SOLVED: When clicking "Add to Cart", message shows "Your Shopping Cart is Empty"

[bryanearl]

I have spent months, off and on, trying to solve this issue. I have read hundreds of pages in many forums (including this one) and nothing I found and tried ever fixed it for me. I ended up solving it on my own and wanted to MAKE SURE that I passed the information along to others with the similar issue...

ISSUE: When clicking "Add to Cart" on a product, message shows "Your Shopping Cart is Empty" and the product is not added.

SOLUTION: Basically, this came down to the Ceon URI Mapping Module. By default, it allowed a period ( . ) to be in the auto-generated URI mapping, and Zen Cart did not like that.

1. For instance, my products title is:

Flygt Ready-8S 2" 1.1hp Contractor Solids Handling Pump 115v w/o Float

Ceon URI auto-created this default URL:

flygt-ready-8s-2-1.1hp-contractor-solids-handling-pump

2. My fix is to go into the Ceon URI settings (Admin>Modules>Ceon URI Mapping) and

add the following to the "Character/String Replacements" section: .=>-

Now, Ceon URI will replace the period ( . ) with a dash ( - ) when it auto-generates the URI mapping.

3. My new (correct) Ceon URI auto-created mapping is:

flygt-ready-8s-2-1-1hp-contractor-solids-handling-pump-115v-w-o-float

And POOF! It works properly now. I still must go to each and every item that has a period in the title and "edit" it, clicking the checkmark next to
"Tick this box to have the URI auto-generated for this product." so that it auto-generates a new (corrected) URI mapping.

I hope this helps someone in a MUCH shorter time than it took me!

- Bryan Earl

[RodG]

Please forgive me, but this needs to be said.

If you read some of my many postings, both in these and many other forums, I am constantly telling people that redirects (AKA URI mapping) are generally a bad idea. More often than not they are abused rather than used, and as a general rule they will cause far more problems than they ever solve because of this.
Doubly so when people actually use them to hide other problems that should never exist in the first place.

I have spent months, off and on, trying to solve this issue. I have read hundreds of pages in many forums (including this one) and nothing I found and tried ever fixed it for me.
I ended up solving it on my own and wanted to MAKE SURE that I passed the information along to others with the similar issue...
<snip>
Basically, this came down to the Ceon URI Mapping Module.

Thank you for proving my point. You have probably 'wasted' hours of time trying to find the cause of a problem that should not have existed in the first place. You created your own problem by adding something that you don't actually need!

It wouldn't be so bad if something *productive* came from the experience, but I suspect that this is not the case, unless you consider 'human friendly' URL's to be more important than the native indexing performed by the various search engines.

Human Friendly URL's have their place (such as if you want to make it easy for someone to type the URL into their web browser) but they don't do a whole lot for Search Engines, which are equally happy to index a page like

http://mydomain.com/index.php?main_p...roducts_id=124 as they are a page like
http://mydomain.com/flygt-ready-8s-2...115v-w-o-float

The *content* of the site will be identically indexed either way, the only difference is the link presented to whoever is performing the search, and being a link people just have to click on it to get to the site/product... its not as though they need to type it in. In short, no real gains are made, and it could be argued that a URL indexed like http://mydomain.com/index.php?main_p...roducts_id=124 is actually *better* for the SE's than the Human Friendly ones, on the simple basis is that it provides a uniqueness that would otherwise be lost if more than one site uses the same 'remapped' URL.

Examples:
SiteA.com/phonecovers
SiteB.com/phonecovers
vs
SiteA.com/main_page=product_info&cPath=12_9&products_id=124
SiteB.com/main_page=product_info&cPath=44_9&products_id=567

In the 1st two examples (human friendly) 'phonecovers' would get equal ranking.
In the last two examples (SEO friendly) the actual page contents will determine which of the two sites gets the higher ranking.

OK, things are a little more complex than that, but these factors are taken into account when it comes to rankings.

So, once again people. Take my advice. Avoid URL rewrites, mappings and redirections unless/until you know *exactly* what you are doing and why you need to do it. Anyone that uses (or feels they need to use) any of these techniques on a new site should take a step back, because all it really means is that for whatever reason, the site hasn't been correctly setup in the first place. It is better to fix the actual problem(s) than it is to use a redirect/rewrite to 'hide' a problem.

