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

[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