Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

RodG:

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.
Sorry, but I haven't seen anything more than anecdotal evidence provided for either "side".. However, you guys can continue to debate this.. As far as I am concerned NEITHER side has "proven" their case IMHO.. All that these "tests" have succeeded to prove is what I know from my own experience (and you can call it "anecdotal evidence" if you like), and that is that using a URL re-writers on a client's site (speaking ONLY of Ceon URI -- don't use/like the others) doesn't cause the GREAT harm that some folks have tried very hard to put forward as the reason NOT to use them..

My clients for whom I have installed a re-writer (I don't use them for ALL clients) don't expect some SEO boost. They simply would prefer nicer looking URLS for use in newsletters and marketing materials, etc. Since no HARM has been proven by use of a re-writer, then there's no foul and therefore no reason to NOT use them if my client wants nice URLs. That said the thinking that there is some kind of SEO boost/advantage from one of these re-writers is mis-guided. There is no "magic" bullet to page rankings.. The ONLY indirect SEO benefit from a re-writer is that they allow you to create keyword ladden URLs.

RodG:

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.Yeah.. No I don't think so.. If you had spoken to Conor privately you would know that he neither had time/energy or interest in doing any such thing...

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.

RodG:

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).So what you are saying is that you do not know which module it was??? (your original statement seemed to indicate you knew which module it was)

So I have some follow-up questions..

1. Do you know for sure that the site in question was using any of the known add-ons discussed (SSU, Ultimate, Magic, Ceon) versus some other re-writer module that no-one in this thread is aware of?
2. How do you know from looking at the site you saw this module used on that the add-on was using re-directs versus re-writes?
3. Finally can you share which site you saw this on? If you do not want to share publicly, a PM will be fine.. I'd like to see this for myself as a matter of understanding this more thoroughly..

Feznizzle:

:D
Sorry, that was from me. I've started trolling for my next SEO victim...

I thought I recognized the email. ;)

Feznizzle:

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!

So then, would this work if we repeatedly clicked on our own products?

RodG:

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

Again, this is the greatest thread ever!

It was earlier advised to NOT delete sold out products, but simply so mark them. And last night I saw another thread here where RodG suggested it was a mistake for a zencarter to delete some 1,700 products (replacing them with 404 errors in webmasters.) So I advised my sister to no longer delete her products (which is exactly what her ex-SEO guy had also advised.)

I wish I still had the several thousand products I've deleted over the years.

RodG:

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?

Rod

Perhaps we're thinking (hoping), when naming our products/categories for rewriting, that they are one and the same. And thus show some more bold.

Hey lhungil, quick question on the tech side (reference to your post #145)... I've always thought the rewrites did come with some sort of performance penalty (think at one point I mentioned server performance as an issue). Are there extra operations to be performed? Access to the server, consulting .htaccess, consulting db for the stored URI, etc? Versus simply hitting server that hits the native software and then posting whatever content is received?

I'm probably wrong, but my instinctive understanding was that no matter what (rewrite/redirect), extra processes were required which would cause some kind of hit on the 'server performance' aspect of SE rating? That was why I was so fascinated by this test... to see if that hit would cause the pages to index out of chronological order.

It's also why I happily pay a premium for fast VPS over shared hosting.

RodG, I have a question.

Can I consider your test description a good or fair example of what a good product description should look like? I'm NOT referring to the gibberish, but to the amount of text and the amount of times you used the product name (keywords, search terms).

Or is lankeeyankee's description a better example, albeit much less text?

Thanks for any info. I'm thinking I should use one, or both, of yours as a model.

Found two more entries for test, both rewritten

NAME: SPH

URL: http://www.prom-mart.com/demo-3/?template_switch_id=estorenow

Site uses templateswitcher, but product is at DVD Action/Movies

Template may break due to switcher, but have a "recover" link at header3. Also, will probably index under Classic template

REWRITER: Yes, Ultimate SEO URL, a very early version for zc 1.5.0

XML Sitemap: No, not installed

NAME: SPH

URL: http://www.prom-mart.com/demo-2/wurldbitzer-debibulator-p-184.html?cPath=3_10

Is also under DVD Movies/Action, but category is obfuscated by the category dressing pic "Cat 3 Sample".

