Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Search engine friendly URLs: Worth keeping? #2913

Closed
Hristo- opened this issue Jul 3, 2015 · 8 comments
Closed

Search engine friendly URLs: Worth keeping? #2913

Hristo- opened this issue Jul 3, 2015 · 8 comments
Labels

Comments

@Hristo-
Copy link
Contributor

Hristo- commented Jul 3, 2015

Is this option still worth keeping?

@live627
Copy link
Contributor

live627 commented Jul 3, 2015

Can you please explain your reasons for removing it?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Hristo Hristov notifications@github.com
wrote:

Is this option still worth keeping?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2913.

@Hristo-
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hristo- commented Jul 3, 2015

Everytime someone asks for this option the answer I see is that it was intended to ease forum's indexing by the old time search engines which had some dificulties with the standard format. If it's of no real use nowadays, then isn't it bloat?

Also everyone initially thinks this option works like Pretty URLs and they expect a different effect.

@XinYenFon
Copy link
Contributor

I agree its pretty much useless, I never used that feature. But it needs upgrade, removing is not an option here, I know some forums still using it. So its better to leave it there and make something good with SMF 3.0.

@badmonkey72
Copy link

How would removal affect million+ post forums currently using it? Wouldn't that potentially break thousands of links, both internal and external?

@XinYenFon
Copy link
Contributor

that's exactly what happens :P that's why we shouldn't (still last word comes from dev team) remove that feature instead upgrade it in next version (please understand its not a simple feature and needs some planning and coding).

@badmonkey72
Copy link

Sure. My point was to gently say not to remove it just for sake of removal. It certainly would be nice to retain in future versions so links from years ago aren't broken. Suffice it to say one of "those" million post sites is mine. lol. Whether the feature should be useful at this point gets eclipsed by the fact that, right or wrong, it has been used for many years by my site. It would be a huge consideration in potential upgrades. What I'm saying isn't for sake of demands or anything like that. It's simply to serve as a reminder there are some of us out there with an interest. :)

@Hristo-
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hristo- commented Jul 7, 2015

Because no dev has spoken yet whether or not this option has any usefulness in it, lets assume for now that it's completely useless. In that case if not removed IMO it at least should be disabled (like choosing non UTF-8 encoding), so no new forums would use it and thus inducing a future problem.

Now, excuse my ignorance, but isn't it possible this to be solved with a redirect and maybe canonical tag?

@MissAllSunday
Copy link
Contributor

The option as it is has become old and obsolete, however, removing it could cause some mayor issues for users, considering this option really and directly affects one of the most important aspects of a forum.

Sure we can remove it and offer a redirect for those that used to use this but that would have a negative impact on users, after all, there is a large portion of users out there that firmly believes having so called "SEO" urls is a "must have" and will be very pissed off to see their precious urls were changed to vanilla SMF ones.

I'm all in favor of removing features when the usage is minimal and/or doesn't really affect overall functionality but I'm afraid removing this one would be too much.

@live627 live627 closed this as completed Jul 9, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants