« Reply #110 on: September 27, 2005, 08:52:36 AM »
masterchiefQuote from: kenmcd on September 27, 2005, 04:06:55 AM
Hmmm . . . what is this thread about? . . . hmmmm.
Oh yeah.
When will SEO be integrated?
« Reply #109 on: September 27, 2005, 08:30:55 AM »
SakaYes you jumped into conclusions, at least you admit that. The lack of information
is not excuse for making accusations, you could have simply asked instead.
Now that you lost your arguments about me holding back core development for personal
benefit you keep insisting that there is some kind of conceiled information about
core that I am not willing to disclose.
In case you haven't noticed Joomla! is open source. Anyone can read the code, find
out the problems and propose solutions. There is nothing hidden about this.
Itemid IS a big problem in core's structure and this problem won't be solved until
the database has been restructured. I keep telling you that but you refuse to read
again. The workarounds in SEF advance are just patches developed over years, still
with many issues that can't be worked around. There is no magic solution that I
hide.
Over years I have been working and helping many, many users that kindly asked a
specific question. Many solutions and workarounds are posted on the old forums,
on my FAQs page etc.
Now that you attacked me (and keep attacking) I am simply not prepared to be friendly
and helpful to you. So my debate is over anyway.
« Reply #108 on: September 27, 2005, 04:09:55 AM »
kenmcdQuote from: Saka on September 23, 2005, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: kenmcd on September 23, 2005, 08:51:12 AM
So Title Alias was added to the core for an SEF Advance customer.
It was added for a commercial customer.
Did I miss something here?
This is somehow a mitigating circumstance?
Geez. I must be completely freakin' mad.
Reply #107 Omitted
Reply #106 Omitted
Reply #105 Omitted
« Reply #104 on: September 24, 2005, 06:34:42 PM »
masterchiefQuote from: kper on September 24, 2005, 09:27:28 AM
I contributed to the thread merely to say:
"please look at the priorities again and let us know more precisely where things
are going on this, how and when."
Partly because I did not put much in to the old forums, but did gain an awful lot
out of them.
Maybe that's all I should have said.
Reply #103 Omitted
« Reply #102 on: September 24, 2005, 01:41:53 PM »
zoomertwo things here. i'll get to the "bigger issue" in a sec.
first:
wow. it's good to see such a lively discussion on this.. i've been wanting better
sef support since day one (before there was such a thing in mambo).. but for my
OWN sites, not really for the search-engines' benefit, but for web site visitors.
simple, structured url's within a site are much easier for visitors to use, share,
remember, and type in. and when they look at the url, they know where they're at
in the site.
http://www.joomla.org/content/view/5/6/
means absolutely NOTHING to anyone or anything except the php core behind the scenes,
but
http://www.joomla.org/docs/license
is crystal clear.
and url's referring to components are worse.
http://www.joomla.org/component/option,com_faq/Itemid,44/
what the heck is that? how about
http://www.joomla.org/docs/faq
but the kicker is "home"..
http://www.joomla.org/ would be how joe schmoo would go to the home page of the
site, but the software really likes
http://www.joomla.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
i've used what is now opensef on several sites, and i love it's complete flexibility.
what i don't like, is having to manually type all that data in on sites with several
dozen or more pages, but when it's all done, it's a work of art.
sef is needed, yes. for search engines, it's ALREADY covered with what's in the
core.. i'm referring to "people friendly url's", which, i think is more important,
because it goes one step beyond just being search-engine friendly, it's called being
"people friendly". and we make web pages for PEOPLE, NOT GOOGLE.
ok. so about that bigger issue i reference in the subject....
the main issue here, i think, isn't about sef and ensuring that the sef support
in the core is good enough. it's whether the project, as a whole, will be JUST A
FRAMEWORK for commercial (and open source) developers to work with; or will the
project actually include features that are frequently requested by the community,
the users, the regular joes, that use the product.
the core developers need to remember that the end-users, the web site developers,
teachers, students, parents, the grandma's, etc, for the most part, are NOT going
to be php and mysql experts! nor does everyone have the budget to hire out for help.
so a decision needs to be made: which target audience is this project going to be
developed for.... the professional developers and php experts; or the regular guy.
will it be a bare framework or a more complete web site management product. right
now, it's looking rather bare (always has). many of the commonly requested features
should be officially added to the project, perhaps as the (official) "joomla addons'
i saw listed in on the forge when i was poking around, with the most frequently
requested of those maybe included in the core distribution itself. you can
add things to the core without it looking like JAN (just another nuke).
AND the decision on whether or not to include a feature or component in the official
project should NOT be determined by whether or not there is a commercial application
(or who's making it) out there already that does the same or similar thing.
personally, i tend to shy away from 3rd party things for joombo, mainly because
things have changed too frequently and developers are coming and going all the time.
you've got no assurances that the guy's even going to be around at the next rev
or not... and paying for one? forget it, unless it's a custom app for a client (who
gets the code and exclusive rights or copyright assigned to them).
if i need a feature that's not in joombo (which is my own preferred 'site server'
for most projects), i go find a suitable cms that has more of what i need already
in place (all told, i work with about a half-dozen ones. i've also written my own
basic scripts to manage a couple sites)... other cms projects may not be as 'user
friendly' as joombo, but they may have a wider or different selection of addons..
and many other open source cms projects with large communities do not have near
the number of "commercial" developers selling addons either; which is more attractive
to me and my clients who, for the most part, are small nonprofits, churches, individuals
(the joe schmoo's and grandma's), and small businesses with small budgets.
