My Vbulletin Archive is unable to get a PageRank ? (dont know why)

[SaN-DeeP]

I have this issue with my vbulletin archive only, It has no pagerank at all around 1.5 years back we had a pagerank of 5 on main archive page:
http://forums.techarena.in/archive/index.php/

and atleast PR4 on each forumpage of archive.
http://forums.techarena.in/archive/index.php/f-17.html
http://forums.techarena.in/archive/index.php/f-16.html
http://forums.techarena.in/archive/index.php/f-24.html

and lots of thread with pr2, pr3 etc. (archive threads are directly linked to showthread pages).

But since last 1.5 years I have seen pagerank on this pages wiped off (gone) completely.. Although my forums/sub-forums are all having a PR of 2 or 3 each.

As well many threads internally do have a PR..

What can be the issue here ?

 

[Brian Turner]

Seriously, you need to forget about PageRank. It's not a useful indicator of anything - heck, if you're using the Google Toolbar the PageRank value displayed is already almost 4 months out of date.

What every site owner should be more concerned about is traffic and rankings where possible. If you find yourself losing traffic and no longer ranking on Google where you once did, that's something to worry about. If the little green toolbar indicator goes up and down without anything else showing a problem, it's seriously not a problem.

2c.

 

[djbaxter]

It's a good thing.

Google is getting much better with its duplicate content filters. The archive was introduced previously for search engines that might have trouble with dynamic URLs. None do any more.

This means that Google is indexing your real forum links instead of the archive. As I said, this is a good thing.

(And more proof by the way that you don't need mod_rewrite with vBulletin.)

 

[Brian Turner]

(And more proof by the way that you don't need mod_rewrite with vBulletin.)

Certainly not to be spidered - but that isn't the point of mod_rewriting these days.

Usually a mod_rewrite is applied because:

1. It allows keywords in URLs, which may offer a ranking advantage
2. It's often better for users to use

For example, is it easier for search engines and users to work with the TAZ forum with URLs like this:

/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=99

or would this look better?

/forums/seo/

 

[djbaxter]

Again, show me how NOT using mod_rewrite is hurting TAZ... DigitalPoint... or any vBulletin forum.

And by the way, the cited example provides another instance where Google indexes DYNAMIC pages IN PREFERENCE TO mod-rewritten pages. And that's not just about spidering - that's about INDEXING.

 

[Brian Turner]

Again, show me how NOT using mod_rewrite is hurting TAZ... DigitalPoint... or any vBulletin forum.

I can't do that unless these forums apply mod_rewrite and show the traffic increase.

mod_rewrite is a major feature of commercial SEO, because it offers additional advantage for ranking purposes.

Therefore any site that wants the extra leverage will mod_rewrite their main pages.

There are plenty of big forums that use mod_rewrite for this reason - webmasterworld.com and daniweb.com both come to mind.

And by the way, the cited example provides another instance where Google indexes DYNAMIC pages IN PREFERENCE TO mod-rewritten pages. And that's not just about spidering - that's about INDEXING.

The dynamic pages are the most prominent pages on the site - therefore it's no surprise that Google may prefer the most prominent pages on a site rather than less prominent duplicates.

However, those vb admins who are careless with their vb archive can end up with these pages ranking instead.

I have to admit, I find it odd that you have such an aversion to mod_rewrite - but we're talking about a major SEO tactic here.

If vb owners don't wish to apply it, that's their choice to make. But there are very sound reasons why more competitive webmasters will apply mod_rewrite solutions.

 

[djbaxter]

Webmasterworld also managed to get themselves deleted from Google not that long ago, albeit briefly. And tell me what is so SEO friendly or visitor friendly about a URL like http://www.webmasterworld.com/webmaster/3293549.htm? Or http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread72337.html as an example from daniweb.com? How are they any more SEO friendly or memorable than http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252290? I see no SEO advantage whatsoever in such URLs and I highly doubt that visitors care one way or the other.

