Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

Unlurking for a second here. Haven't read all of today's thread, but enough to see a crazy sidetrack that I think I caused.

Rod is 250% correct about SEs not caring about gibberish or duplicate content on seperate sites! Not a problem with math, just a huge urge to emphasize. As he pointed out, manufacturers hand out prod descriptions, very often it gets repeated verbatim on hundreds of sites. Do NOT sweat that! All that happens is google may hide the duplicates. Change a couple words or the price or something and even that issue can be resolved.

With regard to gibberish... again 250% correct, perhaps more. It's ones and zeroes, that is all!!!

The reason I panicked is BECAUSE of those facts. We all saw my link disappear from Yahoo. If you go look at my actual post in that moment, I immediately dismissed the idea of the SE's having magically sniffed me out as spam:

Feznizzle:

Stop the presses! My link getting yanked from Bing scares the snot out of me! I have never EVER had a link get yanked like that anywhere! I don't know why that happened, scares the daylight out of me. I'm pretty close to pulling the plug, deleting the products. The only reason I could think for yanking would be that the listing has been viewed as spam somehow. What in the world could have triggered that short of it being manually done? No way Microsoft SE is that much smarter than google!

Because what we all saw (my link disappearing), I thought there was an assassin afoot… someone going out of their way to report my link as containing illegal content or something… which could only be a result of our conversation since nobody else on the planet would have a motive. But within a half hour or so it was back up, there was clearly nothing evil going down.

Sorry about that, Rod. Didn't mean to freak anybody out and ruin your little party. I did take the time to explain it in #180, which I still think you missed.

My bailing out had nothing to do with paranoia. I was just done. My links got indexed, nothing unexpected. All links stayed in chronological order as expected, with the exception of the garbage links being lower ranked. Again, as expected. Garbage from native sites vs garbage from redirects also ranked chronologically. Rod's extreme hate for re-write/re-redirect/who-gives-blank had been put to bed, there was nothing else in this for me.

Basically, no negatives against redirects got proved… which has always been Rod's position. He can bluster around as much as he wants, but the bottom line is he thinks mods like Ceon are bad for my site. I was satisfied that this was not proven by him (which I half believed he would). As long as redirects get indexed basically the same as native, there was nothing more for me here. I will take my cues about responsible SEO from Google, not guys who live in the most beautiful country in the world yet choose to spend way too much time in front of the puter. :)

So please let me stress. You guys are risking NOTHING by using gibberish. Further, you are not risking anything by posting duplicate prod descriptions. Seriously. I'm really sorry that my reaction to my link going missing caused anybody to sweat!

++++

Two more things, then I will try my best to go back to lurking only.

First, Rod try not to pat your own back so hard about all the garbage links your site produces. As I stated, I disabled that functionality of the ZC intentionally. I do not want a human following misleading info on an SE to a page that doesn't have what the SE said it had. There is merit to creating noise on SE's, but phantom noise is just noise. If I only get one shot with a client, I don't want to waste it with garbage. There are ways to accomplish the same goals without ticking off humans…

Bottom line though, me not having a million phantom links was a person decision, has absolutely nothing to do with Ceon.

Second, a bit of clarification. Rod is right, incoming links is the first, biggest, most import element of PageRank. The more links the better. However, I don't poop where I eat. Whatever value a link coming from Zen forum may have for me is far outweighed by my interest in staying private. If I face a savvy competitor, a simple google search could find a link coming from here. Clicking on the link, my screen name could easily lead to much more than I want a competitor to read.

Steve, if you figured something out here from this discussion and your site took off… would you really want this discussion showing up on google for all your competitors? With next to zero work, they could browse thru all your discussions as you sweated out how to make your store do so well and, with none of the pain you endured to earn your success, they could duplicate it.

That's all. Thanks for honoring that request, Rod.

Update:

1. Yahoo: I now see RodG appearing on Yahoo with Feznizzle. Didn't check if it is to RodG's test product or an ancillary link.

2. Bing: Now see Feznizzle's second CEON site. Again, didn't check if to test product.

3. Google: Now see BN's native entry. It looks like it's probably the test product. Also, looks like more of RodG's spam links also. :wink:

Feznizzle:

Unlurking for a second here. Haven't read all of today's thread, but enough to see a crazy sidetrack that I think I caused.

Rod is 250% correct about SEs not caring about gibberish or duplicate content on seperate sites! Not a problem with math, just a huge urge to emphasize. As he pointed out, manufacturers hand out prod descriptions, very often it gets repeated verbatim on hundreds of sites. Do NOT sweat that! All that happens is google may hide the duplicates. Change a couple words or the price or something and even that issue can be resolved.

With regard to gibberish... again 250% correct, perhaps more. It's ones and zeroes, that is all!!!

The reason I panicked is BECAUSE of those facts. We all saw my link disappear from Yahoo. If you go look at my actual post in that moment, I immediately dismissed the idea of the SE's having magically sniffed me out as spam:

Thanks. I knew that early on you were not concerned with the gibberish text. And I'm now ready to accept that it's okay...to a point. What about a HUMAN search engine review? That's one of the reasons I redid my no picture gif to announce the test.

I've already began including mfr descriptions on some lines. My thinking (beyond it being easier than coming up with my own) was that google would consider the mfr descriptions to be the best for the product. But now, if google doesn't even care, I guess that's out the window.

But good idea to just add a little to mfr descriptions. Many competitors use mfr descriptions verbatim and even same carts*. And they all show in listings, not hidden.

*Some guy got genius idea to make carts catering to bridal stores. Would like to follow with zencart.

RodG, there you go...yet again. Spin doctoring your way to victory. Why do you STILL think that my concern was anything other than what I mentioned from the get-go, or what was lankeeyankee's concern? The gibberish text. Nothing more. I was never concerned with my urls as a reason for "bowing out." In fact, two of my sites never left and the main one is back in.

And I was not obliged to rely on your "expertise."

Yes, I know, you'll spin doctor that.

But you also have a burden. To prove that rewriting should be avoided like the plague.

Feznizzle:

Bottom line though, me not having a million phantom links was a person decision, has absolutely nothing to do with Ceon.

Perhaps that's one of the secret things RodG was going to prove...that native urls have more ancillary links indexed than rewritten urls? That and whether or not native links always, or at least more often than not, outrank rewritten urls for the same product.

That appears to me all that is left. Because he can't prove that rewritten urls do not get indexed.

Second, a bit of clarification. Rod is right, incoming links is the first, biggest, most import element of PageRank. The more links the better.

THAT is probably my biggest SEO downfall. I've never gone on a link-building campaign. I used to link to my site in my ZC sig, but stopped that thinking that google might consider them "bad" incoming links.

Good point re competitors.

SPH:

What about a HUMAN search engine review? That's one of the reasons I redid my no picture gif to announce the test.

I've already began including mfr descriptions on some lines. My thinking (beyond it being easier than coming up with my own) was that google would consider the mfr descriptions to be the best for the product. But now, if google doesn't even care, I guess that's out the window.

But good idea to just add a little to mfr descriptions. Many competitors use mfr descriptions verbatim and even same carts*. And they all show in listings, not hidden.

*Some guy got genius idea to make carts catering to bridal stores. Would like to follow with zencart.

With regard to humans reviewing SE indexes, I think you mean like google paying people to look at incoming links? If they only wanted to stay back logged for 6 months backlogged they would have to employ half of China. :)

It's simply not possible, even if they wanted to. They do have teams of folks combing for illegal content, pedophiles, that sort of thing (read a fascinating article on Digg about one of those guys and the suffering they go thru... horrible!). Even that stuff is next to impossible to keep up with.

Also, I think you might be jumping to some wrong conclusions. Content really is king, period. The more the better. Include EVERYTHING you can. Where posible, edit or re-write mfg descriptions. Add to it... maybe include a section of About the Designer (give a bio); use that mod you downloaded to insert About the Manufacturer. Work directly with the art department at each manufacturer, pester them for more details, more pictures. Put up as much as you can without cluttering the product page. Do NOT include gibberish where humans will look.

With regaurd to link building campaigns, everybody hates it. That makes it an opportunity. Links from mfg's are awesome, get them to list you on their site as a distributor. This forum is also a strong site, SE's would eat that up! Definitely not a negative to have a link from here! Only negative if, like me, you don't want competitors following your thought process. ;-)

Feznizzle, thanks!

But dayum, I was getting ready to upload gibberish descriptions similar to our test product. Or just hitting keys. :)

As for backlink, I probably need it then from ZC forum more than I need fear a competitor lurking.

Feznizzle:

I was just done. My links got indexed, nothing unexpected. All links stayed in chronological order as expected,

Seriously? You actually expected the initial links to be in chronological order? I certainly didn't. Came as a complete surprise. I was expecting at least one of the other ranking factors would have come into play from the very first indexing.

Feznizzle:

with the exception of the garbage links being lower ranked.

Google still cant tell the difference between a 'garbage' link and a 'good' link. It simply provides links. The 'value' is determined by the person doing the search.

