In Reply To:
there are some that are less polite (once you catch them, however, you can usually ban them altogether with robots.txt).
Well, many of them are offline web browsers which are challenging, if even possible, to ban without also banning legitimate visitors.
In Reply To:
I'm not interesting in making that switch, however, unless I can still have search-engine-friendly (i.e. static-looking) urls in my links directory.
I'm amazed that for how many times this has been brought up, I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that dynamic URLs are
not search engine friendly...
In Reply To:
but since I've got your attention...
Barely. :) I just moved and am slowly climbing out of the box I've been living in for the past week, so attending to other people's projects is a distant second priority to my own web stuff that needs my attention, and that is barely getting done next to moving/cleaning/unpacking/painting/renovating type projects...
In Reply To:
What do I need to change so that category and detailed links appear in that static-like format
Short answer: you don't. As Adrian alluded to, that is simply a way of accessing the dynamic categories, not a built-in linking method (which makes the feature pretty much frivolous, if not worthless, in my opinion).
I would't even want to begin looking into how to change that. It would require overhauling the category functions that build all cat/subcat links (never an easy thing) and probably performing a reverse lookup to get the category name in place of its corresponding ID.
Before you venture down that road, I would consider whether the goal is even a truly static-looking URL to search engines (brushing aside the topic of whether or not it even matters). My guess is it is not.
Dan