I am suggesting possibility of removing boardname in the topic link
Isn't going to happen. There is value to having it the way it is. Both semantically and technically, in fact.
Meanwhile, I don't know the board link can be configured in the admin panel ( as you showed in the screenshot), a big PLUs!
Which is why I deliberately made a screenshot in my first reply. The fact I have to repeat myself is disheartening.
Never said it should be like wordpress, just giving example.
Except that by pointing it out, and then reiterating your point, you actually are asking for it to be like that.
Never said you talk about bookmarks, you may say members have to bookmark the favorite link in this forum...
So, you bring up a point then tell me that I *may* mention it (even though I didn't, and have no real reason to do so)? Nice to know what I'm entitled to talk about.
So let's nail this once and for all. Bookmarks are unchanged, if a user wants to bookmark a thread, they really don't care what URL it is provided the bookmark takes them to roughly the right place (cf infinite scroll and the like). In this scenario SEO URLs are irrelevant. Why you brought bookmarks up, I have no idea.
SEO URLs are relevant when people are sharing a link to your forum on other sites, especially on the likes of Facebook, Twitter, etc because it is there where the SEO benefit will be realised, as marginal as it is. And it is there where the URL becomes important to have keywords and be nicer looking - because that's where people are going to see it.
Some members are influential in the community that others will always like to visit their profiles,checkout their latest posts etc, they will be happy if they can simply type their links direct in browser
Oh, you really don't understand SEO or actual usability, do you?
That just isn't how the majority of users actually do this. I don't type in URLs to posts. I don't even type in URLs to peoples' profiles (except locally in testing)... I click on their name by their post. If they're influential, they'll have a meaningful name to click on.
And before you start down the argument of this, note Facebook. Study it carefully. People on Facebook who care about their vanity name (for that's what they call it), i.e. facebook.com/arantor or similar are usually doing it to assert their identity and/or branding. Most people just don't type it in, though, they find it, or click on a link to it. They don't type it in. Even if they know it, they still probably won't type it in. Copy/paste is so much quicker. Or, from a usability standpoint, browse then search. Browser searching is also so much more efficient than it used to be, too.
This will also improve usability.
Except that it doesn't.
Yes, I'm going on holiday for two months whereupon I will have little time to visit or work on Wedge, and I won't have to talk to people who clearly don't understand the points they're actually trying to argue (not suggest), because how they do it is different to how 99.8% of the rest of the internet population does it.
There was NOTHING in this thread that was a suggestion. It was all 'this is how you should do it and here's why I think you should do it even though I don't want to listen to any opinions from anyone but myself'. At least, that's how I saw it. I realise English isn't your first language, and that what seems to be a suggestion comes across differently but that's why I gave it the benefit of the doubt the first couple of posts - by the last post or so, it was clear to me that you weren't interested in what we have to offer unless it suited what you want to see.
Give me a REASON why these things are so, one that actually fits with the evidence and I'll take you seriously. People don't type in topic URLs, doubly so with the topic id in it for the obvious reason that they're not memorable (which is the principle criteria for typing a URL in rather than discovery/copy-paste/search). Names are also tricky for several reasons as recently discussed about when users change their name. Why is 'not having the board in the URL' better usability?