Feznizzle:

Rod's extreme hate for re-write/re-redirect/who-gives-blank had been put to bed, there was nothing else in this for me.

I sure wish you would read what I write, and not want you want me to write. I have NEVER had a hate for rewrites or redirects. These are both good valuable functions for a webserver to have.

Feznizzle:

Basically, no negatives against redirects got proved… which has always been Rod's position..

Correction: (repeated ad infinitum) Redirects DO have negative consequence. YOU EVEN AGREED to this earlier in the thread.

The reason I haven't been able to show this negative aspect is because none of the test sites are using redirects. They are all using rewrites.

Feznizzle:

He can bluster around as much as he wants, .

If 'blustering' is repeating the same things over and over again because some fool tries to change what I actually wrote, then guilty as charged.

Feznizzle:

but the bottom line is he thinks mods like Ceon are bad for my site.

Perhaps that is what you think I said, but I've never said anything BAD about CEON, ever (search the forums).

I've also made no distinction between CEON or any of the other SEO modules. I am aware that there is at least one SEO addon that does use redirects rather than rewrites, and this makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE. The simple action of performing a redirect comes at a cost... a cost that isn't paid when rewriting.

Until now I've actually allowed, and even 'encouraged' the misconception that these were pretty much the same, with the same costs/benefits (whichever).

A knowledgeable person dealing with rewrites and redirects would know the difference and know when one should be used in preference to the other.

You have NOT yet made that distinction, which is why you are finding it so easy to state that since I have yet to prove the negative aspects of redirects that they don't exist.

I have never said rewrites have the same negative effects. This has been an assumption on your part because you have failed to see the difference between how a redirect and how a rewrite works.

I have said, over and over and over again that I believe, or I have the opinion that SEO rewrites have NO PROVEN BENEFITS.

Feznizzle:

I was satisfied that this was not proven by him (which I half believed he would).

Show me the test site that is using redirects and I'll demonstrate why they don't work. Period!

It is also possible for me to explain why they won't work, but it would be somewhat pointless, because unless you understand the difference between a rewrite and a redirect it will go straight over your head, and if you DO know the difference (I'm referring to the way they function, not what they are called) you wouldn't actually need me to explain.. you'll see it for yourself, as plain as the nose on your face.

I'm not trying to be crytpic or secretive here. I don't have anything hidden up my sleeve, I'm not holding anything back, but it is very obvious that this is something you simply cannot, or don't want to grasp.

Feznizzle:

As long as redirects get indexed basically the same as native, there was nothing more for me here.

The purpose isn't, wasn't and never has been a test to see who could get into Google 1st. I hope you wanted to prove more than that to yourself (and us). I thought the real aim here is to see what benefits (if any) are to be gained from using these SEO techniques to improve site rankings.

Based on the initial indexing THERE IS NO BENEFIT. This is clearly observable because the sites are being ranked in chronological order. IF the was any benefit in SEO at this point we would be seeing it.

Conclusion: The test hasn't run long enough for any SEO or any other weighting/ranking factor to have any effect. The only other possible conclusion is the SEO has no benefit at all. Ever.

You'll only be able to prove the benefit by letting the experiment run its course...

I simply cant understand why you are willing to cut the test short when there is still something that needs to be proven, namely, do the SEO rewrites provide any gains over the native ZenCart URL's?

Feznizzle:

I will take my cues about responsible SEO from Google,

That will only do you good if you read what they have written, and NOT what you think they have written.
Hint: "may" is not the same as "will".

Feznizzle:

So please let me stress. You guys are risking NOTHING by using gibberish. Further, you are not risking anything by posting duplicate prod descriptions. Seriously. I'm really sorry that my reaction to my link going missing caused anybody to sweat!.

The damage has been done. The tests are a mess, and I've even been insulted by a 3rd party because of your mistake. How did it go again? Oh yeah..

"Ah, there you go again! My and possibly Feznizzle's concern with the gibberish being the same as Lankeeyankee. But not for RodG. Nope. It's because we rewriters don't think things are going like we want."

Pure sarcasm intended to mean "two or three of us agree this is a concern , Rod is the odd one out, he must be wrong".

Could this same sarcasm have been stated if you had agreed with these known and demonstrated facts before the person that wrote this jumped to the wrong conclusion? No way..

LESSON: The majority are NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!

Feznizzle:

First, Rod try not to pat your own back so hard about all the garbage links your site produces..

Our site doesn't produce ANY garbage links. There is NO SUCH THING AS A GARBAGE LINK.

Feznizzle:

As I stated, I disabled that functionality of the ZC intentionally. I do not want a human following misleading info on an SE to a page that doesn't have what the SE said it had. There is merit to creating noise on SE's, but phantom noise is just noise. If I only get one shot with a client, I don't want to waste it with garbage. There are ways to accomplish the same goals without ticking off humans….

This is 100% pure unadulterated cr ap, and you know it.

Err, I hope you know it, because if you don't you are ignoring the most important rule in high SE rankings. Links beat content!

You simply have no idea why anyone would be searching for any given search term. It is wrong to assume they are looking for a product

Feznizzle:

Bottom line though, me not having a million phantom links was a person decision, has absolutely nothing to do with Ceon.

Wow, two bad decisions in the one sentence. you're on a roll.

Feznizzle:

Second, a bit of clarification. Rod is right, incoming links is the first, biggest, most import element of PageRank.

Really? I'm right again.. I don't know how I am managing to to this, but I keep getting confirmations that I'm right about this, I'm right about that, yet somehow or other every word I write seems to be argued against (by someone). Very frustrating.

It my own fault though. I really shouldn't say "this is how it is", I should say "it may be like this" (funny how so few people will argue against a vague maybe, but will argue until blue in the face when confronted with a definitive statement).

This is a doubly sore point with me when it comes to computers, because no computer that I know of has any concept of 'maybe'.
We should be able to confidently state it WILL do this, or it WON'T be that. No ifs, buts or maybes. That is how computers are. We should be able to count on them to do exactly what they are coded to do. If a person discussing anything about computers is unable to state their claims with confidence then they simply don't know what they are talking about.

Anyway, wasn't this how this thread kinda started... I said something like 2+2=4 (a definitive statement), and you came back proclaiming that you were going to prove to me that 2+2=5? Yes, that is exactly how it started... you even very foolishly bet me that you could prove this... I'm still waiting......

Cheers
Rod

RodG:

The damage has been done. The tests are a mess, and I've even been insulted by a 3rd party because of your mistake. How did it go again? Oh yeah..

"Ah, there you go again! My and possibly Feznizzle's concern with the gibberish being the same as Lankeeyankee. But not for RodG. Nope. It's because we rewriters don't think things are going like we want."

Pure sarcasm intended to mean "two or three of us agree this is a concern , Rod is the odd one out, he must be wrong".

Could this same sarcasm have been stated if you had agreed with these known and demonstrated facts before the person that wrote this jumped to the wrong conclusion? No way..

LESSON: The majority are NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!

Rod, there you go again. I'll stay out of this except for where it pertains to me.

And I know the reason I balked and it was the gibberish text. Right or wrong, that was it. Period. I included lankeeyankee because it appeard that he also had this concern. Feznizzle, I knew he didn't mind the text but assumed he also pulled due to the product, for some reason. I probably should not have included either lankeeyankee or feznizzle.

But since you, RodG, keep trying to insinuate to the forum that I "really" pulled because I didn't like how the test was going, then I have a correction. I no longer respect you, but do acknowledge your knowledge.

SPH:

As for backlink, I probably need it then from ZC forum more than I need fear a competitor lurking.

Question:

Have you ever wondered why the HTTP protocol is commonly known at the "World Wide Web"?
Do you know how/why it got so popular so quickly (in a matter of months it outstripped all almost all internet protocols that came before it).

Incidentally, a 'backlink' is just a link, like any other link. At some point in time someone at Google thought it'd be a good idea to give the name of a link to a site a 'backlink', and assumedly, the links from a site must be a 'forward' link.
Like many things being discussed here, these are just names for peoples convenience. To Google, one link is the same as another. A forward link to one site will be the back link from the other.. direction changes, link function doesn't. All are the same.

I tell you this because its yet another area of contention/confusion. It doesn't need to be.. just think 'link'.

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

But you also have a burden. To prove that rewriting should be avoided like the plague.

I have NEVER SAID THAT. SHOW ME THE POST!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, RodG. I've heard of the importance of backlinks but it's this thread that's really hit me in the head with it. :smile:

One thing though. One of our sites have been hit with the google "unnatural inbound link" warnings, the site professionally seo'd seo-Guy. Million dollar question is what is an unnatural, inbound link? We've been assuming the spammy, spun, gibberish ones, but now with this thread have to question that.

No, unfortunately don't have a million dollars. Yet.

RodG:

I have NEVER SAID THAT. SHOW ME THE POST!!!!!!!!!!

It's the post where you were strutting around, basically declaring victory for having the most ancillary links, shortly after Fenizzle pulled out. You said rewriters should be avoided like the plague.

Quickly tried to find it but thread grows fast and have to run to store for wife.

And no, I'm not ducking.... We'll find it.

EDIT: Yes, I'm placing that burden on you.

Not fer nuttin, Mr. Rod... but I certainly won that wager.

Wiggle all you want, but you were laboring under a misunderstanding of how our URL mods worked. You got everybody whipped up by saying our URLs were going to suffer instant penalty just by virtue of the fact that they were not native. A huge chunk of my time went to explaining that my belief was those penalties were not that big of a deal anymore. You disagreed vehemently, thus the experiment. Then you got all excited, covered your mouth, and tried to stifle your giggles like a little girl expecting something hilarious to happen.

But then it comes out that 301/re-directs/re-writes/who-cares-what-you-want-to-call aren't being used as you apparently thought, therefore the big giant beautifully crushing blow you were expecting to fall on the heads of all us stupid SEO twits wasn't gonna happen. Instead of just being a man about it and saying, 'Oh snap! Really, none of the mods use the horrible plague I thought they used. I was wrong fellas, this test probably won't prove much. Feel free to go on about your life.' Instead of that you got all slippery with your words, tried repositioning, tried to make it about other things. And, in the end, you got schooled.

So now what? "By golly, you haven't proved the other stuff works so... so... SNAKE OIL!!! SNAKE OIL!!! SNAKE OIL!!! Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in poo poo."

lololol

Come on brother, you simply didn't have your facts straight about redirect/rewrite in our mods because you apparently have not "wasted your your time" playing with any of them. Yet you were so convincing in your ignorance that you even had me going! Dude, I totally believed there was a chance something big was about to happen (big = anything but chronological ranking of indexing of duplicate content).

On a side note... you weren't impressed by my 8 hours from live to index??? You must be a pretty serious bad a$$, bummer you didn't get the opportunity to prove it, eh? I'm sure in the heat of battle, you'd be right there in the trenches with us.

Man, I grew up in a tough neighborhood. In that environment you learn pretty quick how to weigh people. Guys who talk the most smack are not the ones you want with you when it's time to handle business.

SPH:

Perhaps that's one of the secret things RodG was going to prove...that native urls have more ancillary links indexed than rewritten urls?

Nah, I don't have a chance of proving something that isn't true, and this isn't true. I wish you would stop trying to find fault with all I say and take note. You MAY even learn a thing or too.

FACT: Native URL's do not produce any more (or any less) "ancillary links" (whatever they are) than sites using rewriters. There is literally no connection between them.

The fact that you have made this statement is simply showing your own ignorance.

Mind you, I can't expect you to beleive this... Well, not until you get confirmation from someone else.

SPH:

That and whether or not native links always, or at least more often than not, outrank rewritten urls for the same product..

1. Google doesn't know a 'product' from a 'review' from a 'sales page' from an index page, or any other page. It makes no distinction whatsoever.
   It crawls website for words then creates an index that says nothing more than "This word can be found on these 10 million pages".
   From there on in, it is a matter for the person doing the searching to narrow things down by adding more search words, until eventually Google will return a single result that effectivley states "This is the only page on the entire web where I was able to find every word in your search query.

2. I have not made any claims that ZenCart native URL's will outrank rewritten URL's. Fact is, Google doesn't know if a URL has been rewritten or not (it will know if it has been redirected though.

SPH:

That appears to me all that is left. Because he can't prove that rewritten urls do not get indexed.

Show me where I stated this! Keep in mind that REDIRECTS are NOT the same as REWRITES.

Also, don't forget, It is the onus on the producers/promoters of the 'SEO enhanced' sites to show that the enhancements are beneficial, not for me, or anyone else to show they are not.

Mind if I change tact once again (if I do this often enough, whilst still saying the same things, it is only a matter of time before you open your mind enough to be able to think of things for yourself, as opposed to just reading something and deciding whether it is correct or not based on the number of people saying it) <g>

OK, here we go... You like ZenCart don't you? I do, I love it. It has been what a decade or more in the making? It has gone through how many updates? (not important).. lets just say 'lots'.

Wouldn't you agree that Zencart has been developed by some of the best coders on the planet? (ok, if not the best, you have to at least acknowledge they are very talented.. Most of them leave me in the dust when it comes to coding, ecommerce practices, and general computer skills/knowledge).

Do you think they are ignorant when it comes to Search engines? I don't.
Simply take a look at what we have determined with our tests so far. The ZenCart native URL's are performing no worse than any of the SEO enhanced sites (also Zencart).

The Zen team have done an A1 job with SE friendliness. They are proud of it, and rightly so..