Reply #101 Omitted
Reply #100 Omitted
Reply #99 Omitted
« Reply #98 on: September 24, 2005, 08:19:53 AM »
masterchiefQuote from: kper on September 24, 2005, 08:04:39 AM
And I most definitely don't like being set up in opposition to some mythical
blind person in such a crudely rhetorical way.
That is what is unfortunate. But I assume it was born of frustration. Which I do
understand.
« Reply #97 on: September 24, 2005, 08:13:00 AM »
stingreyIf your arguing that this issue is being ignored, you've just had
4 and now 5 Core Members discuss this topic, so you cant use that argument.
The core code written by Emir for URL rewriting allows for extensibility for 3rd
party addons well before the idea of making extensibility easier via mambots.
So in this regard Emir was at the forefront of this effort.
As you will no doubt know now, Marko [predator] is now a Core Team member and we
have already discussed the SEFBot approach we will be adopting for 1.1 with him
(we had already examined this route before this discussion was brought up).
I also totally agree that there are far more important priorities like Usuability and Accessibility than SEF/Human Readable URLs.
Reply #96 Omitted
Re: When will SEO be integrated?
« Reply #95 on: September 24, 2005, 08:04:39 AM »
kperWell, that's clear then.
Personally, I don't agree with Ken's particular stance or approach, but I do have
a perfectly legitimate and reasonable interest in the issue of itemids, the pathway
and URLs and their relative development priority (which I place quite high).
I don't mind buying an add-on to achieve my aims - that is currently the best solution.
I don't want to be "placated."
I don't want "pretty" anything.
And I most definitely don't like being set up in opposition to some mythical blind
person in such a crudely rhetorical way.
That is what is unfortunate. But I assume it was born of frustration. Which I do
understand.
Reply #93 Omitted
Reply #92 Omitted
Re: When will SEO be integrated?
« Reply #91 on: September 23, 2005, 10:37:01 AM »
SakaQuote from: kenmcd on September 23, 2005, 08:51:12 AM
So Title Alias was added to the core for an SEF Advance customer.
It was added for a commercial customer.
Did I miss something here?
This is somehow a mitigating circumstance?
Geez. I must be completely freakin' mad.
« Reply #90 on: September 23, 2005, 09:00:03 AM »
masterchiefQuote from: kenmcd on September 23, 2005, 08:51:12 AM
So Title Alias was added to the core for an SEF Advance customer.
It was added for a commercial customer.
Did I miss something here?
This is somehow a mitigating circumstance?
Geez. I must be completely freakin' mad.
Re: When will SEO be integrated?
« Reply #89 on: September 23, 2005, 08:51:12 AM »
kenmcd@masterchief
I am not impugning your integrity - please do not take this as such.
What I am questioning is a situation.
A situation which has likely been created over time.
There is no disputing that there are elements in the core which support advanced
SEF components.
How and why they got there is actually irrelevant (but interesting none the less).
Everyone must acknowledge that there are conflicting priorities in all projects
- open source and commercial.
Limited resources are allocated with great pain in all cases.
Let's get back to the original question - "When will SEO be integrated?"
I obviously have an opinion why this has not happened in the last 18 months to 2
years.
Whether I am wrong or right, the priority has not been to put advanced SEF into
the core.
Or it would have already happened.
The Core Team cannot do everything on the wishlist when desired. This well known.
Contributions are very valuable. But, as acknowledged by the current discussions
to create better communications with the Core Team, Core members knowledge and input
is crucial to the completion of certain tasks.
There are people working on this SEF issue now who could use the knowledge of the
Core Team to complete the task.
My opinion again - certain people could be more helpful to the effort.
The silence is deafening.
So much of the info needed is just simply missing.
. . . just did a Preview and saw the other posts . . .
So Title Alias was added to the core for an SEF Advance customer.
It was added for a commercial customer.
Did I miss something here?
This is somehow a mitigating circumstance?
Geez. I must be completely freakin' mad.
Reply #88 Omitted
Re: When will SEO be integrated?
« Reply #87 on: September 23, 2005, 08:28:24 AM »
SakaHi Andrew and Ken,
Despite the personal issues I happened to be around and read this.
Just a small addition to what Andrew already said. Title alias field was added for
benefit of a large Mambo customer: Devshed.com. We wanted them to use Mambo and
they had this requirement so we put it in core. After that several 3rd party components
made use of this field. So Ken sometimes it's better to ask than speculate.
Regarding the question how the things are solved in SEF advance I already explained
that. Just go up and read. It's a patch on patch solution (patched for years) that
doesn't solve the base problem: core's structure.
The patch solution requires support and constant maintenance. In the same time increasing
the load. That's why it's not very suitable for core.