When will SEO be integrated?

[DocMartin]

Think is spot on re fix for H1 being a complex operation, for something that should be easy. I've read the fix twice, but as yet still dunno what I'm to do.

I was earlier sent a fix that involved change in heart of Mambo (in content.php???) - meant that all main titles would be H1. Surely easy enough for one of J! hotshot coders to sort. Worked for him, a web guru; I tried but failed. (Instead, added H1 and H2 definitions to css; added some extra titles to articles: one with H1, others with H2)

Time was, Mambo boasted of "power in simplicity" - wasn't true (not for regular mortals anyway, ok for god-like coders); Joomla puff says it is "easy to manage"

Especially given this thread, maybe a nifty slogan for J could be "Joomla! - by Coders, for Coders"

For this thread - in supposed "wishlist" has so many posts by users wanting further progress towards boosting SEO; a slew of responses explaining various things are impossible in basic Joomla, but if you want you can do it yourself or get something from a third party developer (thank the stars for OpenSEF team says I; also SEF patchers [and yes, hopefully the patch is in 1.5 already); could even buy something from a core developer, not that his selling this had anything to do with lack of SEF  function in basic Joomla.

It's bizarre that get the improvements that can improve things such as abilities of third party developers to produce extensions, yet something as simple and basic as H1 for main titles overlooked.

Maybe have to dream of the day when a slogan could be "Joomla! - by coders [and webmasters] for webmasters"
(with J! team attending webmaster industry events, getting accolades equivalent to those from coding fraternity)

Meanwhile: what of SEF Patch into Joomla! 1.1? Would seem easy enough, and excuses for not doing so weren't strong.
I can't code, but can write, offered to help with potential stumbing block - documentation.

[Vince]

Indirectly, there is. Look into the J1.5 code base, go through all components and modules.
Copy all
/components/com_yyy/views/zzz/tmpl/*.php to /templates/xxx/html/com_yyy/zzz/*.php
and all
/modules/mod_yyy/tmpl/*.php to /templates/xxx/html/mod_yyy/*.php
and change these files to your needs.
Regards,
Niels

This is required in Joomla the latest 1.5 just so we can get H1, H2 etc? 
You are all joking right?!

- Vince

[infograf768]

Not joking,,,
But it is true that once one is made (all folders/sub/files to be put in the html folder of any template), then anybody may use it easily for any template.
The accessibility gurus here could provide one or 2 with all bells and whistles and render a great service to the community.

I forecast this to be the most downloaded item after Jooomla! itself.

[absalom]

Not joking,,,
But it is true that once one is made (all folders/sub/files to be put in the html folder of any template), then anybody may use it easily for any template.

Yet the override means you have to dump that data into every template you use on the site. And since each template is designed differently, you have to account for nuances in design structure (e.g. someone starting their content from the core at H3 instead of H1 in terms of a structured semantic output). Franck from 55 Thinking, Nic and I traded ideas extensively on this topic and how to resolve it with some manner of extensibility so there was user choice within the solution.

The accessibility gurus here could provide one or 2 with all bells and whistles and render a great service to the community.

Yeah, well, Compass and RD have been given the dubious task of doing that as part of D&A WG from what I understand, now that Johan has essentially rewritten the rules to silence any dissent (which is why I'm now no longer part of the U&A group I helped set up). I do know Angie was having problems in the initial implementation phase (and was told to look at Websmurf's notes in this very thread to learn)

I forecast this to be the most downloaded item after Jooomla! itself.

That's the problem. To make it suit your particular template and how your designer chooses to implement J! structures, you have to customise even the override pack - which makes it redundant. In this way, it is no different to what is being done now with 1.0.x and a8e / RD 508 and the like... which means it has the same hit-and-miss success rate as them, which by and large, isn't that good unless you want to go piecemeal through each and every CMP you install on a site after you've installed these 'hacks'.

It also doesn't meet the claims made by our esteemed core team regarding 1.5, or the stated Accessibility Statement for 1.5.

So, we now have people outside the U&A team (in this case, Vince, Doc and G-wizz) who voice the same issue as what has been discovered inside the U&A team regarding the solution provided in 1.5. Since it was not addressed inside the U&A team, the ramifications can only continue to go further.

[eyezberg]

I REALLY don't think you have to copy every com_ and mod_ files into the template just to H1 your article titles, imho that should be done in just a few files (for content output).
I remember discussions from a long time ago with Nic etc about what to use for titles, if it should be H3, H2 or what, where H1 should be used etc, but I don't remember any final guideline on this one point for example having been worked out?

[absalom]

I REALLY don't think you have to copy every com_ and mod_ files into the template just to H1 your article titles, imho that should be done in just a few files (for content output).

Yet the general structure for output remains the same, regardless of what particular CMP you're interfacing with.

And you do have to copy every com_, mod_ and plugin into the template if you even want to get anywhere close to demonstrating an "entirely accessible" website (even then it's still not perfect- see my notes on the J! 1.5 installation sequences in the D&A forum for why). I personally don't like this terminology of "entirely accessible", but since our beloved core team coined the phrase in response to this issue as a way of declaring overrides the way to go, it is therefore up to them to deliver on said claim. The problem is that the template override is just the same solution from the 1.0.x  in a different area. There has been no innovation, no iteration of design.. We're using the same tricks from 2003 to attempt to solve something in 2006. If it didn't work effectively back then, why will it work effectively now?

If J! is entirely accessible as claimed by our core team, they can demonstrate the PoC for this.

After all, you don't want people marketing J! as accessible simply because they got a com_content override package, right ? :P  Isn't that what they're doing here:

Accessibility is a topic that much depends on the client’s demands, the goals of the website designer, the audience of the site etc… It seems there is no one solution-fits-all... What does this all mean? In 1.5, a designer can change every little bit of html the system generates, the standard output however is still the same as in 1.0 to retain backwards compatibility with 1.0 site templates. This allows the creation of accessible, standard compliant, tableless, whatever-the-designer-thinks-is-important, websites...

I already know Robert, Angie and Compass are working on the template override pack. The problem is that the override pack, by and large, only deals with com_content and a few other frontend components.. so it's not every little bit of html the system generates.

I remember discussions from a long time ago with Nic etc about what to use for titles, if it should be H3, H2 or what, where H1 should be used etc, but I don't remember any final guideline on this one point for example having been worked out?

There was a guideline of sorts metered out. It was never publicized due to Nic stepping down in response to certain players in the J! community wishing that he compromise his ethics and standards in order to get the job done. I've got the entire discussion documented via PM.

It was around that time (Dec 2005 / Jan 2006) that I was first experimenting with microformats, and they pointed the way to the solution.

[Hackwar]

The "override package" also adresses all core output like module wrappers and such.

It seems to me you don't like the word override, so I here by redeclare this feature for discussions with you as templating for CMPs.

These templating systems are not something new, its been created, tested and proofed to be good several years ago. It just takes time until all these techniques have made their way through to every software project out there.

[G-wizz]

@absalom

...if you even want to get anywhere close to demonstrating an "entirely accesible" website

Aren't you getting a bit of topic here? This thread is about SEO. Seems like chasing a 100% accessible website is something else. Anyway you have to slice an elephant to be able to eat it. I would welcome small but meaningfull steps in this area. In those small steps I'd imagine that accessibility en SEO go hand in hand. (for the proper SEO, that is ). Lets focus on what can be accomplished instead of everything that's wrong.

If I get this all right, my question is:
What would be the top 10 overides which are meaningfull. How do we get them in such a shape that they are usefull to everyday Joomla users (and if we have them: How could that functionality be absorbed into the core)
I'll have to pay programmers anyway to make modifications. Might as well have them making the right stuff an hand it back to the community...

The only reason why it could be unwise would be if the solution proposed would make a permanent solution more difficult to implement. I would not know this (inability...). If that is what you referring to absalom, than I'm all ears.

[DocMartin]

So, no one stepping up to the plate re ability to fix H1 for titles deeper within Joomla! (in Mambo, was within content.html.php)?

Major kudos to G-wizz to offering to help out here.

[Jenny]

So, no one stepping up to the plate re ability to fix H1 for titles deeper within Joomla! (in Mambo, was within content.html.php)?

Major kudos to G-wizz to offering to help out here.

Actually as was mentioned earlier in the thread there are members of the D&A workgroup that are working on template packs.

[absalom]

So, no one stepping up to the plate re ability to fix H1 for titles deeper within Joomla! (in Mambo, was within content.html.php)?

Major kudos to G-wizz to offering to help out here.

I already am.

You should have a basic macroformat spec by Thursday this week, meaning any decent coder out there who is worth his salt can then create a functional system that can be applied to any CMS.  The first adopter in this respect is the one who gets the candy.

As for this:

The "override package" also adresses all core output like module wrappers and such.

It doesn't address any backend functionality, any real UI issues, any workflow (component.php instead of component.html.php), any 3PD CMP, and it basically means anyone who uses this package and markets their work as accessible (due in part to our core team saying it can and will be accessible) is being sold a dud product as part of the marketing by our core team.

I have no qualms what you market it as, Hackwar. In any and all instances, it doesn't fulfill the necessary scope for meeting the claims the core have made, let alone the requirements of accessibility, and the various standards and guidelines present within it. Changing the buzzword by which you refer to it doesn't make it any more credible, any more rigorous and any more truthful in its scope or functionality.

Surely it would be wiser to issue a retraction (and perhaps a few rewrites of a couple of dev.joomla.org articles?) than to have someone being sued because the core told a developer that once they got the override, they would be accessible..

Because that is what I see the core doing: Claiming publically across various media streams (these forums, dev.joomla.org, the politics surrounding Nic leaving, the D&A Mission Statement, the J1.5 accessibility statement) that once the override pack comes, accessibility is.. well. solved.. when it's not. That means the onus is on you to meet that claim effectively.

[DocMartin]

MMedia: I'd seen re template packs, which seem to me a clunky "solution".
Tho I was evidently too brief in post, my question was re solution deeper within J!, so no need for faffing about with templates.

Looks like absalom's on the case, which is good.

[Think]

As I read this thread I'm reminded of two things that I've been told over the years.

The first was from a business coach talking about growing your business and not letting excuses get in your way. He said:
" Never let a programmer tell you something can't be done, because they'll ALWAYS say it can't be done."

The the other was from a former boss who has been programming since the 70's. He said:
"The best programmer is a lazy programmer."

Could these two things be related? 
Sorry, couldn't resist...

[kenmcd]

Per Richard, the SEO Patch (and more) code changes have been forwarded to the Core Team.
For Joomla 1.5.

My skeptical opinion is that if any of the SEO fixes are adopted in J 1.5 it will be in a limited way and therefore continue to require an external component to fix all the SEO issues in Joomla. I have no confidence that a fully comprehensive solution will be implemented. This would would require that the Joomla Core Team actually accept and implement the recommendations of a non-coder expert in SEO.
Not likely to happen.
Please, prove me wrong.

Have reviewed the current SEO Patch and have many recommendations for Richard to make the SEF Patch "2.0" a more comprehensive solution.

The vBulletin users who actually understand SEO use vBSEO (see OpenSEF forum).
The vBSEO documentation is educational.
They DO actually understand the SEO issues.

Joomla users who actually understand SEO will use a Joomla component that addresses these issues.
This could be J SEF Patch 2.0 or

[PR 101 - for the Joomla PR experts - if you actually pro-actively responded to these issues you could control the information flow. Duh. But that would require some actual Wisdom in the understanding of PR. Not present. Obviously. Look-up "Wisdom.". Gawd, this is fun.]

[Dear Joomla Cheerleader - please do not post here or I will be forced to show the world (actually continue to show the world) what a clueless idiot you are. (yes, I know I ended that sentence with a preposition).]