There was a time when conversions to "static" URLs made a difference. They no longer do. And the practice of converting URLs to thread titles is pretty much useless on the average forum, unless the admins and moderators are ruthless about editing titles. Look at the majority of thread titles (Hi, I'm here; I need help; Can anyone make me a logo?) on any forum and tell me how much help converting the URL to "keywords" is really going to be.

 

[djbaxter]

Worth reading: To mod_rewrite or Not to mod_rewrite

 

[Brian Turner]

Webmasterworld.com intentionally blocked Google from the site with a robots.txt.

As for the URLs they employ as numericals - simply their choice. Dani told me she employed mod_rewrite originally to boost Daniweb's presence on search engines.

The claim that mod_rewrite has no impact on SEO I think is something that the SEO industry would disagree with. It's a SEO tactic to leverage content on search engines, fin.

The link you provide to the other TAZ thread simply has a forum admin stating that Google can index dynamic URLs and therefore no mod_rewrite was required for indexing purposes. Which is *not* the reason mod_rewrite is applied in the first place.

Whether you personally believe rewriting vbulletin URLs is an advantage or not, the bottom line is that it's good practice within the SEO industry precisely because it offers to help leverage content on search engines.

 

[sabret00the]

So would you say that Daniweb's lack of keywords insertion in thread urls is a waste of resources Brian?

 

[/dev/urandon]

So would you say that Daniweb's lack of keywords insertion in thread urls is a waste of resources Brian?

This is the main reason we don't use mod_rewrite here (waste of server resources). Well that and the fact that we have a ton of links in the index already.

 

[djbaxter]

Brian, read DChapman's post CAREFULLY.

 

[Brian Turner]

So would you say that Daniweb's lack of keywords insertion in thread urls is a waste of resources Brian?

I'd say it's a least efficient way to apply mod_rewrite, but by all accounts from Dani (csgal), she's under the impression that mod_rewriting the forums helped bring in extra traffic and grow it faster.

This is the main reason we don't use mod_rewrite here (waste of server resources). Well that and the fact that we have a ton of links in the index already.

Which is exactly my earlier point about established forums not seeing the need to drive in extra traffic, because they are already well established.

However, newer forums and those more aggressively looking to grow may want to leverage every advantage they can grab.

It also doesn't invalidate the possiblity that TAZ may be able to bring in extra traffic if it did chase SEO issues more aggressively.

Brian, read DChapman's post CAREFULLY.

DChapman is simply addressing the same misconception you pointed out in the Jill Whalen thread - ie, that you don't need mod_rewrite to be indexed.

The big break to indexing vbulletin was never about applying mod_rewrite, or search engines learning to better spider dyanmic pages - it was simply disallowing sessions for guests, which became standard in vb3.

But that doesn't at all mean that mod_rewrite can't offer any kind of SEO advantages in terms of leveraging content for extra traffic.

Frankly speaking, the reason SEO even exists as a discipline is because web developers and programmers have such a poor idea of how search engines work.

It's not simply ignorance of the issue - it's also resistance against making any kind of changes that may help search engines better. The general presumption is that if search engines may be able to index content, then just leave them to figure it all out themselves.

SEO isn't about that - it's about helping search engines work better with your content, so you can better leverage this for increased rankings and traffic.

There are so many ways in which developers inadvertently constrict their own presence in search engines, precisely because they haven't a great idea about how they work, or how to improve their presence on search applying basic fixes.

To get back on topic - the vb archive is a developer approach to SEO and frankly because of this, I think is badly applied. There is a lot about vbulletin out of the box that from a developer angle makes a lot of sense, but from a SEO standpoint hurts a site's presence on search engines. That's why people like myself apply mods such as vbseo to focus more on what works for search engines, than works for developers.

mod_rewrite is a staple part of commercial SEO precisely because it offers potential advantage, and that's why SEO's like myself use it across most any application they work with.

It's not an issue about server resources or indexing - it's simply about chasing traffic in a more aggressive but cost effective manner.

2c.

 

[djbaxter]

And when it comes to vBulletin, I have yet to see any evidence that mod_rewrite helps (I've asked for it repeatedly - I'm still waiting). I think it helps new forum owners think they are doing something useful while they are waiting for their forums to grow but that's about it.