Now along comes MrSEO, and without providing any proof of the value of the SEO code/module, proceeds to give the ZenCart team a huge 'face slap' by 'selling it' as though it were superior than what the Team have spent years developing and tweaking.

Basically, any person that installs one of these modules is sending a a clear message to the ZenCart team, and this message is 'I don't care how good your native code is' I'm going to replace it with this unproven alternative'. That must really hurt them.

It isn't like they are idiots, They've had access to these SEO rewriters too, and if there was any provable gains to be had, don't you think they would have adapted/adopted or implemented the same format URL's?

It is one thing thinking I'm a dickhead for not wishing to implement this technique, but to imply that the ZenCart team have also got it wrong, and have kept it so in spite of several major updates where they could have 'fixed' this 'error' really takes the cake.

Simply put, it isn't just me that isn't convinced of the yet to be proven benefits, it is also the ZenCart team that also haven't been convinced.

I bet you wouldn't have the balls to write the same things to them that you've been writing to me.

Are you starting to at least get some inkling of an idea that this isn't matter of "RodG" being right/wrong, because it isn't just me... there are far far smarter people than me essentially saying the same things...

I just happen to be the silly bugger that is still to realize that no matter what the evidence and/or lack of, if a person gets it in their head that "freindly URL's are the thing to be had" there is no way back.....

There are only two options. You can use the ZenCart native URL's with the full knowledge that it is tried and proven to be very SE friendly, or you can tell the ZenCart team that their code really sucks and you would prefer to use an unproven alternative and that you could even be willing to pay for it.

Anyway, do what you feel you need to do, neither I, not the ZenCart team have any vested interest as to whether your store succeeds of fails.
The sellers of the SEO tools don't care either, they just want your $$$$.

Me. I get top rankings on any relevant search query, I don't have to babysit or manipulate things to ensure I won't accidentally break my store. I don't need to add or update any modules... simply put ZenCart is doing the perfect job right out of the box. Only a fool would consider the other option.

Rod

Feznizzle:

Not fer nuttin, Mr. Rod... but I certainly won that wager. .

Post#11.

Feznizzle:

Anyway.
Yea, I like the idea of a wager. A gentleman's wager. If you take my challenge and I can prove that 2+2 is indeed 5 in my very next post on the subject, then you have to make a change on your Zen-Cart forum profile and leave it up there for one month. But if my next post does not convince you that key word loading of URLs does indeed help to bring traffic from Google, then I will make the same change and leave it up for a month..

Tell me again, how does 2+2=5?

You LOSE..

Feznizzle:

Wiggle all you want, but you were laboring under a misunderstanding of how our URL mods worked. .

FerSuxSake, there are TWO WAYS the URL mods can work. Redirects and rewrites. Sometimes even a combination of both.

I know this. Apparenlty YOU DONT!!

Feznizzle:

You got everybody whipped up by saying our URLs were going to suffer instant penalty just by virtue of the fact that they were not native. .

FerSuxSake, the SEO mods that use redirects DO suffer an instant penalty by sheer fact they ARE redirected. YOU AGREED TO THIS EARLIER IN THIS THREAD.

Feznizzle:

But then it comes out that 301/re-directs/re-writes/who-cares-what-you-want-to-call aren't being used as you apparently thought,.

Even after all this time YOU STILL DON'T SEE IT!

A simple question for you. No tricks, not catches, nothing up my sleeve. Its not even going to be a new question, it is one I've asked before (twice in fact) and both times it was ignored.. (and I'm betting you will ignore it again, for the simple reason, you don't know the answer, so you'll need to look it up, and you don't want to waste any more of your time).

The question is:

If I have product in my store, lets say its a "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" (both words are gibbersish, surely Google will my site for that?), I digress, the native URL for this product is:
http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=222

Now, in keeping with the 'freindly URL's are good department' I'm going to add an SEO redirect. thusly:

        Redirect 301 <http://shop.vcsweb.com/Wurldbitzer> Debibulator  <http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=222> 

The question is. What URL will Google index? Will it be
shop.vcsweb.com/Wurldbitzer Debibulator
http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=222
or both?

Assuming you answer this correctly it will be self evident why redirects cannot work to benefit SEO, and if it cannot work for this purpose, and it is known that redirects come at a cost, then the only possible conclusion is that redirects are bad for SEO purposes. I still stand by this, and although I haven't been able to show you the google results that I was hoping to (by virtue of the fact that none of the test stores use this method) if you answer this correctly I won't need to show you, you will see it for yourself.

