I'm not sure where I got the impression that some sort of short url support was built in to XOOPS but I guess I was wrong? I've seen a module or two mentioned, and wondered if I could get the lowdown on how good they are and so forth.

Xaraya can work with short url's that are like

http://www.somesite.com/xar/index.php/articles/news/c9/

I really prefer the use of "/" to the use of "-", which was shown more commonly in examples of short url mods here. Is there a way for me to use "/"...I'm not going want to start redoing a lot of php this early on, I rarely use it.

Thanks

No responses to this?

Well, any comments on the notion that shorturls are unreliable as per comments by wardick here:

https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=39899&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10

I'd really like to use shorturls with slashes...unless of course they're unreliable.

The short url or Simplified url is the only solution you can use these.... ( you can also cahge the - to + )

OK, thanks...any comment on how reliable either solution is? Which is better? Which might be more likely to be a candidate for modification (ie introducing "/" as the separator)?

You might want to check this link as well as the forums on this site for more information and discussion about this issue: http://xoops-tips.com/news-article.storyid-62.htm.

Things you might want to keep in mind:

1) Does the hack require modification to core files?

2) How much work will you have to do, if any, to make it work with the modules you chooose to use? Is it a matter of making changes to the .htaccess file or are the changes more extensive tahn that?

3) How hard will it be and what will the penalty be to your site (in terms of search engine placement, etc) if you choose to revert back to the old url format? Its fairly easy to initiate "simple urls"; In terms of search engine placement, depending upon how long you use these urls, you might be much more seriously affected.

4) How will you handle XOOPS upgrades and security fixes in the possible absence of updates to the url hacks (though some of these hacks seem very well supported)?

5) What are the implications of the new 2.2 for your use and adaptation of the hacks? I think 2.2 is/will be a much more stable platform with many important features as it comes on-line. HOw easy/hard it is to adapt these hacks seems an unanswered question.

6) Does the anticipated benefit justify these changes? Why are you considering using this approach? Site visibility in the search engines? The value of "simple urls" in search engine ranking/placement is much debated, and in some corners quite hotly. You have to read up and make your own decision on this based on the evidence. Some time ago, the case seemed more open and shut for the value of "simple urls". Now, it is a little more less clear, based upon my impressions.

In any case, I think you're smart to do your research. I would make sure you search the forums here heavily. Don't depend on you're posting of this thread for adequate feedback on the topic. Personally, I like "simple urls" (making a reference her to style of urls, not the name of a particular hack). I hope that such an approach might one day be fully integrated into xoops.

But, having tried both hacks, I concluded that there was not enough gain in site visibility, and some modules simply did not seem to work with the hacks. I had neither the time nor the expertise to make the adaptations necessary to make those modules work. Having said that, I believe both modules have had some development since that time.

Of course, all this may be a load of crap. And, I am not certainly an expert on this stuff.

Thanks chappy, nice of you to write that much up on the subject. I have a bit of a dilemma here, as I have to assemble a site pretty quickly, and XOOPS is new to me (in fact being a webmaster is new to me). I eval from what you've written that unless there has been a lot of bulletproofing in the url mod routines, I may be making life complicated for myself by persuing this right now. I'd rather start "clean" in the sense that I really pref not to see a bunch of ? params in urls, but not at the expense of reliability. That's two of you that think I might complicate things via simple urls, I don't need that. I'll still fish around, but doesn't look good.

That's rather how I feel about the whole thing, too.

I don't want to put down those who have developed the hacks. They have really done a marvelous job and, indeed, the site I linked to earlier, the excellent http://xoops-tips.com/runs, if I remember rightly, "Simplified URLs." It seems to function very well for them. And, the issues with the modules may not be the problem now that I felt it was when I tried the mods (or perhaps I just didn't install the hack right - but I think I did - worked fine with some mods).

BTW, I think it's also worth considering that some of the search engines won't take kindly to a boatload of changes in links once those links have been spidered and added. I think it's easier to add simple URLs than to take them away. But, possibly I'm wrong...