REWRITER: Yes, Ultimate SEO URL, a very early version for zc 1.5.0. This time it's set different, to show cat/prod id's at end. This prevents product from "jumping" out of linked categories, and behaves similar to dynamic url in that sense.

XML SITEMAP: No, not installed

COMMENTS: You may notice site is beat-up from testing. Featured Products link/page broken.

I may be able to leave these two entries up indefinitely

Update:

GOOGLE: My prommart finally hit with new product using lankeeyankee's description. This is a new product (same name) with new p id #. Showing "ancillary link" new products.

About time, and quite a bit faster than my initial entry.

Another new entry:

SPH

URL: http://www.prom-mart.com/demo-1/index.php?main_page=index&template_switch_id=apparel_boutique

Another site on template switcher, product is at DVD Movies/Action as other two above. Use search function or go to New Products.

REWRITER: No

XML SITEMAP: No, not installed. Nor do any of these latest three have webmasters or analytics

COMMENTS: Template switcher may break, use recovery link. May be indexed under Classic or even template_default. This entry was a few hours after my first two just above.

I now have these three entries on same server and same domain with nearly identically named subdomains: demo-1; demo-2; demo-3. All have zencart's default products, with demo-2 have about four extra. So carts are about as equal as can get, except for templates.

All three sites have been up for awhile, and as I recall, roughly the same time.

Feznizzle:

Hey lhungil, quick question on the tech side (reference to your post #145)... I've always thought the rewrites did come with some sort of performance penalty (think at one point I mentioned server performance as an issue). Are there extra operations to be performed? Access to the server, consulting .htaccess, consulting db for the stored URI, etc? Versus simply hitting server that hits the native software and then posting whatever content is received?.

You've got to be joking!!!!! You really don't have a clue do you?

lhungle, if it's not too late, please don't answer this, because in doing so you'll just be giving Feznizzle another 'fact to remember' and he'll never actually learn anything from it.

Feznizzle, I'm not going to spoon feed you stuff that you should already know.

On several occasions now I've asked:

If I have product in my store, lets say its a "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" the native URL for this product is: http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?mai...roducts_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?mai...roducts\_id=222](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?mai...roducts_id=222
or both?

I realise that you don't understand the significance of my question in relation to yours, and I suspect that you don't see how this has anything to do with what has been discussed in the past either. Although there is only one right answer, the answer itself isn't important. The question was put forth for two reasons:

1. If you knew the tech differences between a rewrite and a redirect, the answer would be a no brainer.
2. If you didn't know the answer (and you clearly don't) it should have caused you to spend no more than about 5minutes research as to the operational differences, you would have then been able to easily give the correct answer (its not rocket science), but MOST IMPORTANTLY, you would have learned how they both function, and if you had this knowledge you would have no need to ask lhungle the question you just did.

Feznizzle:

I'm probably wrong, but my instinctive understanding was that no matter what (rewrite/redirect),.

"instinctive understanding" isn't that somewhat of an oxymoron?

Feznizzle:

extra processes were required which would cause some kind of hit on the 'server performance' aspect of SE rating? That was why I was so fascinated by this test... to see if that hit would cause the pages to index out of chronological order.

PLEASE, do the research to answer my question, and the answer to your question will be gained at the same time.
If I/we just give you the answer to either question you will just learn another 'fact', but you'll have no understanding why it is so.

Feznizzle:

It's also why I happily pay a premium for fast VPS over shared hosting.

This is whole debate in itself. The way you have worded this though sends chills down my spine. The implication being that a 'fast VPS' is always going to be superior than shared hosting. This is NOT the case and never has been. Once again you are showing your ignorance. Will it ever cease?

Rod

Feznizzle:

I guess the only thing I can do is laugh?

The village idiot has a right to laugh :)

Feznizzle:

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

You must be great at chinese whispers, you somehow manage to take anything I type, change the words, then critique it. How odd.

Just to clarify though: http://training.gov.au/Training/Details/ICA60211
(Note: these are Nationally recognized qualifications, and not just a piece of paper from some "3rd rate community college", which is the usual response I get from people with no qualifications at all :)

Take particular note of the 1st few units of competency. (the 1st in the list is "Manage project risk". Other risk components follow.

