Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

Feznizzle:

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.

That could fubar the ancillary link theory.

No, those links still serve a purpose. They might help speed your product showing in the index. They might also help google think your site is more focused on whatever shows. But definitely fubar if you hope to use them to fool the SEs (or innocent humans) into thinking you have billions of interesting things on your site relating to wurleitser debibulars.

Personally, I think they cloud the issue. I prefer to use banners or some other static thing, tis all.

DivaVocals:

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.
:clap::clap::clap:

But I'm still kind of hoping that they will switch gears and move on to find out if they can use traffic to change ranks. It's not scientific, but it would be cool to see if it could be done.

My links will be gone soon, promdressesforless should take top spot. Looks like the current last place product page is https://www.onyourbike.co.uk product page. I wonder if that could be moved up by having a ton of people search google, find the link, click on it, click Add to Cart then just leave the browser open. Change IPs and browsers, repeat the process.

If everybody did that 2 or 3 times a day for a few days... I wonder if it would climb?

I've always operated under the theory that pagerank (external links), content, and seo get you listed and establish a rank. After that, human traffic is a major driving factor for rank.

Just a thought. I'm not really in this anymore and I'm sure Rod hates me, but it would be interesting to see!

DivaVocals:

Content is still king. Well written content (product and category descriptions).... NO site will rank well with weak content.

That's just it, Diva. If our spun, gibberish test description can be considered "good content", that google really doesn't care about gibberish in a negative way, I have no idea anymore what "good content" means. I'm now thinking it is simply having more text and stuff on the category and product page than your competitor?

Also, I think that RodG was of the view that links trump content.

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".

Have you ever considered a career writing political speeches? None of this in any way changes the conclusions made, and if you wish to go to this extent to obfuscate the conclusions, why stop there? Wouldn't it also be valid to add, "It must also be noted that some of the test products were added to the stores on a Monday, while others added the product to their stores on a Tuesday. For this test to be conclusive all stores must add the test product on exactly the same day at exactly the same time.

Whatever happened to the KISS principle?

Cheers
Rod

DivaVocals:

This will be my ONLY contribution to this --as niccol put it-- entertaining thread.. I agree with Niccol and Conor.

Me too!

DivaVocals:

I like Ceon URI

Me too (it is the only one I'd ever consider using on a client's site)

DivaVocals:

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)

Agreed 100% on ALL counts. (with particular importance on the opening comment).

If we go back to where this thread began, it will be seen that this is what got my feathers ruffled. I was trying to explain to feznizzle that customers will often ask for things they don't need, and that it was for us developers to educate them. If a client insists of 'pretty URLs' I've no problems in giving it to them, but if they are under the mistaken impression that it will improve the SE rankings then they need to be told the truth, that this has yet to be proven.

Alas, feznizzle doesn't seem to agree with this approach... In fact he doesn't really care about what his customers want, he even said so himself "But what my client wants is actually immaterial in this case since the truth of the matter is that Ceon URI was my suggestion".

I fully appreciate the the intention was good, but the world is full of lots of evils done with good intent.

DivaVocals:

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?)

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

THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!!!

I've always had great respect for Conor anyway, but this has just given it another boost.

Seriously if everyone here could take note and learn from what the man himself says I'd be very happy. I'll literally have nothing to dispute. Conor has it nailed.

Does this mean I've changed my opinion or views? Not in the slightest, and if anyone thinks I have, then you aren't seeing what Conor was saying (apparently over and over again). I guess he was having the same problem as I am, in that he was trying to make it clear that "pretty URLs" are/were not created for any misguided SEO reasons, and if it did affect SE rankings there was only anecdotal evidence to support it.

What about the creators of Ultimate SEO, and Magic SEO, etc ,etc... Doesn't the very name of their products imply a definite SEO benefit? Have they managed to prove what they are implying, or are they also using anecdotal evidence? I've not seen any proof (even from the current tests), so it must be assumed they are also depending on anecdotal evidence to make definitive claims. I suspect that if Conor had the time/energy/inclination he would also be ripping into the developers of these other products for making claims that they couldn't support with empirical evidence.

Conor was clearly trying to teach that there is an important distinction to be made. He has apparently failed to do so. :(

Cheers
Rod

I don't think you are a moron. Probably you just failed to read post #27 and then to apply KNOWN TRUTHS to which you now seem to agree with. This excerpt is what matters to me (why I implement Ceon for my clients):

+++++++++++++

Now here is the point. Look again at that enlarged picture. Notice the use of BOLD.

Why do people make things bold? It is done with the intent of drawing attention to important things. The eye is DRAWN to things which are bold. You know instinctively know that that which is bold is IMPORTANT.

Notice that GOOGLE BOLDS OUT KEY WORDS IN URLS. You cannot argue with that. It is there, plane as the nose on my face.

If a human eye is drawn to something, it is more likely to see that which it is drawn to. In this case, a bolded out URL holds the potential to be significant. Even if it is seen just for a millisecond, it is seen. If it is clicked on, it is a voted on. The more votes it receives, the higher it climbs.

Fact: Most people don't look at the google links before clicking.

Somebody needs to send a memo over to google. Come on. Seriously?

Kidding aside, try to answer "NO" just one time to any of these questions with a straight face:
• Is BOLD used to draw the attention of a reader to significant things?
• Does Google use BOLD to draw attention to significant things?
• Does Google bold out words from searches in the listings?
• Does Google bold out words from searches in the URLs of listings?

If you answered "YES" to every question above, then you are a sane, logical person. Sadly, it also means that I have made my point and properly loading keywords into URLs does indeed help to generate traffic from google. Not only does google show those keyword loaded URLs, they take the time to bold them out so that the searcher will notice them. Clearly google LIKES keyword loaded urls.
+++++++++++++

If you answered yes to the questions above, then you have to admit that there is value in having the SE add more bold to your listing on a search (however tiny that value may be, it is there). Further if you think that a properly used Ceon URI mod does no harm (which it sounds like you are now in line with), then EXACTLY WHY SHOULD I NOT USE IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF LOADING KEYWORDS?????

It takes 15 minutes to instal, 15 minutes to configure. Of all the stuff I do for SEO, this is a complete no brainer. Whether or not SE's treat keywords in URLs the same as they treat keywords in the domain name, meta desc, meta title, and page content is immaterial. I believe they probably do, but EVEN IF THEY DO NOT, the strategy still has value simply for the way SE's present listings to searchers.

Dude, you have got to quit using my name in this discussion. Say all the silly stuff you want (google analytics gets pages listed in 8 minutes, etc), I won't call you on it. But if you keep trying to use me as a whipping boy I will keep pointing out how brilliant you are. Seriously man, just leave me alone. I've more than enough of it.
:wacko:

You know, I'd really love to hear you admit I kinda have a point here. If you just stick to your guns and come up with some new way to make it sound like I am am stupid or scamming/mistreating/ill-advising my clients, then it just shows that your stubbornness is beyond reason.

SPH:

RodG, you are thorough.

Thanks. I do try. :)

SPH:

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..

It really shouldn't be this difficult. The tests were to see if there were any gains/losses to be had in using the SEO tools in preference to the Native URL's that zencart produces. Every thing else is irrelevant to this fact.

Also, if Feznizzle (and yourself) are unable to see that Google has no concept of what a 'product' is, then you need to take a step back and take another look at what a webserver is.

SPH:

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)..

I understand it too, I simply don't agree with it. It is making an incorrect assumption that the person doing the searching is looking for a product, and not (perhaps) a review of the product.

SPH:

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.

There is nothing magical or mysterious about this. It all comes back to the numbers (why am I seemingly the only one that has this clarity of vision?).

The test product page(s) will rank higher than the ancillary pages for no other reason that the ancillary page(s) will each only contain the search query "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" once (maybe twice), as evidenced by the screenshot of our store recently posted by feznizzle.
In contrast, the product page(s) has the words "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" no less than four or five times. In 'Google speak' this means that the product pages have 'better content' than the others, and Google doing what it tries to do best, displays these pages before the others.

I once asked in this thread if anyone wondered why I chose to change the test product name at the last minute? No one asked, but I think I wouldn't be too far off the mark to assume no one asked because it was for some strange fear that I thought someone may have 'cheated' and jumped the gun, or perhaps for some other self serving purpose.
I changed it because as I was thinking about how the experiments would progress, and what we would (and wouldn't) be able to prove/demonstrate. The original test product, the "Wurlitzer Debobulator" was a poor choice, because even though (at the time) "Wurlitzer Debobulator" was a unique search phrase and produced zero results in a google search, I found that both "Wurlitzer" and "Debobulator" were far from unique, and that each word search would produce 1000's of results, mostly from sites that have nothing to do with our experiments. I also realized that as a result, we'd have a very hard time isolating our test sites from the 1000's of others that contained these words in isolation. These sites would have appear in the results along with what is currently being termed as "anciallary links".

On the other hand, with very minor changes, I created the product using two words that have never appeared on the Internet before now. Ever!
These two words being "Wurldbitzer" and "Debibulator". It is the uniqueness of these two words that is causing our test sites to show up, but no others.
This same uniqueness is also what has made it easy to explain (demonstrate?) why the product page(s) will eventually outrank the "anciallary pages". There are no other unrelated sites appearing that would have muddied the waters with their own anciallary links.

SPH:

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?

Quite possibly, but it isn't something I'd like to predict either way.. However, if we assume that the SEO rewriters have positive benefits in regards to SE rankings, then I'm actually expecting our site to fall to the bottom of the searches as the 'SEO optimised' sites find their way to the top.

SPH:

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

Yes. It isn't anything I've actively done. It is the result of what I haven't done. Specifically, I haven't disabled any of Zencart inbuilt features that makes it one of the leading and most google friendly shopping carts 'out of the box'.

SPH:

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

If you feel the need to do this to help clarify things, then I've no objection, as long as it is realized that this is still a 'human classification'. Google itself makes no such distinction, and as such it shouldn't be stated or implied that Google sees these links as anything different than any other links.
For the purposes of ranking, google treats them as equals.

Personally, I think that giving these things 'names' just adds to the confusion. Google doesn't know or care if any given link goes to a product, a review, or whatever, they are all just links associated with any given search query. If they are seen as anything else it means the plot has been lost and the software has somehow managed to gain human like capabilities. Even if this were the case, Google will face the same dilemma that us humans do, in that we have no way to know why a person is doing any given search.. as such, it can still only return all results that match the query, and leave it up to the human to determine which link is most likely to take them to their area of interest.

Cheers
Rod

Feznizzle:

"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.

A FAR better choice is simply "Links". The only superfluous links are dead links.

Feznizzle:

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.

Your logic is flawed. it is making the invalid assumption that the person is seeking the product, and not something relating to the product.

Rod

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..

Good question, and if I could give the answer I would have. In fact I'd have gone one step further and asked/suggested that one of the test sites should use the module because it would have been demonstrated the point I was hoping to show. It was over a year ago when I stumbled across the site using it, and to be perfectly honest, I didn't realise the relevance/significance of what it implied at the time, so I took no further notice of it.

Although it would have been good to demonstrate this one instance of a 'truly bad SEO tool', I also knew that if I couldn't identify which one it was it was still possible one of the others would have a similar flaw. I also knew that if this wasn't the to be, I'd end up with egg on face (stated as a good possibility many times).
I took the gamble and lost, but in so doing, I managed to achieve what has been something I've been wanting to do for a very long time, which was to organize a group of test sites, some using SEO enhancers, some without, all set up with a common but 'unique' product (and description) that would provide a good base whereby a group of us with independent and often opposing views, could essentially sit back and watch what happens, discuss the results, and hopefully find empirical evidence to back up (or refute) our individual theory’s.

I have attempted to set up this same/similar experiment many times in the past, but have never managed to do so, mostly because the emotions tend to run so high that it has been impossible to get anyone to agree on even the name of a test product, let alone add it to their stores. Oddly(?), those that have the most to gain from these experiments (the SEO supporters, who are in desperate need for more than anecdotal evidence) are also the ones that do the most arguing against any such experiments that would help prove their case. Something I can only explain as being a fear that they won't get the results they want.

I still don't care which sites end up at the top, I'm simply interested in the results, and any conclusions that can be made from them. Alas, although we are already starting to see patterns emerge, the patterns aren't showing what some think they should (some even taking me by surprise). So, instead of accepting the results for what they are, they are finding it easy to pontificate why they can't be trusted. This could prove quite interesting down the track, because if we assume the 'SEO enhanced' sites do bubble their way to the top, I'll bet my testes these same people will do a backflip, cease the claims that the tests are invalid because of "whatever", and use the results as empirical evidence that they were right all along. Such people would be wise to keep their concerns to themselves to see how
things pan out first. Not that anyone takes notice of anything I say. :)

Cheers
Rod

Update:

BING: Well, my prommart.com finally hit somewhere. It's to the category page for the test product (deleted for a new product with lankeeyankee's description.)

Our sites seem to have a longer wait or harder time making it to yahoo/bing. Wonder why.

Feznizzle:

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. :).

Think 'Amazon', 'Ebay' etc.... Do this sites constantly make top of the lists by

A) Payments to Google
B) Because they have millions of external links pointing to them?
C) They have millions of internal links pointing to themselves?

If it's "A", the listings are identified as adverts so we can discount these.

If its B) I would be surprised..... Can we have a show of hands from anyone that has a link on their site to one of these popular sites? (please don't use facebook as an example because unless linking to someone elses' facebook page these are links to another aspect of you own sites).

Do a random check of several dozen websites.... How many are you finding with links to Amazon, Ebay, etc.?

I'm thinking that C) is the correct answer. Not that they started with millions of internal links, but as the sites grew, so did the number of internal links, which resulted in greater google exposure, which created more traffic, which enabled more products to be added, rinse and repeat.

Rod

Feznizzle:

Just a thought. I'm not really in this anymore and I'm sure Rod hates me, but it would be interesting to see!

Nah. I'm still hoping that you will eventually see the light, in spite of all of your efforts to the contrary :)

I DO have a hate though, and that it towards those people that promote URI mapping / URL rewrites as something that is beneficial to the search engines, and/or those developers that lead their customers to come to this same (unproven) conclusion.

I also urge people to understand the basis of risk management. The many repeated statements along the lines of "it does no harm" is no reason to use a product, any product. Ever.

I can only again remind you of the "site speed enhancer" that I wish to sell you. I can't prove to you that it works.. I gave it to a few people to try though and they said it did wonders for them. I can't really tell you much about it other than the fact that I GUARANTEE IT WILL CAUSE NO HARM!

How is my 'site speed enhancer' any different than the URL/rewriting tools?

Can ANY of you tell me of any other product or service that you have implemented on the sole basis that 'it does no harm'? I don't think anyone here is actually that foolish (I could be wrong though).

If you choose to use these products because you prefer 'pretty links' that's fine, that's your prerogative, but to suggest they help SE rankings is inexcusable.

Incidently, I've just made another google observation I'd seen before, but not fully realised/appreciated.

Is it true that the main reason you use these tools is for the 'human factor' and that humans prefer pretty URL's.
You even went to great lengths to explain how people would see these in Google and click on them in preference to the links that convey no meaning, and that ultimately this could boost rankings itself.

Do you also remember how I make the statement that (most) people don't even look at the links.. They'll simply click them? (You also argued this).

Take a look at how google is displaying the search results.

New Products : Stratesys Group

https://www.strateXXXXXXXsysgroup.com/index.php?main_page=products...

New products 1 - 10 of 99 – Is branched in my up strictly remember . Wurldbitzer Debibulator Songs but chief has ham widow downs. Genius or so up vanity cannot ...

*Wurldbitzer Debibulator* : VCSWEB Online Store!, You never know **...**

shop.vcsweb.com › Odds 'n Sods
Wurldbitzer Debibulator - Is branched in my up strictly remember . Wurldbitzer Debibulator Songs but chief has ham widow downs. Genius or so up vanity cannot ...

