one of the weak points of original easymoblolg was the ZERO SEO it had
now i see that the descritpion tag and keyword tag is empty rather than always same content it had before
i have solved that problem in with a partial, but fully satisfying temporary solution - by inserting the macro
{POST.post_mail_subject}
for the subject of the mail into the description meta tag AND the title metatag of the post-template
header_post.tpl.htm
twice identical content for title and description meta tags may be less than ideal but many times better than a default value for all posts or no value at all.
may be such template change could become a default in a future release ?? ... until someone finds a solution to add an individual description metatag for each post ??
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I've added a comment in our 'Support for multiple topics' RFE (1315711) to update the META tags - so when we support multiple tagging we will ensure that we include those tags in the META data.
iamdecal is also investigating changing the way we reference posts all together to make it much more search-engine friendly (RFE 1315718)
Most likely these will be addressed in version 2.0.
1.1 (a bugfix release) should be out before christmas. I can commit your change above in 1.1. Looking at the current CoMoblog source though I assume you have actually created your own header_post.tpl.htm template - as that isn't a standard template. I assume you have just duplicated index.tpl.htm and made the specific changes above ?
Regards,
Mark.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
hans51, since you asked about this, i wondered if you'd like to do some testing on engine friendly urls,
i'm currently running them on my site at http://www.iamdecal.co.uk and am seeing a lot more trafic, but it requires that you are useing apache to serve the site and can use mod rewrite (via a htaccess file works for me) and can copy up some updated html for the main site and each of the modules that use links.
it also needs you to add a row to the db, so you need access to that as well. this is so that a global setting to use or not use the urls can be applied to each of the modules and templates
if your interested give me a call and i'll email you the details (or we can talk about it on here if other people are interested)
if anyone else has any comments to add that might relate to this, feel free to stick them in this thread and we'll add in as much as we can
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Now, I'm been thinking and tinkering with this some more.
The parameter you have added for turning the SEO-friendly URL's' on and off make sense. I've deleted the htaccess file from my installation (under Apache) and I can still goto
Sooooooo, whats the htaccess doing ? If we can just user that URL then the part after the 26/ appears to just get dropped anyway and ignore - no rewrite needed ?
What am I missing here ?
By the way, we might add a call back function in modules.inc.php that modules can call to write that URL - such that every module doesn't need to check the SEO-friendly flag (i.e. retrieve_post_url($post_id) which returns a string of "http://blaahblah/comoblog/post.php/25/blah"). Sound okay to you ? Let me know and I can commit it through.
S.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
the call back is a good idea, as it cuts down on the module size and also means that they wont need rewriting in future to cope with any other changes .
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
one of the weak points of original easymoblolg was the ZERO SEO it had
now i see that the descritpion tag and keyword tag is empty rather than always same content it had before
i have solved that problem in with a partial, but fully satisfying temporary solution - by inserting the macro
{POST.post_mail_subject}
for the subject of the mail into the description meta tag AND the title metatag of the post-template
header_post.tpl.htm
twice identical content for title and description meta tags may be less than ideal but many times better than a default value for all posts or no value at all.
may be such template change could become a default in a future release ?? ... until someone finds a solution to add an individual description metatag for each post ??
Hi Hans,
Sorry for the late reply, bad time of year.
I've added a comment in our 'Support for multiple topics' RFE (1315711) to update the META tags - so when we support multiple tagging we will ensure that we include those tags in the META data.
iamdecal is also investigating changing the way we reference posts all together to make it much more search-engine friendly (RFE 1315718)
Most likely these will be addressed in version 2.0.
1.1 (a bugfix release) should be out before christmas. I can commit your change above in 1.1. Looking at the current CoMoblog source though I assume you have actually created your own header_post.tpl.htm template - as that isn't a standard template. I assume you have just duplicated index.tpl.htm and made the specific changes above ?
Regards,
Mark.
hans51, since you asked about this, i wondered if you'd like to do some testing on engine friendly urls,
i'm currently running them on my site at http://www.iamdecal.co.uk and am seeing a lot more trafic, but it requires that you are useing apache to serve the site and can use mod rewrite (via a htaccess file works for me) and can copy up some updated html for the main site and each of the modules that use links.
it also needs you to add a row to the db, so you need access to that as well. this is so that a global setting to use or not use the urls can be applied to each of the modules and templates
if your interested give me a call and i'll email you the details (or we can talk about it on here if other people are interested)
if anyone else has any comments to add that might relate to this, feel free to stick them in this thread and we'll add in as much as we can
I'm reviewing the commits now. The only thing i'm not 100% happy with is the mod_rewrite reliance. How do other blogs achieve this ? The same way ?
S.
its mainly done this way, the other option is to use a custom 404 page but thats pretty bad for SEO as it still returns a 404 error
i agree that its not ideal though... im not really keen on the number of things that need to be in place that the average user may not understand.
Now, I'm been thinking and tinkering with this some more.
The parameter you have added for turning the SEO-friendly URL's' on and off make sense. I've deleted the htaccess file from my installation (under Apache) and I can still goto
http://test.serialmonkey.com/comoblog2/post.php/26/Iamjustafred
Sooooooo, whats the htaccess doing ? If we can just user that URL then the part after the 26/ appears to just get dropped anyway and ignore - no rewrite needed ?
What am I missing here ?
By the way, we might add a call back function in modules.inc.php that modules can call to write that URL - such that every module doesn't need to check the SEO-friendly flag (i.e. retrieve_post_url($post_id) which returns a string of "http://blaahblah/comoblog/post.php/25/blah"). Sound okay to you ? Let me know and I can commit it through.
S.
on my server i need to have the ? in place, ie
http://test.serialmonkey.com/comoblog2/post.php/26/Iamjustafred
wont work
but
http://test.serialmonkey.com/comoblog2/post.php?/26/Iamjustafred
will work - personally i think it looks a bit manky ;-)
with the htaccess in place, i can also use
http://test.serialmonkey.com/26/Iamjustafred
which is much nicer both visually and technically
the call back is a good idea, as it cuts down on the module size and also means that they wont need rewriting in future to cope with any other changes .
Wonder if thats a server thing or a browser thing ? What web server and browser config are you running to see that behaviour ?
http://www.iamdecal.co.uk/post.php?/696
vs
http://www.iamdecal.co.uk/post.php/696
its the server as far as i know, apache 2.0 only got firefox for linux here, so i cant do a lot of testing myself till i get home