UKBF In Need of Baisc SEO

[david64]

One good reason to only have one URL (excluding query strings) that will load a page:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/
http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/index.php

Not splitting off social media votes. Unfortunately, they don't check for redirects.

[PromoAde]

I don't get it. What are you pointing out ?

[david64]

I don't get it. What are you pointing out ?

There are two URLs you can access the UKBF forum homepage from:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/index.php

The later is used as the link in the top left hand corner (the logo). This means that any links to [/forums/index.php] are not counted as links to [/forums/], which is the main page. i.e. the link equity is being split. It also means that any internal links are going to [/forums/index.php] and not passing any internal link equity to [/forums/].

Also, as mentioned, the two URLs are being submited to social bookmarking sites, which means that the votes are split when they should all be counted as votes to the same page.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/
http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/index.php

PageRank is also split on those URLs 4/5.

[directmarketingadvice]

Looks like it's doing ok: top two positions for "business forum"

http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&source=hp&q=business+forum&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=business+forum

Steve

[rendy]

Looks like it's doing ok: top two positions for "business forum"

Steve

Indeed, you can't really argue with that can you!

[david64]

Indeed, you can't really argue with that can you!

The argument wasn't that UKBF has poor search engine rankings, but to demonstrate the affect that poor architecture can have on social media. The problem is a simple one that is pointed out on pretty much a weekly basis here to those who submit their site for appraisal.

[rendy]

To be fair the title of this thread 'UKBF In Need of Basic SEO' implies that the site doesn't have any, and ranks poorly in search engine searches, which it doesn't - so it's not in need of search engine optimisation.

I do agree though, that for a consolidated page rank and for a consistant gateway, the index.php should be redirected to / (an easy 2min .htaccess fix) but I'll also say not having it, has evidently not done the SERPS any harm!

[david64]

To be fair the title of this thread 'UKBF In Need of Basic SEO' implies that the site doesn't have any, and ranks poorly in search engine searches, which it doesn't - so it's not in need of search engine optimisation.

Not linking to your homepage as ./index.php comes under the umbrella of basic SEO. I didn't say the site ranks poorly in search engines. It is common that when a site doesn't have canonical URLs or has duplicate content that an SEO will say, 'This site needs basic SEO'. It doesn't matter if other aspects are sound or if that site happens to be an authority site such as this, it would still likely benefit from it. One site I have worked on gets 6,000 hits a day, but many of the pages on the site had the same title tag and there was a lot of duplicate content on it. The issues were poited out as basic SEO issues that could be easily fixed.

I would agree that the title could have been a bit more relevant, something like 'UKBF is Splitting Link Equity and Social Media Votes'. However, I have long been aware of the importantance of writing attention grabbing headlines as they drive clicks. The intention was to start a thread up about splitting social media votes with careless URLs, whcih is becoming quite prevelant now due to changes by certain CMSs.

I do agree though, that for a consolidated page rank and for a consistant gateway, the index.php should be redirected to / (an easy 2min .htaccess fix) but I'll also say not having it, has evidently not done the SERPS any harm!

If I agreed with that last statement, I'd happily go into retirement :p

[rendy]

Good post, thanks for actually taking time to put up a nice reply - pretty informative!

...something like 'UKBF is Splitting Link Equity and Social Media Votes'...

Doesnt quite have the link baiting appeal agreed

[Ali-v-8]

the problem is that forums and social media defy the rules because the content is constatly changing.

[david64]

the problem is that forums and social media defy the rules because the content is constatly changing.

Could you elaborate on that? I don't follow. Seems you have your cryptic SirEarl hat on today :p

True that you don't see forums much on SMs if that if what you were refering to.

[I, Brian]

Looks like it's doing ok:
Steve

To be fair the title of this thread 'UKBF In Need of Basic SEO' implies that the site doesn't have any, and ranks poorly in search engine searches, which it doesn't - so it's not in need of search engine optimisation.

The comments kind of miss the point that optimisation is simply that - optimising.

A site can rank well even when not optimised - especially for keywords in the domain - but it's content can rank even better when optimised, and thus help drive in better traffic volumes in a targeted way.

In competitive keyword areas, it becomes like Olympic level competition, where even the smallest difference can lead to one taking a significant lead over a competitor.

For example, vbulletin offers multiple copies of the same pages via different URLs:
http://www.ibrian.co.uk/01-02-2007/seo-for-vbulletin-simple-how-to-and-tips/


Here’s an example of how extensively a *single* vbulletin thread can be duplicated:
- showthread (normal)
- archive
- printthread
- &mode=threaded
- &mode=linear
- mode=hybrid&t=
- &mode=threaded
- &goto=nextoldest
- &goto=nextnewest
- goto=newpost&t=
- goto=lastpost&t=



Something like vbseo can be potentially helpful in this regard - ie, one URL per page - but even that has trade offs that can hamper basic administration.

Is UKBF optimised? Not really - it's search friendly, but optimised is a degree above that.

2c.

[awebapart.com]

Looks like it's doing ok: top two positions for "business forum"

http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&source=hp&q=business+forum&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=business+forum

Yes, that does show that UKBF is doing a lot right, even if some basic problems like the forums/ forums/index.php double home page issue (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=109029&page=2) are there.

But with optimising, especially for a forum, there is always something else that can be improved, and for forums in particular the aim should not just be to rank top for your primary term, like business forum, but to optimise as much as possible in order to get all of your individual threads ranking as highly as possible too (long tail SEO).

Having individual threads ranking as highly as possible benefits everyone. It benefits UKBF since it draws more traffic, and it benefits the good people here who are kind enough to offer advice on that thread, since it gives that advice, and the company providing that advice, a greater audience, not just around the time of the thread, but in the future too for people looking for similar advice on google.

The forums/ forums/index.php issue is a relatively simple issue to address compared to other SEO improvements, and I would class it as one of those changes that doesn't take a lot of time to fix, but should bring a lot of benefit, a high ROI (return on investment) SEO change.

If UKBF do make this change, whilst fixing the code around the logo top left, I would also ask that they remove the word "logo" from the logo's alt text "UK Business Forums logo" - it has a nasty habit of making google think that every page on the forum has something to do with logos, which is a pain if you are actually googling this forum for just logo related posts (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=686491).

There are plenty more optimisations in other areas that can be done in the future to minimise duplicate urls going to the same page for threads and posts, but compared to the double home page issue, some of these I would class as more advanced SEO with a smaller ROI, and some would be more tricky to implement correctly (whilst ensuring that no previous links, internal links within posts when posters link to other posts or threads, and possibly external links, are broken).

[Ali-v-8]

Could you elaborate on that? I don't follow. Seems you have your cryptic SirEarl hat on today :p

True that you don't see forums much on SMs if that if what you were refering to.

Three of the most important thing in SEO Title content and link are all adressesed.

1) Google loves forums as forums are full of information. google has Identified this website as a forum. Many of the pages are titled and linked with the terms business forum

2) The content is about business and there is a lot of it changing every minute. google will come here often and will send people here because thats what it offers information all in one place.

3) loads of quality links internal and external.

ok so they have not removed the index. which they should but if its not broken dont fix it.

I will say this now before anyone else does google does reserve judgement.
and when there is more than 20,000 "UK" business forums then we can see what would happen.