SEO - Urls for ZC 1.5 ?

[schoolboy]

Just tested this on a fresh install. Attribute "problem" is not evident when using URI mapping V4.0.8...

... possibly old versions, combined with other add-ons, caused the issues described earlier.

@creamcrackers:-
We have always advised people who wish to use URI re-writing to ONLY use the CEON module, as it is the ONLY module that is reliable for this function. If the argument is whether static URL's influence page ranking, then my evidence (as shown above), suggest that it has no influence at all. I am open to look at any tangible evidence that suggests otherwise, but to date, no-one has been able to provide it.

Much of the validity of URL re-writing centres on the CORE SOFTWARE's ability to construct dynamic URL's that search engines find hard to interpret and follow. We remain confident that the URL's generated by zencart are very "SE-friendly" (my example proves this), and it is for that reason we see no point in "trying to fix what ain't broke."

I am sure that this is also the philosophy of the ZC development team. Until there is irrefutable evidence that ZC's URL's are detrimental to SE indexing and evaluation, there is no reason why the core system needs changing.

[SPH]

http://static.googleusercontent.com/...rter-guide.pdf

I don't know when the above was written, but take a look at page 8 and 9 dealing with urls.

In summary, although google can read dynamic urls, re-written urls can enhance customer experience...which apparently is where google is at now. Also, even though Google can read/crawl a dynamic url, a re-written url can help Google understand what the page is about.

Snippet:

"Google is good at crawling all types of URL structures, even if they're quite complex, but spending the time to make your URLs as simple as possible for both users and search engines can help. Some webmasters try to achieve this by rewriting their dynamic URLs to static ones; while Google is fine with this, we'd like to note that this is an advanced procedure and if done incorrectly, could cause crawling issues with your site."

Snippet:

"Some users might link to your page using the URL of that page as the anchor text. If your URL contains relevant words, this provides users and search engines with more information about the page than an ID or oddly named parameter would"

I cannot even tell what my dynamic urls refer to on my main site.

So, it apparently is not about Google being to read/crawl; it's about customer experience. But be careful and do it right!

This may be outdated, I do not know.

sph
www.prom-mart.com
Ecommerce Cart Testing

[schoolboy]

http://static.googleusercontent.com/...rter-guide.pdf

I don't know when the above was written, but take a look at page 8 and 9 dealing with urls.

In summary, although google can read dynamic urls, re-written urls can enhance customer experience...which apparently is where google is at now. Also, even though Google can read/crawl a dynamic url, a re-written url can help Google understand what the page is about.

Snippet:

"Google is good at crawling all types of URL structures, even if they're quite complex, but spending the time to make your URLs as simple as possible for both users and search engines can help. Some webmasters try to achieve this by rewriting their dynamic URLs to static ones; while Google is fine with this, we'd like to note that this is an advanced procedure and if done incorrectly, could cause crawling issues with your site."

Snippet:

"Some users might link to your page using the URL of that page as the anchor text. If your URL contains relevant words, this provides users and search engines with more information about the page than an ID or oddly named parameter would"

I cannot even tell what my dynamic urls refer to on my main site.

So, it apparently is not about Google being to read/crawl; it's about customer experience. But be careful and do it right!

This may be outdated, I do not know.

sph
www.prom-mart.com
Ecommerce Cart Testing

This is all perfectly valid stuff, and we are very aware of Google's numerous "advisories" on this.

Agreed... Google IS now paying very careful attention to the "visitor experience", and there is evidence that it will "reward" sites that make every effort to make this "visitor experience" as near perfect as possible. We learned that it is considering the presence of a favicon.ico as being quite important, because of the tabbed-browser behaviour of people these days. The favicon is a quick, graphic identifier, and therefore "improves visitor experience".

So yes... we watch the search engines all the time, and will implement enhancements when there is a clear indication that they influence google's assessment of a site.

[DivaVocals]

I have always thought that keywords in URLS are one of the most important things for SEO

Yes this is certainly an important thing, but I would say calling it the MOST important thing is an overreach. As Conor aptly put it

However, the difference the use of keywords in URIs makes is tiny compared to the important SEO factors of the page content and external links to a page.

For good SEO content is king! As most people seem to be saying here, time is much better spent getting good content onto a site.

Once you do though, having keywords in URIs should increase rankings just a tiny bit more...

Also those keywords will be highlighted in the google search results when people search for them and your results are shown and get you higher CTR. It gives searchers a clear idea of exactly what your page is about in a few words and they know they are going to a page specific to what they are searching for.

This may be true, but having good content will do the very same thing. (See schoolboys example..)

If you are developing sites for clients.. you definitely should have keywords in your URLS! Is this a case of developers not understanding the marketing angle?

No it's not developers not understanding the "marketing angle" at all.. If that was the case why is the consistent message here CONTENT. Content IS a "marketing angle".. It's a case of knowing that keywords in URLs ALL BY ITSELF is not a magic bullet. Page content and external links do play a very significant role in SEO that cannot be mitigated or replaced by keywords in URLs alone. To quote Conor himself again:

So, basically, my advice for better SEO is to concentrate on content and links to the site. Using static URIs will help further but will only make a small difference compared to time spent on content and external links.

if the length os the "simple SEO URL" thread is anything to go by, then they tend to cause more problems than they solve.

IMHO, an add-on which has historically been largely unsupported by it's author (yep I said it!!), and causes problems because it does not "play well" with other add-ons, and creates more issues than it solves is why that support thread is so bloody long.

One presenter gave an interesting talk on the BEHAVIOUR of website owners... particularly those involved in online selling and categorised as "small to medium-sized" ventures... Your typical OpenSource webcart user...

Most of his talk centred around the ATTITUDE people have towards their webshops and a key theme was the idea that MOST small business owners who have webshops constantly look for "technical quick-fixes" for what are actually practical, and usually more conventional marketing problems.

He said that these people will spend hours... days even... tinkering about with superfluous technical stuff, in the hope that it will magically deliver sales, and he used this "SEO URL" issue as an example, amongst others, of course, of what are really futile attempts at ratcheting up sales.

People should rather take that time and devote it to what actually works, he said... and surprised many people in the group when he said that there needs to be a concerted re-focus on traditional marketing and advertising... a "return to shoe-leather" he called it.

they add so much rubbish to their sites; they clutter them with all kinds of pointless bells and whistles and the time all of this takes to do, shifts attention from where it is really needed... getting the message into the market.

I JUST said something similar to all of this to a new client who I am working with on upgrading his site to Zen Cart v1.5. I pointed him to some very good articles on this topic including Melanie's website to help get the message through his head that the "quick fixes" he was seeking were NOT the way to go. His current website lacks good content (how do you get found if the things people are searching for aren't part of your site's content???) and the user experience on his site is awful because his previous web designer added a TON of unnecessary bells and whistles that "look" kinda cool, but upon closer examination all of these cool bells and whistles only serve to make navigating his site impossible for a visitor. (LOTS of silly things were done like removing MANY of the built in navigation elements on the product pages)

I think I have finally impressed upon him that all of this "technology for the sake of technology" crap on his site is the issue he has with turning over sales, and creating a reciprocal "links" page isn't going to solve his problems. Content, content, content along with having a much more user friendly interface are the things he needs to concentrate on rectifying with his site.

It has always amazed me that folks still have the "if you build it, they will come" attitude about websites. Many site owners REALLY do not think that they have to do any of the work that most brick and mortar businesses do to get the word out about their business.. and they are all about looking for shortcuts..

I have a good friend who laments over the poor performance of her blog.. She stopped working her blog because she was looking for "instant" gratification because she "heard from someone" that having a blog will bring "instant" traffic. When she "built it and they didn't come", she gave up nearly 1 month after putting this blog in place.

The fact that she has added little to no content to it EVER let alone the last few MONTHS still doesn't register to her as a contributing factor. Imagine her disappointment when she came to me to find out some "tricks" to get people to her blog and I told her that she was going to have to put some work into keeping the blog updated with GOOD content if she expected people to come. That's not the answer she wanted.. So in her mind blogs "don't work". **SMH**

In the past 4 or 5 years, we have had one or two clients who have insisted on "pretty URL's" and under the principle of "customer is always right" we have installed CEON URI mapping - which is the ONLY reliable plugin for achieving this. Conor has never claimed his module influences SEO - a fact we point out to requesters of this feature.

I suppose our message to people is this. If you really want "nice names" for URL's then use ONLY the URI mapping module, but don't assume that it will have a positive influence on where you pages rank in the search engines.

This is my experience as well.. I have had a few clients INSIST on "pretty URLs" and because it's not worth the fight, I opted for Conor's add-on. (after having found out first hand how BAD SSU was in terms of support and performance -- among other issues, SSU inexplicably interfered with my homepage slideshow). I do make sure that they understand that this is NOT a magic bullet. There is no substitute for good site content, and they have to put in the time to write good content.. For those clients that INSIST on this functionality, Conor's add-on is not intrusive, plays well with others add-ons, it is flexible in it's functionality, and is one of the BEST supported add-ons available bar none.

=======================================

I saw other comments earlier in this thread with regards to the Mappings Manager software.. I am of the opinion that if you are making money from Zen Cart either as a site builder or a site owner, that sometimes you need to INVEST in tools. The URI Mapping s Manager is a great tool and requires but a small investment to purchase. For those not willing to make the investment, if you are willing to roll up your sleeves and learn SQL, there are certainly plenty of other ways to get URIs into the database. However, I would submit that the time saved by investing in a tool that does all the heavy lifting is worth the INVESTMENT.

[schoolboy]

Very interesting comments Diva...

I know I harp on this URL stuff (probably have more posts on it than the rest of the forum combined!) but in the 8 years since we have been using zencart (approaching 300 zencart sites), we have a lot of EXPERIENCE in the operations and usability side of webshops.

My colleague, Fairestcape spends a lot of time helping clients "polish" their sites, improve content, add depth and interest, and generally make the sites more user-friendly.

Over the years, we have seen some of our clients' sites succeed spectacularly... and of course, several have failed spectacularly.

What we have seen (and we continue to look for patterns that prove a theory) is that sites that are SIMPLE, UNCLUTTERED, FOCUSED and have GOOD DEPTH OF CONTENT, methodically creep up the search engine rankings AND get more sales.

Without sounding arrogant, we do have a very large number of sites to draw our conclusions from. Most people on the forum are individual site owners, so they only have a "sample of one" to go by.

My postings on these subjects is not through anger or that I want to criticise people, only to share our considerable experience and hope that others can benfit from it. I do however get frustrated when some people put forward theories and are unable to offer any proof as to why that theory may be valid.

[DivaVocals]

I TOTALLY pay attention to what you say, and I know that one of my responses to you recently may have "appeared" to be -- shall we say -- "confrontational".. It wasn't at all.. I was simply trying to "get into your head". 'Tis all..

Much of what you have posted on this topic are the same things I have always stressed to my little mom & pop clients.

I try to work with them on USABILITY (a term I use a lot in my day job where we are developing webbased software). I try to make my clients see things from the POV of their site visitors, and try to get them to see that all the things they think are COOL are only cool to THEM. The things they think are important are NOT AT ALL important to their site visitors..

Shoppers don't give a rats a$$ about your cool flash scrolling thingy.. Slideshows look great on the front page, but it can't STOP folks from getting to the things they came to your site to do. Customers simply want to be able to find the product you sell and purchase it without a bunch of silly bells and whistles interfering with the experience. NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR COOL MUSIC or SPINNING CRAP!!