Showing it in google would have been a better demonstration.

OK, this says nothing about CEON or the other SEO modules that don't use this method... but that isn't. and never was the point.. I wasn't going to go into the merits of one SEO module over another. It would only muddy the waters for you, again.

Feznizzle:

On a side note... you weren't impressed by my 8 hours from live to index???

I was at first, in fact I found it so unbelievably impressive that I had no doubts that your test site(s) weren't exactly what you 1st stated they were. However as a result of the info you supplied we jumped to the wrong conclusion that it was probably the xml sitemap that caused the rapid index. It almost had me fooled, until I realised that the other tests sites, also with the xml sitemaps wasn't getting the same results.. Being a computer they should have had pretty much response. This is when I knew for a fact that there was more to your site than you had originally claimed. If I didn't ask you directly about the webmaster tools and analytics I seriously doubt that you would have volunteered this information, and you would have been quite content showing how good CEON and sitemaps were, even though neither had anything to do with the rapid indexing.

So, if you are going to ask me if 8hrs from live to indexing when using Google analytics? No, not at all impressive. I've seen results from this in as little as 10 minutes!

Feznizzle:

You must be a pretty serious bad a$$, bummer you didn't get the opportunity to prove it, eh?

If you wish me show that redirects are useless for SEO purposes. Answer the question above. You'll have your proof.

I'm also waiting for you to show ANY benefit from using SEO modules with ZenCart. The current data (and you agreed) as that these gave no noticeable improvement over the sites using ZenCart native links. Perhaps you have forgotten that you are 'selling' the service, the onus is on you to prove it works, and not for me to prove it doesn't work.

The best I could ever hope to achieve was for is a demonstration that there was at least one case where the SEO method cannot work. It would be absurd if you thought my aim was to show all SEO methods are all ineffective. I was hoping that if I could demonstrate this one instance you might be prepared to rethink some of your other views on this matter, and then we would be able to move on to the more important issue of can we demonstrate if the SEO modules are in any way beneficial. If it can be proven, it isn't going to be something that would happen in a day, or even a week.. The plan was to watch, log and monitor for UP TO A MONTH.... You thought even this was a good idea, but no, I couldn't prove my negative case to your satisfaction even though not all test sites had been index yet, so instead of continuing the experiment you call me names and pull the plug. Very childish.

Feznizzle:

I'm sure in the heat of battle, you'd be right there in the trenches with us.

This is another thing that is peeving me about this entire thread.. You are taking it as though I'm some kind of moron with nothing better to do than discredit this technique. The fact of the matter is, the only reason I 'discredit' it is because it hasn't been shown to have any benefits over the native ZenCart URL's.

I would love to be shown that it works and is effective. It means I'll no longer have to play the antagonist whenever the topic comes up. I'll have been shown it works and is beneficial, I'll be an avid supporter of the technique, and will check what's around and use whatever is best for my needs, knowing that I'll benefit from it. I will never need to have this 'religous war' again. The case will be proven, so no more discussions or debates will be needed.

I'm unable to do that though, because we still have no evidence whatsoever that it is beneficial for ZenCart.
**I want to be proven wrong on this **Is this too much for me to ask? All I'm really asking is that you show what you said you were going to show me in post#11.

Cheers
Rod

RodG, I'm not trying to find fault with everything you say. In fact, one of the things I really like about your participation is your thoughtful, knowledgeable and detailed replies. And I have not dismissed anything you say. In fact, I really don't care where the cards fall on this or any test. If something proves better, then that's it. I can turn off Ultimate SEO anytime and return to dynamic urls. That's one great thing about this particular plugin: if I leave it's htaccess code in place, any indexed google links will still return to the proper dress. No broken links. Same with CEON, so I understand.

And you don't have to defend unwritten ulrs...the Zencart way. I know they work. You may have missed it, but last year while on dynamic urls I had to compete with an exact match WP domain for a dress (which eventually linked to the competitor's site.) This dress blog page ranked no. one or two (behind the mfr itself). But I managed to compete with a dynamic url, often coming up above the competitor. It was this dress, now on Ultimate SEO:

http://www.prommart.com/flaunt-91101-p-427.html

I had a different template, with the description up higher, to the right of the main photo. Perhaps not best description, but it got me to no. 1 vis a vis the competition for "Flaunt 91101". Unfortunately, nobody wanted that dress...sister said it was a bomb even on her sites and in the store.

So I know dynamic urls work. I just happen to like looking at human readable urls.

