Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

niccol:

Wow. Entirely speechless about how much energy is going into this entertaining thread.

I mean it has too be for entertainment, right? You can't really believe that anything at all is going to be demonstrated, can you? You are just going to produce a statistically irrelevant number of purely subjective results. The people who believe one thing are going to continue to believe that and the other are going to continue to believe the other thing. You do all know that, don't you?

I am going to unsubscribe now as you can only take so much entertainment at once, but things that I think have been demonstrated by much more thorough investigation than this bunch of apples bobbing around in a barrel are:

1. the scientific method is quite a powerful tool. If you ignore it's methodology then you may have difficulty persuading anyone of the validity of your conclusions however heartfelt your beliefs are.

2. most likely dynamic URLs do not damage search rankings.

3. most likely static urls do not damage rankings

4. changing from one to the other after site launch can cause some issues for sure.

5. there are genuine reasons why one might prefer 'human friendly' urls. the first is because humans like them. the second is based on the conceptual idea of an URI rather than a URL. Simply, the problem with dynamic URLs in this line of thought is that they tend to be platform dependent. The logic says that the information is best if it is platform independent. So a URI refers directly to the information that is contained in that position rather than being reliant on the software that is used to present that information. That is kind of a intellectual distinction and you can care about it however much you want. Note, though, what Conor called his module.

Thanks for all the fun.

This will be my ONLY contribution to this --as niccol put it-- entertaining thread.. I agree with Niccol and Conor. I like Ceon URI and if my client INSISTS on "pretty" URLs (after having a talk with him about why he doesn't necessarily NEED "pretty" URLs), this is the ONLY module I will install for many reasons.

1. Conor wrote some of the best written and documented modules for Zen Cart
2. When Conor was alive, he provided STELLAR support of his FREE add-on (R.I.P. Conor...)
3. It worked trouble-free (see #1)

The late great Conor Kerr distinguished his module from modules like SSU, Ultimate SEO, and Magic SEO. There's a REASON why Conor named his module Ceon URI and why SEO was in parenthesis..

Conor himself stated REPEATEDLY that his module was NOT written specifically for SEO (not a claim that SSU, Ultimate SEO, and Magic SEO can make can they?)

The Ceon URI Mapping module has (SEO) in brackets for a simple reason.. it wasn't written for SEO. It was written so that a store owner could have easy to type and easy to remember URIs.

I wrote the software so that a store could create a URI for a page and then publish that URI on some form of literature. For example, a URI could be created for the "specials" page, "mysite.com/summer" and promoted on flyers. URIs being promoted need to be easy for customers to type in and/or remember.

I added the (SEO) whenever evidence came in that the use of the module to map product and category URIs caused sites to increase their rankings in search engines.

I'm no authority on SEO.. I'm actually not even remotely interested in it.. but I've had a significant number of Zen Cart users contact me to say things along the line of "thanks for the module, since I installed it I've noticed a significant jump in our site's search engine rankings whereas our other sites without the software have remained stagnant" (after a week or two of course).

Conor's own words on his Ceon URI module:
http://www.zen-cart.com/showthread.php?181667-Use-SEO-rewrite-or-not&p=1039967#post1039967
http://www.zen-cart.com/showthread.php?130654-seo-%28urls%29-what-is-the-best-contribution&p=970912#post970912

lhungil:

Just a suggestion, but maybe something like: "At this point in time with the limited data we have gathered, the test does not show any measurable search engine ranking benefit gained by using human readable URLs". I'd also say the results showed "At this point with the limited data we have gathered, the test shows no harm in terms of search engine ranking was caused by using human readable (or non-human readable) URLs".

Agree.

Thread 203958 has prompted some interesting conversation. I'd say most of the contributors (and many o the readers) have found at least one takeaway.

Agree again.

RodG:

Incidently I am hopeless when it comes to things like History and Geography, these are realms where the memorising of facts/details is important.

RodG, you are thorough. Having been a History major, then into Law, while reading your post I was thinking along these lines; otherwise, I'm in the 80-90%. Which I probably am.

Bottom line, the more links the better, even the so called "anciallary links" go a long way to helping a site reach top spots even if the search query of a given user isn't an exact match.

Does this make sense, or is there some kind of flaw in my logic that I'm not seeing?

I'd say that your post there, RodG, was one of the greatest articles I've ever read on ecommerce.

As I recall, Feznizzle asked early on if we were testing just the test product itself. I also assumed that the test product was what we were testing.

I understand Feznizzle's theory that customers will be disappointed with these anciallary links. Should the customer happen on one, looking for our test product, and not see it, two things will likely happen: 1. The customer will use zencart's search function or, 2. hit the back button to return to the google listings (disappointment).

But the notion that these ancillary links* help the test product rank higher is a real eye opener. I've seen a pattern of sorts. Once the test product does hit, it ranks higher than all anciallary links from that same site. Probably as it should. I'm wondering that with all of your anciallary links, in addition to the test product, if it will eventually push your site to the top?

Any theory why you have so many anciallary links compared to the rest of us?

*We have to call them something, to distinguish them from the test product itself.

Update

GOOGLE: I now see my fashion-mart.biz site (ancillary link), sort of. When I go to the end to see duplicate results, my site then disappears. Perhaps google is still percolating this entry?

Also, is it just my eyes or are some of us losing anciallary links? While drumfactory is gaining ancillary links.

"Ancillary" is a fair name, "garbage" is not fair to those links, except as they apply to the original experiment. Really "superfluous" would have been a better choice of words for the experiment.

Ancillary links are most likely good for the actual thing you want to climb. The more often is shows up on your site, the more often SE's see you trying to point to the product (you are voting for it as something to look at). My guess for why Rod had so many is that maybe he has fewer products than you guys, meaning the random content generators (New for January side box or whatever) had higher odds of showing the Wurldblitszer Debibulator. So when the bot crawled, it showed up more frequently.

Your ancillary links will change every time SEs crawl, based upon whether or not your random content shows up at the instant you were crawled.

I prefer (completely a personal choice, might not be practical for large sites) to use static methods (vs random content) to achieve the same goal. When using a static method, whatever caused the bot to index an ancillary link (like a banner or something) will still be there when a searcher visits (unless you change it manually). Once the actual page achieves its goal of getting indexed and viewed by SE as important to your site, you can change the static content to something new to promote whatever you now want to promote.

My logic for static vs random is to reduce the use of back button by disappointed googlers.

Feznizzle:

My logic for static vs random is to reduce the use of back button by disappointed googlers.

And also a possible bounce rate devaluing from google? I thought you might have mentioned this, but I forgot it if you did so.

If I understood RodG correctly, having alot of these ancillary links should eventually help push him to the top. (Along with lankeeyankee, who is also coming on strong with these links.) I think this test has additional value on this theory.

I'm now thinking that I should show more products in these sideboxes than I currently do.

Thinking on RodG's outstanding post #279:

I added some description text to our product name and see my fashion-mart.biz entry (may have to click on show duplicate results)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Wurldbitzer+Debibulator&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=#q=Wurldbitzer+Debibulator+Is+branched+in+my+up+strictly+remember&hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I&fp=e233eb1ee8f7df5&bpcl=40096503&biw=1680&bih=945

Product is an "ancillary link" from the category, picking-up text that I show on category listings. Here's my category here, so don't click on google result:

http://www.fashion-mart.biz/blush-homecoming

First, is it then a good idea to show some product description on category listings? I know many turn them off, possibly even for "looks".

Second, make sure it is good, most relevant searchable text that is showing. (I suppose that ideally this describes all of a product's text.)

I do have one follow-up post/question..

RodG:

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.

Which one??? Since it's been established that RE-DIRECTS are detrimental, and clearly the URI and SEO mods in this test are using re-writes (versus a re-directs) wouldn't this be valuable information to share?? If the point of this thread is to provide information, then this would be valuable information for anyone hoping to "learn" something from this thread..

Update:

GOOGLE - sabianstore now showing for homepage. Thank those "ancillary links."