ZenCart is already very search engine friendly 'out of the box'. Once Google, etc have found and indexed a Zencart site its quite possible (and normal) to be able to add new products to a Zen store and the SE's will index the product in a matter of minutes (or days.. it depends on how often they crawl the site, and this is determined by several factors.. but that's yet another ballgame).

I appreciate that most of these comments will fall on deaf ears, and please don't take it as personal criticism, but when it comes to this topic most people tend to fall for the hype rather than the truth.

Apologies for the rant..

Cheers
Rod

[bryanearl]

You are wasting a lot of breath here.

They are called "Search Engine Friendly" URL's for a reason. "Yes", the shopping cart worked fine without any SEO, URI mapping etc. "Yes", the search engines will index your page regardless of the type of URL it has. However, the fact is that search engines will index your website WAY higher in the results with URI mapping enabled. If you are using keywords in your URL that people are directly searching for, you will be placed higher in the search index, end of story.

SO, for that matter, for those people that WANT URI Mapping because they WANT to use keywords in their URL's, I have simply provided a solution for a problem that apparently comes with installing Ceon URI Mapping into Zen Cart.

Why hijack a good thread helping those people with a similar issue, just to impose YOUR personal methods? Start your own Anti-SEO thread for that.

[RodG]

You are wasting a lot of breath here.

I know that.

Most people don't like having their beliefs destroyed.

Nonetherless as a Certified Trainer & Assessor in ICT (Nationally recognized) it is in my nature to at least *try* to separate fact from fiction.

They are called "Search Engine Friendly" URL's for a reason.

Care to explain?

Perhaps you missed the bit where I stated:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples:
SiteA.com/phonecovers
SiteB.com/phonecovers
vs
SiteA.com/main_page=product_info&cPath=12_9&products_id=124
SiteB.com/main_page=product_info&cPath=44_9&products_id=567

In the 1st two examples (human friendly) 'phonecovers' would get equal ranking.
In the last two examples (SEO friendly) the actual page contents will determine which of the two sites gets the higher ranking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless I'm mistaken you are saying that I have this backwards, and that "SiteA.com/phonecovers" is the SE friendly URL, which means SiteA.com/main_page=product_info&cPath=12_9&products_id=124 must therefore be the Human Friendly URL?

In that case I must be a search engine rather than a human, because I find SiteA.com/phonecovers a LOT more friendly than the other.

You can't have this both ways. One of these is SE friendly the other is human friendly.
Do a poll and then come back and tell many how many people think that SiteA.com/main_page=product_info&cPath=12_9&products_id=124 is the Human freindly one.

However, the fact is that search engines will index your website WAY higher in the results with URI mapping enabled.

Please supply a reputable source for this so called fact. No, don't tell me to google it. It is *your* fact, you must have a reference that you can provide as to where you obtained this information.

If you are using keywords in your URL that people are directly searching for, you will be placed higher in the search index, end of story.

There used to be a *little* bit of truth to this.... a decade or so ago, but this hasn't been the case for a long long time. The higher rankings go to the sites with the most relevant content. The URL barely gets a look in these days.

This is EASY to show. Using my current example 'phonecovers'. According to your understanding, if a person goes to google and does a search for 'phonecovers' the highest ranking sites will be those with 'phonecovers' in the URL, correct?

Please go ahead and try...

Excluding the paid adverts, the top link is to www.xcases.com.au/

I don't see 'phonecover' anywhere in that URL In fact I need to go to the bottom of the page for the 1st entry that contains this 'SE freindly URL', namely
www.cellularfactory.com/phonecovers.jsp

IF what you claim had any basis of fact, www.cellularfactory.com/phonecovers.jsp should be the top ranking site. Why isn't it?

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to take this one step further.. TO SHOW THAT ZENCART GETS LITTLE TO NO BENEFIT FROM THIS TYPE OF SEO.

Go to google, and search for "3310 phonecover" (a typical search term for someone looking for Nokia 3310 phone covers).

The 1st few links go to Ebay & Gumtree (another auction site). The reasons should be obvious, these sites will have a *lot* of content that match this search query.

