1
cadelite
SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 8:40

  • cadelite

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 86

  • Since: 2008/1/15


Will there be any SEO related improvements in XOOPS 2.6?

Quoted from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOOPS )

"However, XOOPS does not give its users full control over their URLs. Where URL rewriting is possible, XOOPS often uses redirects that may confuse search engines. In addition, some XOOPS modules create duplicate content by making the same information available on more than one URL while in other cases (especially in case of multilingual sites), several sets of content may be made available through the same URL."

It seems that XOOPS still requires a lot of "additional works" inside its core system and basic files in making it SEO-friendly. It is hoped that XOOPS will add more SEO-friendly features inside its core (without the need to rely on its modules) to win those other CMS like Wordpress, Joomla, Drupal, etc.

By the way, will XOOPS 2.6 remove all obsolete and deprecated classes and functions and shrink the size of core system?

Thank you all for your great effort in development! Bravo!!



Regards,

cadelite

2
Mamba
Re: SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 10:15

  • Mamba

  • Moderator

  • Posts: 11366

  • Since: 2004/4/23


Quote:
Will there be any SEO related improvements in XOOPS 2.6?

Yes. Hopefully Nicolas can provide more info.

Quote:
By the way, will XOOPS 2.6 remove all obsolete and deprecated classes and functions and shrink the size of core system?

Yes, the Core of XOOPS 2.6.0 is already cleaned up, and most if not all obsolete code is removed. You can take a look at XOOPS SVN

BTW, you can subscribe to the XOOPS SVN mailing list, so you can be notified about changes to the source code.
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs

3
Peekay
Re: SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 19:33

  • Peekay

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 2335

  • Since: 2004/11/20


Quote:

cadelite wrote:

In addition, some XOOPS modules create duplicate content by making the same information available on more than one URL...


Well, that would indeed be a problem, but I'm not aware of any module which automatically posts duplicate content onto a second domain, or is capable of changing the actual domain name in a dynamic link?

Does anyone know what module they are talking about

You can duplicate content on the same domain as many times as you want. Google doesn't care, so I cannot see an issue with the multilingual module either.
A thread is for life. Not just for Christmas.

4
Mamba
Re: SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 19:57

  • Mamba

  • Moderator

  • Posts: 11366

  • Since: 2004/4/23


Quote:
Does anyone know what module they are talking about

I don't know. This could be some ancient information. I'll fix it on Wikipedia.
Support XOOPS => DONATE
Use 2.5.10 | Docs | Modules | Bugs

5
banned1
Re: SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 21:53

  • banned1

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 3

  • Since: 2012/2/2 1


Every 'print friendly' version of an article or news or etcetera can be considered a duplicate version of the same content.
Simple solution rel=nofollow attribute in the link

banned,

6
Peekay
Re: SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 22:19

  • Peekay

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 2335

  • Since: 2004/11/20


Quote:

banned1 wrote:
Every 'print friendly' version of an article or news or etcetera can be considered a duplicate version of the same content.
Simple solution rel=nofollow attribute in the link

banned,


The REL is a good idea, but AFAIK search engines allow for content formatted for print or mobile devices if it's on the same domain. I believe it's having identical content served up by a different domain that will incur an SEO penalty and it was that comment that baffled me.

I have often wondered if a site displaying content using an RSS feed aggregator might cause a problem for the site sending out the feed, but can't say for sure.
A thread is for life. Not just for Christmas.

7
banned1
Re: SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 22:28

  • banned1

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 3

  • Since: 2012/2/2 1


Yes, they allow.
But generally you don't want to see that print friendly version of your content ranked on a search engine better than the original one.


.. The print friendly version usually doesn't have links to your website, worst landing page ever :)


I don't know what was meaning the original author of that page in wikipedia, but this can be an issue (in news there is already that rel=nofollow attribute)

banned,

8
Peekay
Re: SEO vs XOOPS
  • 2012/2/5 23:30

  • Peekay

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 2335

  • Since: 2004/11/20


Quote:
.. The print friendly version usually doesn't have links to your website, worst landing page ever :)


That's true. In fact you have me worried now. Going to check my other sites tomorrow!
A thread is for life. Not just for Christmas.

Login

Who's Online

198 user(s) are online (129 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 198


more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Mar 31
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits