Isnt its time for Punbb to be more SEO Friendly (Page 2 of 2)

You keep saying that - what files? The vbseo files? If that's what you mean, you don't have a right to give people those files, unless you're the creator of vbSEO.
So you're going to have to find someone who's willing to help you create this mod, has the necessary know how, and either will work from scratch, is willing to shell out $149 dollars for a copy of vbSEO, or is willing to get the "files" from you pirate-style.

Arrggg, matey. Seems like a waste of ye' time to me. Wind in your sails!

supermag, I mean no offense with this, but i also got the impression you just heard about SEO and refered to it as if it would be a new thing to everybody else in here, when in fact there's quite a big amount of experienced webmasters and coders in here. Starting in the dev team.

The urls do matter. .htm, .html or no extension, I have never found a proof of any difference between any of those, but they are more SEF then using extensions like .php. Google publicly says it. There is a limit of indexed urls when they only difer in their querystring. So, yes, rewriting does matter. For those who insist that it doesn't, please read this before any repply
http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … topic=8522

Supermag, you might want to give a look at a SEO script i wrote for punbb
http://punbb.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=14186

It features url-rewriting with meaningful urls, you can use it together with a tweaked topicview and you get the same effect as vbseo.
In fact I am curious, What's so special with vbseo?
So far you only pointed url rewriting, are we all forgetting punbb was the first forum software outputting clean valid XHTML?
I know a few stuff that could be changed in punbb's output that would help when it comes to seo. I can tell it latter, now I would really like to know what does VBSEO has that you think it's effective in terms of seo.

now, in repply to several posts in this topic... saying that content is the best SEO doesn't contribute with anything to this discussion, SEO is about getting the maximum out of a website content, not about touching the content itself. There's nothing wrong with SEO.
Also, another common mistake repeated a few times in here: having 100.000 indexed pages doesn't mean a website is SEF, at all. It's no use to have many indexed pages if they don't get visited anyway. I prefer to have 50 indexed pages but geting on the top of google for each page keywords.

You misunderstood the intended meaning, methinks. If the content is worth a jot, then it will be indexed and catalogued. It was never said that it was the absolute, merely that it was the main and most important factor, as it is and always will be. You can optimise URI's until the day you die, but if your content isn't worth a jot, no end of base system alterations will make any noticeable difference. Content always should be, (and is), the primary concern. No more, no less. Anything after that fact is, as in the reference, an optimisation and nothing more.

For the SEF discussion, I will just drop back to good old fashioned stubborness and annoyance. I really do see no point in humouring a system that prefers using filesystem semantics and rules for non-filesystem originating indexes. Plus, and this is just from my limited knowledge from the bit of time I have looked into SEF/SEO, (so may be incorrect in part), but literally having to break a http server by rewriting a 404? request for something which is not technically unfound, but has been broken specifically just to create search engine friendly URI's is, in my book, begging for problems, and a totally incorrect use of the error handlers primary and legitimate function. That's not to say it doesn't work, but it's an annoyance in the same manner as html e-mails are. They are, (in my personal opinion), outright abuses of a legitimate system.

as i said... my friend paid for it, so do i need to pay too for not using it as i dont use vb ..

And it's a closed source product, iirc.