The 4, 5 and 6th links point to
http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?mai...&products_id=2
http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?mai...products_id=17
http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?mai...ndex&cPath=2_8

This is one of our own ZenCart stores. We DO NOT use SEO or URI mapping. These are clearly NOT Human freindly URL's, nor are they the so called SE freindly URL's.
They are zencart native URL's but still manage to occupy three of the top results returned by Google for the relevant search query.

IF the SE Friendly URL's had any value at all then surely
http://www.mytrendyphone.co.uk/shop/...s-13039c1.html (the 1st site returned that has '3310 & 'cover') would be ranked higher than our site, so why do I have to go to page two on Google to find this... and this isn't even an exact match for the search query.. The 1st one that has both '3310' and 'phonecover' in the URL doesn't appear until page 3, with
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/woodv...ssories/nokia-3310-paul-frank-purple-snap-lock-phone-cover/1001100613

SO, for that matter, for those people that WANT URI Mapping because they WANT to use keywords in their URL's, I have simply provided a solution for a problem that apparently comes with installing Ceon URI Mapping into Zen Cart.

I've no problems with you providing a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Why hijack a good thread helping those people with a similar issue, just to impose YOUR personal methods? Start your own Anti-SEO thread for that.

What makes you think this is personal? It isn't. My comments are based on fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why are *you* taking it so personal? Perhaps you somehow blame me for not giving you this education sooner? By you own admission it could have saved you months of work and a lot of headaches if you didn't have to fix a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I give you full credit for supplying a solution so that others don't have to go through the same experience that you did, BUT, if I can teach people that they don't need to put themselves in this position in the first place isn't that a far better solution?

It is easy to make claims that URI mapping is a good thing, but so far I've never seen any evidence of this fact. My own attempts to either prove or disprove the claims have always ended up showing the claims are without merit. Can YOU show otherwise, are are you simply repeating something that you've read somewhere? I suspect the latter.

So, am I still wasting my breath? Maybe, but even if just one person learns something from this and can save themselves from the needless headaches it has caused you and many others, then I consider it a worthwhile exercise......

Will I ever be able to re-educate you? I doubt it. It is MUCH harder to re-educate someone than it is to teach them the right things in the first place, and this is what saddens/peeves me off more than anything. This is why I have 'hijacked' this thread - To give people a chance to learn of the facts before they succumb to the myths.

Cheers
Rod

ps. I also have anecdotal evidence that URI mapping is not only non-beneficial these days, but is in fact detrimental.. IOW, a site is actually penalised as a result of creating HUMAN FRIENDLY URL's. Search engines really do prefer the 'uniqueness' of machine generated URL's, this is probably why
http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?mai...ndex&cPath=2_8 gets a much higher ranking than http://www.mytrendyphone.co.uk/shop/...s-13039c1.html for the same search query '3310 phone cover'. (surely you can see that this is contrary to the SE friendly claims?)

[stevesh]

For some reason, I never get tired of these 'SEO' URL rewriting debates. I used Bing to search for 'rewriting URL SEO' and looked at each of the sites returned on the first two pages of results. Of the sites which recommended rewriting, the latest which had a date posted was from 2009. Most were earlier. One site, which sold rewriting tools, had this posted at the top of the page:

"SEO Tools - URL Rewriting

Google is making some changes on how automated search results are handled, and it is causing some of our tools to not operate correctly. We apologize for any inconviences this has caused, and we are working on ways to make our tools functional again."

I appreciate your providing a fix for those who insist on using these 'tools', although the pretty URL example you provided doesn't tell me the horsepower of the pump any more than the stock Zencart URL does. 2-1-1 hp is meaningless.

I also appreciate RodG providing his usual wall of text providing some very useful information (not just an opinion) that might help other (especially new) Zenners avoid the trouble you experienced.

Even on the Internet, old memes die hard.

[conor]

Hi Bryan,

How are you?

Sorry to hear about the troubles you had, I always hate to hear of people spending lots of time fixing computer problems. It's very disappointing how bad computing is today compared to what it should be like, but that's a whole different topic.. :)

I'm posting in this thread because I want to talk about what the thread was about, it's a pity it was hijacked (I'm not going to comment in detail on the arguments being had about human-readable URIs, all I can say is that they have no negative connotations, people having problems installing modules is not a valid argument against a technology, yet it's the most quoted reason for not using them.. a bit ignorant I think!).