And, again, your two examples of major forums using mod_rewrite are not new forums but forums that insituted mod_rewrite at a time when it was believed that search engines couldn't follow dynamic URLs. Times change - if that was ever really true, it hasn't bveen true for a long time now. The key was never mod_rewrite but eliminating session IDs, as you yourself point out - that's the major thing the old phpBB SEO mod by Able2Know did and it too worked well. vBulletin does that out of the box so it's not an issue.

And finally, both of your examples use mod_rewrite but do NOT use keyword URLs, which is what proponents of mod_rewrite and vBSEO in particular keep hammering home as the sine qua non of forum SEO. If you think a static page is truly necessary, you can have that with the standard vBulletin archive out of the box - which with a very small edit can be directed back to the real forum. The fact that in recent times the main pages are being indexed rather than the archive pages is more proof to me that those rewritten URLs are really doing nothing at all.

 

[jward]

And finally, both of your examples use mod_rewrite but do NOT use keyword URLs, which is what proponents of mod_rewrite and vBSEO in particular keep hammering home as the sine qua non of forum SEO.

Try to avoid [SIZE=-1]circulus in probando

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]With major sites using static URL (WebmasterWorld, DaniWeb, ChristianForums), SEO specialists advocating them all over the Web, more and more major CMS/blogging software building it right in, Google themselves recommending their use (and using them on their blogger.com site), major Web destinations like Amazon and eBay employing them to harness more Web Traffic, thousands of vBulletin admins already having chosen vBSEO and growing everyday, it certainly appears that something is certainly getting everyone to move in this direction.

What does Google think?
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]http://www.vbseo.com/f104/googles-matt-cutts-suggests-static-urls-seo-benefit-12455/[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Of course static URLs are just the .html versions of their dynamic counterparts. In a complex system like vBulletin, an even better scenario can be achieved with vBSEO by also eliminating duplicate paths, and building link consistency and link consensus.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]While current sites may be doing well because of their committment to their site over time and success with other general marketing/advertising/community building methods, it is difficult to imagine that they will not eventually upgrade given that other forums are experiencing 500%+ growth in revenue!

When DigitalPoint chooses vBSEO, I hope they go IPO so I can secure my shares early.
[/SIZE]

 

[djbaxter]

Try to avoid [SIZE=-1]circulus in probando

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]With major sites using static URL (WebmasterWorld, DaniWeb, ChristianForums), SEO specialists advocating them all over the Web, more and more major CMS/blogging software building it right in, Google themselves recommending their use (and using them on their blogger.com site), major Web destinations like Amazon and eBay employing them to harness more Web Traffic, thousands of vBulletin admins already having chosen vBSEO and growing everyday, it certainly appears that something is certainly getting everyone to move in this direction.

What does Google think?
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]http://www.vbseo.com/f104/googles-matt-cutts-suggests-static-urls-seo-benefit-12455/[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

Try to avoid utter nonsense. Your post, cited above, says this:

Matt Cutts from Google Talks About Static URLs with Mod-Rewrite - Recommends Static URLs

In the following video, Matt Cutt's talks about using static vs. dynamic URLs.

He says that PageRank flows to dynamic URLs similar to static - however, dynamic URLs can definitely have too many parameters.

He recommends using 2-3 parameters at most, and avoid ones with numbers to prevent the search engine crawlers from mistaking them for session IDs.

By default, vBulletin eliminates session IDs and spiders do not see even 2-3 parameters. In other words, by default, vBulletin out of the box already complies with Google's and Matt Cutt's recommendations. So why is mod_rewrite needed, let alone vBSEO?

Answer: It isn't.

While current sites may be doing well because of their committment to their site over time and success with other general marketing/advertising/community building methods, it is difficult to imagine that they will not eventually upgrade given that other forums are experiencing 500%+ growth in revenue!

When DigitalPoint chooses vBSEO, I hope they go IPO so I can secure my shares early.

