reply to torvista and mc12345678 (in this one post rather than separately)
Thank you both for your considered responses, I really do appreciate it;
I think your case illustrates what many people think, better to not fix what is not broken (the native urls) or you may get in a SEO mess when you want/have to change something.
Yep - I recall RodG (passed) was very vocal about exactly that.
What this does raise is why is it that a urls rewriter is not included in the base ZC platform - switchable enable/disable (for those who do not want to use it) .... something that as part of the platform would require testing and compatibility validation every time a version revision is released ??
The 'mess' that exists, with my situation, is as a result of an incompatibility problem of USU plugin with the new release 1.55f (as it was then) ... the issue was fixed only late last year. The original author (ihungil) is no longer with ZC (sound familiar?) - neither of the two url rewriters are supported by their original authors and it has rested with other good samaritans to tackle the issues and get the plugins working correctly (i.5.6 in the case of CEON). Meanwhile ZC sites using these plugins that are not doing what they should are suffering in respect to Google ranking, a point missed by so many. The USU issue at least (not using 1.5.6 so not sure what the CEON issue there was), affected the urls delivered to the sitemap, or non delivery more to the point. So Google was being told to find the urls in the sitemap but they were wrong - reflected in Google Search (WMT) and in SERP rankings. The url submitted which doesn't match the page url becomes a totally new page which needs indexing (re-indexing).
Yes Google can find any url and appropriate it 'eventually' to the right page but best practices suggest it is imperative that a sitemap be submitted ..... any links, both to and from, the rewritten page url will be lost forever if the redirection of that page to the new url is not effective .... it becomes a totally new page.
...... as mc12345678 points out
This module can both be edited or used to create similarly formatted URLs, but one of considerations is that it doesn't matter what those numbers are to the public, they are looking to get to the thing that is identified by the url.
It is not about anything else but what Google sees and if Google is getting mixed messages it reflects on SEO - in the true sense of the phrase, Search Engine Optimization .... optimizing the site for the search engines to make their job easier to do their job, present search results according to the query - if they are provided confusing signals then your site becomes less 'optimal' to them.
Opinion from an opinionated ZC user;
'User Friendly' urls are now expected by Google as an integral component of their algorithm putting user experience to the fore in ranking sites - they say as much, and it makes sense .... granted it is not 'critical' but neither is html5 but it is certainly desirable.
The fact remains there are differing opinions however let me suggest that the purists are in the not needed camp and the progressives agree with Google. You are very hard pressed, very hard pressed indeed to find an eCommerce website anywhere in the top 5 pages of SERP's still using dynamic urls ... begs the question why? We all know the answer.
I will likely get belted from dawn to dusk over the following comment by those who volunteer their time to help people like me, something I and many others respect and appreciate, but before pulling out the baseball bat the comment is not directed at any individual nor group of individuals bot more so at the 'system'.... and some will argue the system is the community but as we know any community has leaders or a council or similar - so the developers of ZC.
So the 'safe' option in Zen Cart is to leave things alone, stick with the integrated dynamic url system ... that in itself is, in my humble opinion, archaic in 2019. What is more concerning is that when what I will call a vital plugin (and there are differing opinions of what is and isn't vital) identified as broken and the author is no longer involved in the forums it then rests on a volunteer to put up their hand to attempt to fix it .... if they have the skills, the motivation and importantly if they are indeed even aware of the problem (dependent on what forums they read and or how often). Plugins of such importance, those that are critical to the actual performance of the site (seo or otherwise) vs nice to have available plugins should not be left to others to make sure they work with the version changes as they are released.
I have no idea how many of those that downloaded 1.5.5f, when it was released or was still the current version, actually installed it and how many of those had USU installed or subsequently installed it (before lat9 fixed it) but all of them will have had the canonical compatibility issue - problem is some site owners do not do their own build / management and some webmasters may not be as diligent as they possibly could be - in either case if not regularly checking your sites performance, in the eyes of Google, via Google Search (and not just Analytics or other metrics) then those site owners would be unaware of the damage being done. Maybe site owners like me are more diligent, not sure, but I didn't see too many others raising the USU canonical issue (I believe I was the first) - but that aside there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that many if not all of those sites will have suffered ranking issues, through no fault of their own.
So what it means, at least for me, is that I will never again install a ZC version upgrade until I see evidence that the plugins I use are indeed compatible with the new version. Fortunately I had a couple of sites I didn't upgrade and left at 1.5.1 - they never suffered ranking loss (USU was fully compatible). However I think the issue is far bigger than me. The problem is that few are aware of the issue (now fixed) and fewer 'participate' in the forums (may explain the first part of the sentence).
I have tried everything I can think of, other than piracy, to get hold of a copy of CEON URI Manager (commercial) which as I understand it would be of some assistance to me to better understand / manage CEON ..... sent an email to CEON .net and will see if I get a response.
This is what I am going to do now;
Having read your responses, for which I thank you again, I am going to stick with things as they now stand, i.e. continue with CEON URI Mapping - the alternative is far too messy .... and will likely become a nuisance asking dumb questions in this forum. I did say to you some time back mc12345678 that I would study the instructions and learn the CEON system .... well read it thoroughly but only once, I will need to read it over a few times and experiment - at 65 and not being a developer it takes a bit longer to register (if at all).
The only question left is the 'other' part of the query - wrong forum but whilst here :) - redirecting the site url to a new url name - same site, same host, just a domain name change - what steps are required to effect this smoothly? (I think I know but looking for validation).
Again thank you both.
cheers, Mike
I don't worry about SEO, I consider that out of my little hands: I let Google invest their time and money in getting relevant search results from my unique, well-written, html/css correct content, irrespective of the url that locates it.Steve - you should bottle this :)
p.s. I do have some questions regarding the 'unique content' in quote above but will ask it in another forum and hope I get some helpful responses :)