SOLUTION: Basically, this came down to the Ceon URI Mapping Module. By default, it allowed a period ( . ) to be in the auto-generated URI mapping, and Zen Cart did not like that.

Actually, this is wrong. Again, I'm sorry you had the trouble you had, but I can tell from what you said that it is actually your RewriteRules in your .htaccess file that were the problem. I'm pretty certain you've some rule that redirects that uses a . in it... if you redirect during a post Zen Cart receives no data and the product is not added to the cart.

Your solution sidesteps your actual issue but isn't the "right" solution. Fixing the rewrite rules in the .htaccess file is what is required.

I hope this helps someone in a MUCH shorter time than it took me!

It's very good of you to provide this information.. I wish more people would post information about how they solved problems. At the very least I can then see if it's not quite the right solution to the "issue", but that helps everyone all round. :)

The latest version of the module has no known issues and should install fine on any Zen Cart site, with no known compatibility issues.. but lots of people have custom server environments which they don't realise might interfere with static URIs.. the problems people have are almost exclusively to do with these other settings, not the actual URI mapping software itself, it's a pity that some people aren't recognising that fact and mistakenly correlating problems people are having with static URIs with some silly innate reason not to use URI mapping software. Hopefully this will be somewhat enlightening!

All the best..

Conor
ceon

[bryanearl]

Hi Bryan,

How are you?

Sorry to hear about the troubles you had, I always hate to hear of people spending lots of time fixing computer problems. It's very disappointing how bad computing is today compared to what it should be like, but that's a whole different topic.. :)

I'm posting in this thread because I want to talk about what the thread was about, it's a pity it was hijacked (I'm not going to comment in detail on the arguments being had about human-readable URIs, all I can say is that they have no negative connotations, people having problems installing modules is not a valid argument against a technology, yet it's the most quoted reason for not using them.. a bit ignorant I think!).



Actually, this is wrong. Again, I'm sorry you had the trouble you had, but I can tell from what you said that it is actually your RewriteRules in your .htaccess file that were the problem. I'm pretty certain you've some rule that redirects that uses a . in it... if you redirect during a post Zen Cart receives no data and the product is not added to the cart.

Your solution sidesteps your actual issue but isn't the "right" solution. Fixing the rewrite rules in the .htaccess file is what is required.



It's very good of you to provide this information.. I wish more people would post information about how they solved problems. At the very least I can then see if it's not quite the right solution to the "issue", but that helps everyone all round. :)

The latest version of the module has no known issues and should install fine on any Zen Cart site, with no known compatibility issues.. but lots of people have custom server environments which they don't realise might interfere with static URIs.. the problems people have are almost exclusively to do with these other settings, not the actual URI mapping software itself, it's a pity that some people aren't recognising that fact and mistakenly correlating problems people are having with static URIs with some silly innate reason not to use URI mapping software. Hopefully this will be somewhat enlightening!

All the best..

Conor
ceon

LOL I will be staying out of the above discussion on SEO from here on out... I'm sure these guys know a lot more about it than me.

In response to your reply, thank you VERY much for your informative post!! I do in fact have some rewrite rules in my htaccess that are as you described. However, here is some additional information that I did not include in my first post because I was just offering up a possible solution that could be searched and never expected this topic to be replied to....

I have a very intricate website with Joomla 2.5 as my base. I integrated Zen Cart into it via a Joomla Extension called "SolidCart". The purpose of the integration was to share the database and to have a "seamless" website between the information side and the store side. Therefore, my htaccess is rewriting for Joomla as well as ZenCart.

