, I'm not trying to be critical of anyone. I understand all too well your point of view. I also understand that there are other issues that have to be attended to first.

Yes, thanks - I am just a little touchy at the moment. I mean. We do try - it's just that we are only human and the ideas sound so great, but then we... well... there is much more to implementing an idea than there is to think it up.

Regarding keywords etc. haven't we established by consensus that only very old-fashioned search engines give a whistle about those things? That it is all a matter of content and linking?

Mithrandir ...

Quote:

These are level ONE questions that deserve enquiry. They are very pertinent right now.

Could we export this quote to the Devs site ... Please?

Quote:

As a general rule, yes, BUT.... Looked at Yahoo [an Ovature company] lately? They still use Meta Description. Read more about Ovature's companies Here.

I just searched "xoops" at yahoo.com and was returned the default meta discription that ships with xoops.

Also, Google scans keywords for relevance to content; both their search engine and for Adsense. If you're content doesn't match your keywords, you don't recieve as good a ranking. With Adsense, your adds are based on your keywords unless you have a lot of content on that particular page.

Also, the ability to use keywords in the individual page titles increases the effectiveness of linking. It tells your visitor.. Hey, I'm at the right place.

It's a big headache no matter how you look at it, but Meta tags still carry weight. A good combination of Meta data, keyword saturation in content, and effective linking is what is required.

jmorris, have you seen the Theme changer module? It has a basic metatag section that can be used for each module. Also Short URL hacks are available. I know this is not reaching the bottom of your argument, but it's the best we have so far.

I have only a glancing familiarity with both. I will be sure to take a good look at them and see if they will provide a temporary solution for my particular situation.

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the subject and offer some suggestions. I realize such features will eventual come, but it's good to note what the users are looking for.