Anyone here heard of "shakin' the bee jar?"
LOL.
(phunny to me, and those who understand)

Back to the actual issue . . .
SEO features in Joomla will actually require some changes.

Will be interesting to see what actually happens.

Expecting that J 1.5 will NOT actually incorporate comprehensive SEO features, I have proposed to Richard a number of changes to the Joomla SEF Patch which will incorporate fixes for Joomla 1.5.

Hey, if it is actually going to happen, lose the ego and tell me, and the world, it will actually happen in J 1.5. Yes, I know you do not want to respond to me as I am the Joomla-personna-non-grata, but you could actually tell THOUSANDS of Joomla users that their common SEO needs are going to be addressed.
Wadda concept.
Open and honest communication.
Heaven forbid.
Cannot lose the EGO and actually address the issues - openly.
Wow, PERHAPS, that would actually admit one does not know everything.
Glad to see there are some inquiries behind-the-scenes.
Maybe something will actually happen in J 1.5.

As I said before, most likely the SEO issues will be glossed-over in J 1.5.
A comprehensive solution is very unlikely.
If there was a public acceptance and acknowledgment of the SEO issues I may have more confidence.
But, Noooooooooooo!
That would actually acknowledge the issues.
Could NEVER do that.
Then that KM AH could actually be right.
Not going to happen.
Actually acknowledging ANYTHING I say as right - never going to happen.

The GOOD news for Joomla users . . .
We will continue to develop the Joomla SEF Patch to FIX all the Joomla SEO issues.

I imagine there will be a Joomla 1.5 version of the SEF Patch shortly after the final J 1.5 release.

Back to the issue at the core of this thread . . . When will SEO be Integrated?
- when the seller of a commercial SEO component is off the Joomla Core Team
- when the Joomla Core Team embraces SEO as an essential feature
Until then, it is a hopeless pursuit.
Tying to "sell" SEO to an uninformed negative audience is hopeless.

Oh well, hope for the best.

SEO hopes . . .
SEO code for J 1.5 has been forwarded to the Joomla Core Team.
Keep your fingers crossed.
We will be lucky if any of it gets incorporated.


Of course, I am just an idiot who can safely be ignored.

[G-wizz]

I'm not sure if calling names will help winning people for your point of view...   

I do back the importance of this issue. This thread has been read 27.000 times in a rather short period of time. So my guess would be that a big part of the community is hoping for some progress.

[kenmcd]

LOL.
12 months of no progress and you have an opinion.

That is funny.

[compass]

Ok...

[me=compass]gets out his can of gasoline and pours it around liberally[/me]

Yeah, well, Compass and RD have been given the dubious task of doing that as part of D&A WG from what I understand.......

.......To make it suit your particular template and how your designer chooses to implement J! structures, you have to customise even the override pack - which makes it redundant.......

Yup, we are. I would estimate 2-3 weeks for a proof of concept. What I suspect will happen is that people interesting in accessibility or SEO (very closly related, see article on my site) will tend to adopt the file pack wholesale and then just tweak here and there to taste.

the Joomla Core Team actually accept and implement the recommendations of a non-coder expert in SEO

I think I fall into that category, I can't code  :P and am resaonably knowledgable at SEO  (numerous SEO tutorials on my site, feel free to browse and decide yourself if I am talking donkey dookey)

Joomla users who actually understand SEO will use a Joomla component that addresses these issues.

OK, here comes the gasoline part

A "SEF" component that displays titles (and hence keywords) has very little intrinsic value to SEO. I have argued before that really these components should be called HUF.. HUman readable URL's. Now, don't get me wrong here, I use Open SEF myself, and recommend it over others, but I do more more the HUF than SEF reasons, i.e. accessibilty.

One thing does not even seem to get mentioned, and its by far the most influencial in terms of SERP I think. The . At the moment a pages gets appended to the site's which shows up on all pages. Being able to restrict the site title to only the home page and have it NOT show up on interior pages would be more significant than either h1 tags OR SEF.

Sooooo, in summary:

SEO has much more to do with page content and off page factors. As such, a CMS that is "SEO integrated" is a red herring at best as the URL has little influence on SERP

[DocMartin]

A "SEF" component that displays titles (and hence keywords) has very little intrinsic value to SEO.

Ah, but if get just one URL per item, rather than possibly a slew of them (hence, duplicate content penalties), get benefits.

Then, perhaps, we can hope, keep fingers crossed, maybe: "cool URLs" so over time, accumulate benefits as people link to pages, without having to use 301 redirects as URLs change (as joomla upgraded, say).

Titles indeed a biggie
H1, H2 mentioned too.
So, yes, "SEO integrated" should involve a mix of factors. Then, up to users to get content, structure etc right, and go out in search of links.

[compass]

The duplicate content is a possibility, but I can't imagine its making hardly any difference.

If you are curious, this is the research I used for my SEO FAQ (here in the forums)

http://www.seomoz.org/articles/search-r ... actors.php

[DocMartin]

Duplicate content a major problem; been explained before in this forum. And, indeed, on Mambo forum (and 404SEF - try asking the creator of this about the issue, and ItemIDs! [I did try; oh boy])

Google, say, will likely rank just one of the pages with identical URLs (say http://www.joomlasite.com...ID1); all others liable to receive penalties, so appear well down search engine results - as can seem like attempts to spam the index. Inbound/internal links to the other pages therefore of little/no use.
Instead, should have one URL per item; get full value from people linking to this item (page).

It's a daft problem, further evidence re coders not really having SEO/basic website creation really sussed out. (And, yes, stems from Mambo.)

Mainly for this reason, I also don't have links to pdf, print; as found these also led to duplicate content. (or, can tell google noindex I think)

One URL to rule the Item...

Further info: Duplicate Content - Get it right or perish
Setting out guidelines for a site clean of duplicate content

includes:

... all the alternative URLs for the same content (the duplicate content: www and non-www, multiple domains, and differing URL parameters), some of which may already be marked as supplemental results. These need to be fixed so that only one URL per page of content can be indexed.

tons more info on same site. (tons!) - which is by host of people who build websites for a living. Hopefully, Joomla! coding hotshots are already members, contributing and learning, even set to join next meeting by these website hotshots.

[Hackwar]

1. DocMartin, the links you are posting to webmasterworld are not helping, since I - and many others - wont pay for a site I will just look at once.

2. You nicely show why I don't think that SEO and SEF make much of a difference in search engine ranking, but content does. Compass says one thing, you say the complete opposite, you both say, that you know the truth. From all of us, kenmcd knows best and in the end we have 10 to 20 different opinions, which all seem like dogmatic to me. Its this nice thing with religions. Since every major religion has a rule that says, when you don't belong to our religion, you go to hell and since you can't be member of two religions, we all go to hell. Looks similar with the SEO and SEF to me.

[compass]

Well, I would say that my opinion was based on that of some of the worlds best SEO experts (in the seomoz site I linked). To quote about keywords in URL's:

Keyword Use in URL
Avg 2.15 out of 5 | Std. Dev. 1.02

Using the keyword term/phrase in the actual URL of the document may be assigned some weight by search engines, whether used in hyphenation or strung together.

Dan Thies
people use the URL in links, don't they?
DazzlinDonna
Works better for non-Google search engines
EGOL
Probably does not help a lot if the KW is in your filename. However, IMO, owning the KW.com is kickass for rankings and SERP clickthrough.
Michael Martinez
Hyphenated keywords seem to work better.
Scottie Claiborne
Minor and only in play if people link to the page using the page URL.
Todd Malicoat
It is actually important by default. If someone links to your site using the URL, you have the keywords in anchor text rather than just a variable or arbitrary name.

Docmartin talks about duplicate content, I can't see where he gave an opinion about keywords in the URL (aka SEF)

[DocMartin]

Yes, not really diametric views.

Indeed, the page compass cited gives "moderate" rating to eliminating duplicate content - calls it "Uniqueness of Document Text". 4th on list of most important factors.

Sorry if you're finding webmasterworld links require membership. I'm a non-paying member; paying members get access to inner sanctum, the supporters' club. Hadn't realised need even basic membership to see pages as I linked too.

Webmasterworld, as I mentioned, is by webmasters - people doing websites for a living, some of them making v healthy money (see thread on generating a million US from adsense in a few months: a rare case, but are people making plenty of money, and doing so with much effort).
Have you built websites that rank well for competitive terms, Hackwar? (you could try, say, "online poker", or "hotels in hawaii", say; try googling for these and you'll find some highly optimised pages).

Content is king, but not always crucial. Yesterday, say, I searched for flights from Shenzhen to Nanning; came up with Priceline page fairly high up, yet with near zero content, and then found can only book flights originating in US thro the site.
Several other times, too, I come across lousy pages, content wise. There's plenty of "spamming" the index.

I've experienced boost with improved page titles.

Seen pages go into supplemental index apparently as meta descriptions all the same meta description (w joomlaboard; asked about fix, but no answers yet I believe; maybe back to main google index since, not sure why [yes, are mysteries too; should you care to actually learn something about the issue, you'll find google keeps algorithm secret, and makes changes, including to try to combat people who can acieve rankings without any good content).

I've also seen duplicate content pages listed in google; one page doing well, the rest down the list.

Seen, too, that my joomlaboard threads can rank well in google, even tho don't have SEF URLs; I've written of this before, agree with compass that it's in fair part a human friendly issue, but think they can help. Key thing, though, is eliminating those ItemIDs  if any chance of more than one URL for a given "page" of content: with Joomlaboard, that's mostly true (as my "top 5 posts" module content changes fairly often).

So, writing partly from experience with building websites, seeing how they perform, making changes.
On webworld, people doing likewise, but far more gung-ho and expert.

[Jenny]

One thing to think of.. how many of these high ranking pages in any given major commerical category (Priceline was used as an example) pay for their search engine rankings in some way?  Whether it be directly paying for sponsored placement, or by paying for links on other sites which then raise their page rank, etc etc.

Yes search engine optimisation is important.  Search engine friendly urls and human friendly urls are important.  So are a lot of other things that all combine to create a website that gets consistently ranked highly by search engines.  A lot of money also gets spent on search engine placement, and high rankings in a myriad of ways, not just the obvious by paying the search engine to rank.  Let's not fool ourselves about that aspect of it.

Edit: miswording corrected.

Also how many of these very well place commercial enterprises have either a specific person if not a whole team of people who's job it is strictly it keep them at the top of the search engine rankings? 

[DocMartin]

Google doesn't accept sponsored placement in SERPs.
But yes, Priceline surely paying plenty to help ensure high position - thro on-topic links etc. The site drawing a million US in a few months may well have been paying out plenty; but started small.

Will also have SEO figured out, and fine tuned. For instance - v quick check of page source - they have H1 tags for the title, Nanning Airport.
Yes, too, there are teams working on sites like these, inc SEO; and on webmasterworld, several folk post, from in-depth experience.
It's complex; albeit some like hackwar may dismiss SEO without bothering to learn of it.

With Joomla! lacking several basic SEO features, even having basic Search Engine Unfriendly URLs, and at least some in team wilfully ignorant of these features and benefits, it's like hobbling people starting Joomla sites - tying one hand behind their backs, say.
Getting to top of SERPs for intensely competitive terms is so tough, that most of us are best off forgetting about it, in short-term at least. But doesn't mean that can't be competitive elsewhere, and enjoy seeing a smattering of pages rank highly among perhaps a few million results in Google. (Also, in my case, keeping fingers crossed that manage to maintain a spread of fair rankings!!)

Already explained over and over on this forum: not rocket science, and the basics should be simple enough to include in a cms that's supposedly "easy to use".

Given there may be problems for non-(free) webmasterworld accessing some links I've sent, a little further guff and links here; just may interest hackwar, and others reading this thread.