Please observe that ONE of these entries has 'pretty links', the other has the type that humans don't like. If we didn't know which was which, how can we tell the difference? How is the typical Google user going to tell the difference? and if they can't tell the difference (I certainly can't) then what is the point of making them 'pretty' in the first place?

So, not only is there no evidence that URL rewrites improve rankings, but I'm not even seeing any advantage to making them 'pretty', because for the most part this isn't evident in the google results. I'm now starting to wonder if there are any benefits at all. <?????>

Velly intersting, don't you think?

Cheers
Rod

Feznizzle:

Notice that GOOGLE BOLDS OUT KEY WORDS IN URLS. You cannot argue with that. It is there, plane as the nose on my face.

I can, have, and will argue this. Google** does not** BOLD OUT KEY WORDS IN URLS.

What is does do is bold out the users search words in any place they are visible on the page (not just URL's).

The problem here is that you still think that 'key words' are something 'special'. There is nothing 'special' about them, they are simply words, just like any other words.

I have one question. Exactly what do you think is a 'key word' and what makes it different than any other word?

Perhaps I'm way off the track, and what you are calling 'key words' are the same as what I'm calling 'search words', but if that were the case shouldn't your 'pretty URL's consist of 'search words' rather than keywords?

Makes no difference though... this is just another 'name' that we have given something that is supposed to clarify what we mean. Clearly we have both failed.

I prefer to call 'words' just 'words' and not categorize them (well, other than as adjectives, nouns, etc). If we can do this then it really doesn't matter what they are called when someone type them into google.. if a word on the results page matches a word the person types, it gets bolded. plain and simple. No 'caveates' that it is a certain 'type' of word, or that it is bolded out in a 'specific place'

KISS

Rod

Feznizzle:

If a human eye is drawn to something, it is more likely to see that which it is drawn to. In this case, a bolded out URL holds the potential to be significant. Even if it is seen just for a millisecond, it is seen. If it is clicked on, it is a voted on. The more votes it receives, the higher it climbs.

Incidently, the post I made a short while ago in regards to how the listings actually look in google was posted before you resurrected this part of the discussion.

Concidence or what?

Feznizzle:

You know, I'd really love to hear you admit I kinda have a point here. If you just stick to your guns and come up with some new way to make it sound like I am am stupid or scamming/mistreating/ill-advising my clients, then it just shows that your stubbornness is beyond reason.

Aye, 'Tis easy to be stubborn with facts on my side. Quite reasonable I'd say. :)

You know I hate calling people stupid, because I really haven't met to many of them, but on the same token, I don't think you are intentionally out to scam/mistreat or ill-advise your clients either, so unless you wish to choose another word, well, the conclusion must be you are stupid.

Your words, not mine.

Rod

I guess the only thing I can do is laugh?

"I took a college level course on risk management."
Translation:
"I'm not a risk manager but I play one on tv."

Clearly you missed the first day. Or maybe there is tiny flaw in your approach to learning. I think you said something to the effect that you are so smart you didn't have to read or study to pass the test. I suspect you also took a college level course on scientific theory. I wish I gone to school in Australia, apparently you only have to read the first paragraph of wikepedia to pass the final exams.

To any Aussies out there, I know the truth. One of my best friends and most brilliant guys I ever met is an Aussie. Stop patting your back Rod, its not you.

To SPH and anybody else who stumbles in here later, just be careful what you take from this conversation.

To Rod, your intellect has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

on a lighter note, any body sold one yet ?

lessthan.co.uk - ceon still hasnt showed up yet but the domain hasnt been used for a while so maybe give it a bit longer

onyourbike.co.uk is only showing up in omitted results, any idea why this shows now in this way

bn

My prommart.com hit again, this time YAHOO. To category page, original test product

Still nothing on Google.

I keep receiving emails promising to get me high search rankings. Probably should look in to one. :)

bn17311:

on a lighter note, any body sold one yet ?
:D

SPH:

I keep receiving emails promising to get me high search rankings. Probably should look in to one. :)
Sorry, that was from me. I've started trolling for my next SEO victim...