Do you have any suggestions for removing the . rewrite rules, while still maintaining the SEF/SEO functions of both Joomla and ZenCart? I can definitely live with my current configuration, as it all works properly now with all SEF/SEO/URI enabled, but I do agree that I have this underlying issue. Here is my htaccess code:

addhandler x-httpd-php5-3 .php5

##
# @package		Joomla
# @copyright	Copyright (C) 2005 - 2012 Open Source Matters. All rights reserved.
# @license		GNU General Public License version 2 or later; see LICENSE.txt
##
##
# READ THIS COMPLETELY IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE THIS FILE!
#
# The line just below this section: 'Options +FollowSymLinks' may cause problems
# with some server configurations.  It is required for use of mod_rewrite, but may already
# be set by your server administrator in a way that dissallows changing it in
# your .htaccess file.  If using it causes your server to error out, comment it out (add # to
# beginning of line), reload your site in your browser and test your sef url's.  If they work,
# it has been set by your server administrator and you do not need it set here.
##
## Can be commented out if causes errors, see notes above.
Options +FollowSymLinks
Options -MultiViews
## Mod_rewrite in use.
RewriteEngine On
## Begin - Rewrite rules to block out some common exploits.
# If you experience problems on your site block out the operations listed below
# This attempts to block the most common type of exploit `attempts` to Joomla!
#
# Block out any script trying to base64_encode data within the URL.
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} base64_encode[^(]*\([^)]*\) [OR]
# Block out any script that includes a <script> tag in URL.
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} (<|%3C)([^s]*s)+cript.*(>|%3E) [NC,OR]
# Block out any script trying to set a PHP GLOBALS variable via URL.
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} GLOBALS(=|\[|\%[0-9A-Z]{0,2}) [OR]
# Block out any script trying to modify a _REQUEST variable via URL.
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} _REQUEST(=|\[|\%[0-9A-Z]{0,2})
# Return 403 Forbidden header and show the content of the root homepage
RewriteRule .* index.php [F]
#
## End - Rewrite rules to block out some common exploits.
## Begin - Custom redirects
#
# If you need to redirect some pages, or set a canonical non-www to
# www redirect (or vice versa), place that code here. Ensure those
# redirects use the correct RewriteRule syntax and the [R=301,L] flags.
#
## End - Custom redirects
##
# Uncomment following line if your webserver's URL
# is not directly related to physical file paths.
# Update Your Joomla! Directory (just / for root).
##
RewriteBase /
## Begin - Joomla! core SEF Section.
#
RewriteRule .* - [E=HTTP_AUTHORIZATION:%{HTTP:Authorization}]
#
# If the requested path and file is not /index.php and the request
# has not already been internally rewritten to the index.php script
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/index\.php
# and the request is for something within the component folder,
# or for the site root, or for an extensionless URL, or the
# requested URL ends with one of the listed extensions
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} /component/|(/[^.]*|\.(php|html?|feed|pdf|vcf|raw))$ [NC]
# and the requested path and file doesn't directly match a physical file
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
# and the requested path and file doesn't directly match a physical folder
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
# internally rewrite the request to the index.php script
RewriteRule .* index.php [L]
#
## End - Joomla! core SEF Section.

Thank you, once again for the information.

- Bryan Earl

[RodG]

I always hate to hear of people spending lots of time fixing computer problems. It's very disappointing how bad computing is today compared to what it should be like, but that's a whole different topic.. :)

Agreed. 100%.

it's a pity it was hijacked

Guilty, but no real regrets.... discussion leads to learning... learning is good.

(I'm not going to comment in detail on the arguments being had about human-readable URIs,

Understandable, but a little dissappointing (for me). The reason being is that I have a *lot* of respect of your skills and knowledge, especially in regards to SEO, and I was actually hoping that you could be the one person that could shed a bit more light as to why some of the inconsistencies I mentioned exist? All evidence I find still suggests that human-readable URI's do little or nothing to increase the search engine rankings.

I originally started my "anti SEO' stance several years ago whilst playing 'devils advocate' - But surprisingly, the more I delved, the more I discovered what I was saying was closer to fact than I initially thought.

all I can say is that they have no negative connotations,

Two points here:

1) Isn't the point of SEO to have *positive* connocations? The fact that it (apparently) has no negative connotations is hardly a good selling point. :)

2) Isn't it often argued that 'duplicate content is bad for search engines'. Doesn't the fact that creating a human-readable URI is effectively creating two different pages with identical content, and therefore must also be considered 'bad'. Isn't this a negative connotation?