Oh, please. Your incessant infomercial advertising posts are becoming increasingly tiresome. DigitalPoint is not going to choose vBSEO and you know it. Why the heck would he? HE DOESN'T NEED IT. DigitalPoint forums shot from nowhere to top 10 in less than a year WITHOUT ANY HELP WHATSOEVER from vBSEO or mod_rewrite.

And, in case you missed this...

See the vbulletin.com thread on vBSEO at http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=162960

Especially note this part from a vBulletin team member:

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1327309&postcount=48

I don't know of any staff member that actually likes the product. It has ruined quite a few vBulletin installations and then we have to pick up the pieces for our customers. From our standpoint, it is a support nightmare.

There are other similar comments from other vBulletin Team members following in that thread.

 

[jward]

Denial is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt - Mark Twain

I'm must kidding with you - I know you are a psychologist.

 

[djbaxter]

I'm must kidding with you - I know you are a psychologist.

I don't understand. I assume your quote about denial is in reference to yourself and your refusal to accept the overwhleming evidence that you are wrong. Is that incorrect?

Spiders do not see session IDs or multiple parameters in out-of-the-box vBulletin URLs.

Were you not aware of that?

 

[jward]

With major sites using static URL (WebmasterWorld, DaniWeb, ChristianForums), SEO specialists advocating them all over the Web, more and more major CMS/blogging software building it right in, Google themselves recommending their use (and using them on their site), major Web destinations like blogger.com, Amazon and eBay employing them to harness more Web Traffic, thousands of vBulletin admins already having chosen vBSEO and growing everyday, it certainly appears that something is certainly getting everyone to move in this direction.

[SIZE=-1]
What does Google think?
[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=-1]http://www.vbseo.com/f104/googles-matt-cutts-suggests-static-urls-seo-benefit-12455/[/SIZE]
• http://www.vbseo.com/f2/google-com-dynamic-vs-static-urls-2466/

Also:

• http://www.vbseo.com/f104/search-engine-watch-case-study-success-static-urls-12456/

 

[djbaxter]

By default, vBulletin eliminates session IDs and spiders do not see even 2-3 parameters. In other words, by default, vBulletin out of the box already complies with Google's and Matt Cutt's recommendations. So why is mod_rewrite needed, let alone vBSEO?

Answer: It isn't.

See the vbulletin.com thread on vBSEO at http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=162960

Especially note this part from a vBulletin team member:

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1327309&postcount=48

There are other similar comments from other vBulletin Team members following in that thread.

Spiders do not see session IDs or multiple parameters in out-of-the-box vBulletin URLs.

Were you not aware of that?

What does Google think?

• [SIZE=-1]http://www.vbseo.com/f104/googles-matt-cutts-suggests-static-urls-seo-benefit-12455/[/SIZE]
• http://www.vbseo.com/f2/google-com-dynamic-vs-static-urls-2466/

Also:

• http://www.vbseo.com/f104/search-engine-watch-case-study-success-static-urls-12456/

You are becoming a master at selective misquoting and misinterprfetation, jward.

You seemed to have missed the parts I cite above.

More:

Google Facts & Fiction

Fiction: Sites are not included in Google's index if they use ASP (or some other non-html file-type.)
Fact: We're able to index most types of pages and files with very few exceptions. A sampling of the file extensions we're able to index includes: pdf, asp, jsp, html, shtml, xml, doc, xls, ppt, rtf, wks, lwp, wri, swf, cfm, and php.

Update to Google and dynamic pages

As the web continues to change and evolve, our algorithms change right along with it. Recently, as a result of one of those algorithmic changes, we've modified our webmaster guidelines. Previously, these stated:

Don't use "&id=" as a parameter in your URLs, as we don't include these pages in our index.

However, we've recently removed that technical guideline, and now index URLs that contain that parameter. So if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is. Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.

And one more time:

Spiders do not see session IDs or multiple parameters in out-of-the-box vBulletin URLs.

Neither Google nor any other major search engine has any difficulty whatsoever crawling the URLs their spiders see for an out-of-the-box vBulletin installation with NOTHING added or altered.