Speaking of NON anecdotal experience, interestingly enough based not only on my experience with my mom & pop clients but based on my 20+ years of software development experience in my day job, I KNOW that site visitors really don't spend this much time thinking about pretty URLs either.. If a site visitor cannot find the pages they are looking for it's NEVER BEEN because the URL wasn't pretty. It's because the content wasn't there or the the UI was crappy..

Very interesting comments Diva...

I know I harp on this URL stuff (probably have more posts on it than the rest of the forum combined!) but in the 8 years since we have been using zencart (approaching 300 zencart sites), we have a lot of EXPERIENCE in the operations and usability side of webshops.

My colleague, Fairestcape spends a lot of time helping clients "polish" their sites, improve content, add depth and interest, and generally make the sites more user-friendly.

Over the years, we have seen some of our clients' sites succeed spectacularly... and of course, several have failed spectacularly.

What we have seen (and we continue to look for patterns that prove a theory) is that sites that are SIMPLE, UNCLUTTERED, FOCUSED and have GOOD DEPTH OF CONTENT, methodically creep up the search engine rankings AND get more sales.

Without sounding arrogant, we do have a very large number of sites to draw our conclusions from. Most people on the forum are individual site owners, so they only have a "sample of one" to go by.

My postings on these subjects is not through anger or that I want to criticise people, only to share our considerable experience and hope that others can benfit from it. I do however get frustrated when some people put forward theories and are unable to offer any proof as to why that theory may be valid.

[schoolboy]

I think I may have told this story before (getting old now, so I can't remember...)

One Friday afternoon, about 5 years ago, a guy came in and asked for a rapid install of ZC. he wanted it functioning and selling by Monday. He had booked a load of adverts in local newspapers that were to break on the Monday. His previous developer had let him down. As he was prepared to pay "any price", we put everything else aside, and about 2 hours later we had a functioning install of ZC, with paypal and shipping all configured, plus his 40 or so products, images... the lot. We just used CLASSIC template, with a change to the logo, but retaining that "charming" look of the classic template!

Monday came, and by lunch time, he had taken nearly a hundred orders. At 5pm it was nearly a thousand.

He made a packet of cash in the first month, using the income to buy more ad space in the papers, and he had a radio commercial developed as well, for local stations.

We just watched in amazement as the orders rolled in.

About 3 or 4 months later, we asked if he wanted to "smarten up" the site... new template, fresh logo, nicer layout.

"What the heck for?" was his reply. "Is the site making money or not? I don't want anything changed... it's all working just fine."

Three years later he sold the company for a fat profit and the new owners took the web stuff away from us and had it put it onto magento. While it looked much nicer, I couldn't help wondering if it was making as much money as when Steve owned it...

But there you are... One of our most successful projects (commercially for the client) took just 2 hours to build and was 100% core for all the years we managed it.

[DivaVocals]

Most people on the forum are individual site owners, so they only have a "sample of one" to go by.

I just answered a post from someone on the SSU thread which made me come back to this statement..

To your point, I think there's also a segment of folks on this forum who project their OWN POV into the SEO discussions.. Because THEY would prefer to see pretty URLS, because THEY think ALL consumers feel the same, because THEY think that consumer have a difficult time navigating a site that does not have pretty URLs, THEY conclude that pretty URLS improve the consumer's experience.

The trouble is they don't have anything to back up their claims. There are major retailers who don't have pretty URLs.. Following this line of thinking these folks would draw the conclusion that consumers are unable to navigate through a site because the URLs aren't pretty URLs.. My question to them is "based on WHAT??""

[schoolboy]

My little story validates the necessity to run things in a business-like fashion. The key to steve's success was his savvy business skills - using local media to advertise, good prices, and quality images. This is all in the days before social networking, Apps, hand-helds and all the other distracting bits of nonsense that plague business decisions today.

He knew his market, had a great set of products - he just used the site as a functional channel to siphon up the public's cash...

[schoolboy]

... and I don't even think he featured on Google at all ! (We never checked... we didn't have to and were never asked.)