I can appreciate that these questions could be considered as being argumentative, but that isn't my intent. I am genuinely interesting in the answers. I have a hard time coming to terms with this apparent contradiction. Both statements can't be true, can they?

people having problems installing modules is not a valid argument against a technology, yet it's the most quoted reason for not using them.. a bit ignorant I think!).

I'm not sure if this a swipe at me, or simply a generalized comment. No matter, I agree with you, people having install problems is not a valid argument against a technology.

On the other hand, installing modules that are known to cause many problems, with little in the way of proven benefits doesn't exactly seem a smart thing to do.

Caveate: I am NOT referring to your module in any way shape of form, and to the best of my knowledge no one has even had a problem of any kind with your module. I don't wish to give anyone any impression otherwise.

In *my* experience, where most people seem to come unstuck is when/where they've attempted to add more than one module that both require changes to the .htaccess files, and due to inexperience(?) end up creating a conflict or problem that they are unable to resolve.

Those of us without a vested interest in any changes made to the .htaccess file are always quick to recommend the removal of such changes because it is easier for us to do so (to get the site working again) than it is to try to figure out what the changes are supposed to be doing in the 1st place. It isn't just me that does this, DrByte, Kobra, etc all tend to follow this same approach when links go to unexpected places... It is the *sensible* suggestion in most circumstances (if you are honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree).

It is *unfortunate* that this reflects badly on some very good and useful configuration options, most of which should be considered 'advanced' configuration rather than something needed for basic functionality, but that is the reality of the situation.

Actually, this is wrong. Again, I'm sorry you had the trouble you had, but I can tell from what you said that it is actually your RewriteRules in your .htaccess file that were the problem. I'm pretty certain you've some rule that redirects that uses a . in it... if you redirect during a post Zen Cart receives no data and the product is not added to the cart.

This is the very point I'm trying to make. The OP's problem is/was apparently related to a rewrite or redirect in the .htaccess file.
This should be an easy problem to solve (at least for those of us with more experience) but that wasn't to be...

We have to give Bryan a boatload of credit for finding the wrong solution to the right problem. That takes talent, but doesn't it make you wonder what (if anything) else got broken in the process?

The latest version of the module has no known issues and should install fine on any Zen Cart site, with no known compatibility issues.. but lots of people have custom server environments which they don't realise might interfere with static URIs.. the problems people have are almost exclusively to do with these other settings, not the actual URI mapping software itself,

Agreed.

it's a pity that some people aren't recognising that fact and mistakenly correlating problems people are having with static URIs with some silly innate reason not to use URI mapping software.

I accept what you are saying, and can appreciate how you get the impression that this is what I was doing/saying, especially because I came out blazing against URI mapping and redirects. On reflection I should have concentrated more on the 'power' afforded the .htaccess file itself and why it can cause so many problems (that are often difficult to resolve), rather than one of the reasons it is most commonly modified.

My *intent* isn't really to cause an argument (a discussion is another matter), but rather to encourage people to *think* about why they are doing whatever it is they are trying to do.

Hopefully this will be somewhat enlightening!

I hope so too..... Actually, I know it will.... there is bound to be at least one person that has followed this thread and has learned something they didn't know before, even if that knowledge is limited to the fact that the benefits of SEO is, and has been under considerable debate for a long time.

This 'knowledge' can actually be difficult to find in other places because most published information is provided by those with something to gain (ie: they sell SEO services, or produce SEO code <g>), and the rest of us simply don't care enough to present opposing evidence, because frankly there is nothing for us to gain from it other than ruffling a few feathers.

I however don't present this opposing view just to ruffle these feathers (I used to), but as stated at the outset, my position of playing devils advocate actually led me changing my own opinion on the matter, because the *evidence* I'm finding really doesn't match the claims.

Will I change my view again if presented with further evidence that contradicts my own findings? Hell yes, after all, I want our stores (and the stores we maintain) to also get top billing in Google, so why *wouldn't* I want to use this technology if proven to work.

I have shown some practical real life examples that clearly show my rankings couldn't really be any higher even if I had used this technology. I've not come across any examples that show SE friendly URL's would do better. I find this both strange and suspicious.....

Once again, I have no wish to cause you or anyone else any offence. My 'ulimate' aim is to help reduce some of the many problems people find themselves with, and if that involves trying to steer them away from unproven technology, then so be it. For that I make no apologies.