There are some plugins I don't think that we can dismiss just because the zencart team doesn't include them. Easypopulate and Image Handler are two that immediately come to mind. We couldn't live without either. The column layout grid for categories is nice. But we don't use much more than this (experimenting with Dynamic Filter on some sites.)

Here is the Ultimate SEO URL plugin page. Go to second from bottom. You'll see a zencart team member was once involved.

I don't know that the absence of a plugin from zencart's core implies that the team doesn't like it or that it will hurt their feelings. In fact, didn't you or someone in this thread indicate that the absence of a google xml sitemap in zencart's core didn't mean that the team was against it?

Peace.

Forgot link: http://www.zen-cart.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=132

I like how you point to post #11, then conveniently ignore #25 which is the explanation alluded to. In a nutshell, I believe the hit/penalty suffered in using the strategy is far outweighed by other factors. The "gentleman's bet" was that I could I deliver clear enough information in a single post to convince you that key word loading of does help to bring traffic from SEs. If you disagree with what I said in #25… !

A gentleman's bet requires gentleman's honor, something you refuted yourself, probably for good reason. So perhaps the bet was unwinable from the word go.

This experiment (unrelated to the bet) is a result of your insistence that my urls would be clearly penalized if we put it to a test. You made that assertion based upon bad information (your lack of understanding of how URL rewrite mods work today... not 10 years ago). If the penalty (which we all except, has been recorded, played over and over for better than a decade… absolutely not new) was severe, the listings would not have indexed chronologically. The penalty was proven inconsequential, end of story.

So, if you are going to ask me if 8hrs from live to indexing when using Google analytics? No, not at all impressive. I've seen results from this in as little as 10 minutes!

Yet another convenient memory loss. Only one of my two sites has Foogle Analytics.

Man you are thick. Because the experiment proved that penalties suffered by re-write/re-directs/yo-momma aren't severe enough to cause rankings of duplicate content to jump out of chronological order, you now additionally demand that I prove the value of SEO modules in general? Go read post #25. When you are done, go read google's pdf. When you are done with that, google the words "My Argument is Invalid".

Grr. Can't believe I'm up reading and responding to this tripe so late! Wondering what the point of bailing out was if I keep doing this to myself. :)

SPH:

In fact, I really don't care where the cards fall on this or any test. If something proves better, then that's it.

This is my view exactly.

SPH:

And you don't have to defend unwritten ulrs...the Zencart way. I know they work. You may have missed it, but last year while on dynamic urls I had to compete with an exact match WP domain for a dress (which eventually linked to the competitor's site.) This dress blog page ranked no. one or two (behind the mfr itself). But I managed to compete with a dynamic url, often coming up above the competitor.

I remember that quite well. It actually gave me a bit more confidence that my ZenCart 'native' would fair well in these tests no matter what. The only thing that didn't sit well was the 'WP domain'. I only know "WP" to mean WordPress, and that being the case the odds are stacked a little against zencart taking top spot.
(news & blogs tend to outrank eCommerce). Not sure where I picked that tidbit up though.

SPH:

I had a different template, with the description up higher, to the right of the main photo. Perhaps not best description, but it got me to no. 1

SPH:

So I know dynamic urls work. I just happen to like looking at human readable urls.

To misquote an oft spoken quote... Your store is for your customers, not for you :)

SPH:

There are some plugins I don't think that we can dismiss just because the zencart team doesn't include them. Easypopulate and Image Handler are two that immediately come to mind. We couldn't live without either. The column layout grid for categories is nice. But we don't use much more than this (experimenting with Dynamic Filter on some sites.)

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. Heck the modular system is designed so that other developers could create all sorts of things to enhance the merchant/user experience. The regeneration of the store URL's doesn't fit into the same category though (well at least not in my opinion). All other modules seem to have observable benefits. 'Tis only the SEO ones that seem to cause much debate.

SPH:

I don't know that the absence of a plugin from zencart's core implies that the team doesn't like it or that it will hurt their feelings.

The thing is, if the ZenTeam did wish to have 'human readable urls' they wouldn't need to add it as a module, nor would they need to use rewrites to do it.
It would be a relatively straight forward change to the core code. Certainly a lot simpler that the "after the fact" module method.

SPH:

In fact, didn't you or someone in this thread indicate that the absence of a google xml sitemap in zencart's core didn't mean that the team was against it?

It could have been me. It's a perfectly valid/legitimate statement. In this case though, the nature of the code is such that it doesn't need to be an integral part of the core functions, so adding it as a module is the correct way to do this.

Its a lot like the rewrites vs redirects. There is a time and place for each. The 'trick' is in knowing what works best and where (and what doesn't work at all).

Cheers
Rod