From Google's guidelines (and in SE world, Google is the 800-pound gorilla):

If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few.

Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.

- note that, out of the box, Joomla! evidently fails these basic requirements. (Why???)
Albeit for duplicate content, need to create more than one link to a "page" - but that's easily done, say via main menu, and directly from a sub-menu.
Webmaster Guidelines

Search engine optimization article on Wikipedia looks a useful introduction to the subject. Plenty of stuff to find by searching, but seems that need to take a bit of time to find actual tips, not just sites selling services.

[Jenny]

I brought up reality because we get a number of posts on the forums regarding how someone has done SEO and SEF and etc... and it has been three months (or however long) and they still aren't in Google or MSN or Yahoo or Dmoz.  More goes into search engine ranking than just SEO and SEF.  Discussions like this can kind of be misleading, in that if Joomla! had integrated SEO and SEF then people would have no problems with search engine ranking, and that simply just isn't the case.

I see you mentioned that Google doesn't accept payment for sponsored placement. But it does have sponsored links at the top of each search. (Typically three sponsored links).  I think all of the major search engines except for dmoz has sponsored placement of paid for links.

I just wanted to make it clear that SEO and SEF aren't the be all and end all to search engine ranking.  It takes a lot of hard consistent work to rank well in a competitive market and there are no promises that no matter what you do, you will get top rankings.  In certain markets you can be lucky to show up at all.

[compass]

The three month thing might well be the google sandbox. I can't link to my explanation of it so you'll have to google for it

[Jenny]

I was just using 3 months as an example.. that someone expects their site to show up on Google immediately and it just isn't the way it works.  Sometimes for whatever reason you may never show up at all. 

SEO depends on so many factors that to press the point that if Joomla! had an integrated SEF function or integrated SEO capabilities that it would solve people's problems of search engine ranking is misleading. 

Sure it every little bit most likely helps in some small way to the whole picture.  But the whole picture is pretty darn big, and complicated. 

[G-wizz]

@ compass

A "SEF" component that displays titles (and hence keywords) has very little intrinsic value to SEO. I have argued before that really these components should be called HUF.. HUman readable URL's. Now, don't get me wrong here, I use Open SEF myself, and recommend it over others, but I do more more the HUF than SEF reasons, i.e. accessibilty.

If I'm not mistaken there is a bit more to it. What I've been told: If a URL is human friendly, it gets clicked more. I'm told that about 20% of making the decision on which link to click in a Google result page is decided by the URL. If your link gets clicked more, it will score points and you'll can increase in rank. (as part of many other factors of course).

@MMMedia

I brought up reality because we get a number of posts on the forums regarding how someone has done SEO and SEF and etc... and it has been three months (or however long) and they still aren't in Google or MSN or Yahoo or Dmoz.

People have to understand that onsite factors are only halve the puzzle. Competion and of-site optimisation (incoming links) are also of great influence. The "google bomb" for "miserable failure" shows that off site optimisation can even outweigh any on-site factors.

Could that be the problem in those cases?

So in reality as I see it (i.e. for an ordinary size business) you need to do enough on all aspects. I argued before that J! should do a better job by default for SEO.

But some good news??

I saw an announcement on the dutchjoomla site that an SEO patch will be integrated in J1.5 (see http://www.dutchjoomla.org/content/view/895/2/ for the post (sorry in Dutch)) and: http://www.joomlatwork.com/products/fre ... oomla.html for the description of the patch (Yes, that's in English).

What I don't understand is how this all relates to the things discussed in the last pages in this thread. Can anyone clarify?

[eyezberg]

Human readable links are cool, a setable title per page is better (without the sitename first), for example in a tutorial site, I might bookmark MANY pages for quick access into various topics, all on this one site, like "Photoshop keyboard shortcuts", "Fireworks alpha png", blaabla.. if these all had "GraphicsTutorials.com, .." first, it would be much harder to find what I'm looking for. (these are just made up examples..)
afaik, the free SEF patch allows you to set a title for each menu link at least.