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

[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