Cheers
Rod

[conor]

Hi Bryan,

I took a look at what you posted but it doesn't seem to me like that's the full .htaccess file? (For one thing, the addhandler x-httpd-php5-3 .php5 line is outside of your code block)?

If you haven't posted your full .htaccess file then please do so and I'll take a look. Or send it to me privately via this address.

Certainly the reason for your problems must be the use of rewrite rules from the SolidCart extension. It's not something I've any knowledge or experience with though, Joomla's a competitor to Ceon's aarck/aawe software, so I have no interest in it. ;)

All the best..

Conor
ceon

[conor]

Hi Rob,

Guilty, but no real regrets.... discussion leads to learning... learning is good.

Indeed.. unfortunately in my case time is so limited these days that I have to keep things brief and this isn't really something I want to get into. :)

Understandable, but a little dissappointing (for me). The reason being is that I have a *lot* of respect of your skills and knowledge, especially in regards to SEO

Thanks, that's very nice of you to say. I've very little experience of SEO though. lol I suppose I should get used to the idea that people would, understandably, think I do.

shed a bit more light as to why some of the inconsistencies I mentioned exist? All evidence I find still suggests that human-readable URI's do little or nothing to increase the search engine rankings.

I wish I did have an authoritative answer for you as you are clearly eager to research and learn about this aspect of the world of e-commerce.. unfortunately I think it may well be that we'll both have to see what others have to say, or have learned about the area, that they can share with us.

1) Isn't the point of SEO to have *positive* connocations? The fact that it (apparently) has no negative connotations is hardly a good selling point. :)

It's not a good selling point but it's a great base from which to start!

Some positive connotations of static URIs are what I wrote the software specifically for.. URIs that are easy to read, type and remember. Ceon URI Mapping's title has SEO in brackets as it was only later that it was found out that its use of keywords in the URIs also increased placement in search engine rankings.

I've nothing against SEO but it's not even remotely a focus for the software, my primary real focus for the software is to make a site more usable. Something which static URIs do, integrating with the real world via URIs and providing easy-to-see context in the same way breadcrumbs do.

It's by no means an essential module/strategy for any e-commerce site but there are those of us who do greatly benefit from the use of static URIs.

For example, I can type addresses for people to click on in e-mails. I don't have to remember dynamic URIs or to copy and paste such URIs.. that's a massive benefit to someone like myself, but probably of little interest/use to you realistically.

2) Isn't it often argued that 'duplicate content is bad for search engines'. Doesn't the fact that creating a human-readable URI is effectively creating two different pages with identical content, and therefore must also be considered 'bad'. Isn't this a negative connotation?

Duplicate content is very bad indeed for search engines. However, through the use of canonical URIs this is no longer an issue.. it's an old issue that has been fixed with updated technology.

There is only ever one page registered for a product by the search engines even if there are many URIs with the same content.. as long as the canonical URI within those pages is identical, the search engines are fine with it, there is an understanding that a site may have the same info on several pages due to the dynamic nature of sites and the need for hierarchy and context.

I can appreciate that these questions could be considered as being argumentative, but that isn't my intent. I am genuinely interesting in the answers. I have a hard time coming to terms with this apparent contradiction. Both statements can't be true, can they?

No problem whatsoever, I don't see any arguments. :)

I'm not sure if this a swipe at me, or simply a generalized comment. No matter, I agree with you, people having install problems is not a valid argument against a technology.

I've hopefully learnt not to make anything personal so certainly don't take it that way!

In *my* experience, where most people seem to come unstuck is when/where they've attempted to add more than one module that both require changes to the .htaccess files, and due to inexperience(?) end up creating a conflict or problem that they are unable to resolve.

I would certainly say it's due to inexperience.. I never had any intention of delving into .htaccess files and rewrite rules and I write this sort of software, I certainly wouldn't expect a store owner to have any experience of it whatsoever!

I've made Ceon URI Mapping as easy to install and integrate as possible but the software supplies an "Example" rewrite rule for a reason.. it's the most likely to work straight off but is an example only, the world and its dog could have all kinds of conflicting rules, so each store must look at their own rules and adjust them appropriately/if necessary.