DivaVocals:

I do have one follow-up post/question..

Which one??? Since it's been established that RE-DIRECTS are detrimental, and clearly the URI and SEO mods in this test are using re-writes (versus a re-directs) wouldn't this be valuable information to share?? If the point of this thread is to provide information, then this would be valuable information for anyone hoping to "learn" something from this thread..

I hope it isn't the commerical Magic SEO URL that my sister uses on her two main sites. I'm guessing it's not, as her stores perform well. Come to think of it, so did prommart when on it.

Update:

GOOGLE: BN's cscycles entry just hit, page one and looks like test product itself.

So I guess that just leaves my prommart.com - yet nowhere to be found either in original test or with new description right after lankeeyankee's sabianstore.

Haha! I had not read #279 until I saw the adulation for it.

Of the entire post, he is only on target once. Even then he kind of misses the point.

PageRank focuses on the number of external links to your particular URL. Each link is a vote for the content found at that URL.

Similarly, the number of links inside of your site that point to one of your URLs could be seen as votes for the content found at that URL. In otherwords, if you have a 1000 of your own pages voting for a particular page, then your site believes that page is important.

It would be cool if he was right! Just populate a few million pages on your site with links pointing at one of your own pages. :)

I'm pretty sure cluttering up SE search results with a 1000 phantom pages that no longer reflect what the bot saw is NOT the goal ZC authors had in mind (just a guess).

So I guess that just leaves my prommart.com - yet nowhere to be found either in original test or with new description right after lankeeyankee's sabianstore<<<

No, I think BN still has a CEON entry on original test?

Feznizzle:

Haha! I had not read #279 until I saw the adulation for it.

Of the entire post, he is only on target once. Even then he kind of misses the point.

I'm very interested to see if those sites with many "ancillary links" move to the top. RodG's site and lankeeyankee's drumfactory appear to have the most.

Feznizzle,

My first indexed link, an ancillary link from promdressesforless.us, has disappeared. I no longer see some of your anciallary links (although you/we did not have many).

Do you confirm the disappearance?

If your ancillary links have gone missing, it is because google crawled you again and did not see wurlitizer debobulator on that page again. That is because of the of ZC random content code that generated the link in the first place.

I haven't been looking, not sure if I see what you see. Are you going all the way to the end and hitting Repeat with Omitted?

Yes. My first link is currently not showing.

So these ancillary links can actually be removed by google?

No, has nothing to do with the test product. Only has to do with the page where google found the....

You know what. I found an easy way for you to understand what is going on.

Go to google and do a search. Look at the listings for a few of the Ancillary links. When you hover over the listing, this will appear >>. If you hover over that, a cached image will appear. Google will show you what it saw and, often, google will draw a red box around what was important:

Sorry, you went too fast for me. Yes, google removes links when things disappear. No, this has nothing to do with the product you are promoting, only the random pages where it shows up. That is all.

SPH:

I hope it isn't the commerical Magic SEO URL that my sister uses on her two main sites. I'm guessing it's not, as her stores perform well. Come to think of it, so did prommart when on it.

Well I'd be interested in knowing exactly which add-on Rod refers to.. So far that seems to be the most useful takeaway from this massive thread.

Otherwise IMHO all that's been proven in this "test" is that there is no discernible difference between dynamic versus re-written URLs in terms of search engine rankings or in terms of the search engines ability to find these URLs (though when I last checked Fenizzle's sites were still ranking in the #1 and #2 positions in Google). No one has provided any OVERWHELMING evidence that re-writing causes great harm. I do believe that THIS was Fenizzle's original point -- though several folks in this thread seem more interested in proving/disproving performance improvements with regards to URL re-writers..

The only takeaway for me with this "test" is that at the end of the day as long as there is no HARM then there is no issue with regards to URL re-writers.. Content is still king. Well written content (product and category descriptions), good use of the the product and category meta tag feature in Zen Cart, and inclusion of XML sitemaps are all just good practices regardless of whether one uses dynamic or re-written URLs. NO site will rank well with weak content.