Those of us without a vested interest in any changes made to the .htaccess file are always quick to recommend the removal of such changes because it is easier for us to do so

I can totally understand that. Obviously it's the same with almost any aspect of making changes, though rolling back is much easier with .htaccess files.. but I'll always advocate finding and fixing the cause of a problem. Sadly, for a few that may mean learning about what is in their .htaccess file and how rewrite rules work, but in the end, as we both agree, learning is good :)

This is the very point I'm trying to make. The OP's problem is/was apparently related to a rewrite or redirect in the .htaccess file.
This should be an easy problem to solve (at least for those of us with more experience) but that wasn't to be...

Bryan didn't know it was to do with the rewrite rules so looked elsewhere, which is totally understandable. It can often only be an easy problem to fix if described appropriately.

doesn't it make you wonder what (if anything) else got broken in the process?

Nope. :)

Ideally I don't tend to fix things by tweaking or kludging but by understanding what went "wrong" and what needed to be done to fix the problem/make things work differently. Hopefully that understanding normally means that there should be no effects on anything else.

Unfortunately that all comes back to the problems inherent with using other people's software.. without having written all the code yourself (or knowing how it all works) you can never be sure.. thankfully things really aren't too hard to fix in the Zen Cart world though. :)

I accept what you are saying, and can appreciate how you get the impression that this is what I was doing/saying, especially because I came out blazing against URI mapping and redirects. On reflection I should have concentrated more on the 'power' afforded the .htaccess file itself and why it can cause so many problems (that are often difficult to resolve), rather than one of the reasons it is most commonly modified.

Store owners should never have anything to do with rewrite rules, .htaccess files, server configs etc., it's unfortunate that that's the poor way technology has developed thus far.

My *intent* isn't really to cause an argument (a discussion is another matter), but rather to encourage people to *think* about why they are doing whatever it is they are trying to do.

I'm sure people appreciate that!

I really do believe that static URIs benefit a site and that any initial technical stumbles with rewrite rules or modules that can't cope with static URIs (until updated) are worth dealing with.. they really don't take that long to sort out.

It is a great pity that these issues are fairly prevalent though as we all have better things to do! :)

I hope so too..... Actually, I know it will.... there is bound to be at least one person that has followed this thread and has learned something they didn't know before

I've learned I talk too much, even when I say I'll keep it brief. :)

This 'knowledge' can actually be difficult to find in other places because most published information is provided by those with something to gain (ie: they sell SEO services, or produce SEO code <g>), and the rest of us simply don't care enough to present opposing evidence, because frankly there is nothing for us to gain from it other than ruffling a few feathers.

I totally agree. Lack of information as a result of people not caring enough to provide good information is by far one of the free software world's greatest problems.

I however don't present this opposing view just to ruffle these feathers (I used to)

lol cheeky. :)

but as stated at the outset, my position of playing devils advocate actually led me changing my own opinion on the matter, because the *evidence* I'm finding really doesn't match the claims.

That's the best way to work!

I have shown some practical real life examples that clearly show my rankings couldn't really be any higher even if I had used this technology. I've not come across any examples that show SE friendly URL's would do better. I find this both strange and suspicious.....

In terms of the actual SEO conversation about this (were we actually talking about SEO or was I rambling on about software?... ;) ).. as I said, SEO's not my area at all and the only real world direct evidence I have for static URIs, full of keywords, being better than dynamic URIs, is when I had two sites set up for a client, a test site and a live site.

A few days before release of the new site google had indexed the test site (wasn't something we'd wanted to happen, that was a mistake). The test site rated higher in the rankings than the live site. Both sites had identical content. The only difference was the test site had static URIs with keywords in them.

As I said, SEO's not a big deal to me so this isn't a reason for me to be a strong advocate of the use of static URIs.. given that there are no negative connotations though, for all the reasons discussed above I don't see any reason for a store not to spend the half an hour/hour it takes to add the technology to their site.

Once again, I have no wish to cause you or anyone else any offence. My 'ulimate' aim is to help reduce some of the many problems people find themselves with, and if that involves trying to steer them away from unproven technology, then so be it. For that I make no apologies.

And none are required. :)

All the best...

Conor
ceon