Now, here's the 'scary part' <g>. I've not only passed these courses, but I also have the qualifications to TRAIN & ASSESS other people in them.

I'll tell you now, based on the many things you have stated and claimed throughout this thread, I have serious doubts as to whether you would even pass the Certificate II classes. You'll have no hope of passing anything in Cert III or above.

Feznizzle:

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.

You must be great at chinese whispers, you somehow manage to take anything I type, change the words, then critique it. How odd.

Feznizzle:

I suspect you also took a college level course on scientific theory

No, that's one I haven't done. I understand that SDLC is based on the same principles though, and that is something I have studied. :)

Feznizzle:

I wish I gone to school in Australia, apparently you only have to read the first paragraph of wikepedia to pass the final exams.

For what it's worth, if you study in Australia one of the 1st things you'll learn is if you use wikepedia for references you'll fail the course(s).

Feznizzle:

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.

You may choose to see it that way. Just remember, I'm not the one so ashamed of showing my ignorance that I insist my sites not be make public because I don't want other people to associate me, or the services performed with this thread.

If I had it in me, I could easily be tempted to capture this entire thread, and inextricably entwine it with links to your site(s) just to piff you off. You certainly deserve it. I'm a nice guy though and nothing positive is to be gained from it, so no point in doing it (hey does that seem familiar?).

There is more to be gained by trying to keep you on side in the hopes that one day you might, just might, realise that I'm not the ignorant fwit you think I am.
I can't force you to learn, but that doesn't stop me trying.

Rod

DivaVocals:

Sorry, but I haven't seen anything more than anecdotal evidence provided for either "side"..

Me neither.

DivaVocals:

As far as I am concerned NEITHER side has "proven" their case IMHO.. All that these "tests" have succeeded to prove is what I know from my own experience (and you can call it "anecdotal evidence" if you like), and that is that using a URL re-writers on a client's site (speaking ONLY of Ceon URI -- don't use/like the others) doesn't cause the GREAT harm that some folks have tried very hard to put forward as the reason NOT to use them..

I've never once stated or implied that conors rewriter causes any harm. In fact I don't recall anyone making any such claims.

You're not trying to do a feznizzle on me are you? (reading more into what I've been stating than there is, or confusing different issues under the mistaken impression that this thread is a single topic)

DivaVocals:

My clients for whom I have installed a re-writer (I don't use them for ALL clients) don't expect some SEO boost. They simply would prefer nicer looking URLS for use in newsletters and marketing materials, etc.

There is NOTHING WRONG with this at all. It is exaclty how it should be.

DivaVocals:

Since no HARM has been proven by use of a re-writer

We can simplify this statement and make it a** definitive that we can rely on**.
**A rewriter will do no harm ** (provided the rules are valid of course). It may not have been proven in this thread, but it was certainly proven way back when it was 1st added to Apache a couple of decades ago. I've never disputed this (however, I have to admit that early in this thread I maintained, and even 'encouraged' the common notion that rewrites and redirects were somewhat interchangeable with little functional difference between them.

I even had to 'edit' some of the quotes I used from others, when it was specified as 'rewrite' rather than 'rewrite/redirect'. This is about the only thing in this thread that I'm a wee bit embarrassed/ashamed of. I'm still surprised no one picked me up on this.

DivaVocals:

Since no HARM has been proven by use of a re-writer, then there's no foul and therefore no reason to NOT use them

I will still argue this until the day I die.
My argument being, if there is NOTHING TO BE GAINED then why would you want to use them?

If a customer/client wants the pretty URL's over the ZenCart native URL's because for no other reason than they think they look better, then this is a gain, a benefit to the customer/client, there is no reason why they shouldn't be used. I've no issues with this at all.

However, if the client/customer wishes to use this methodolgy for unproven SEO benefits, then they should not use them. There are no demonstrable
gains/benefits to be made, and risk management 101 dictates all change carries risk, and if there are no gains, the risk shouldn't be taken.

Note: It isn't important what the 'risk' actually is, as this is something that needs to be weighed against the possible consequences.
No one would ever risk betting $$$$ on anything if the only possible outcomes were to lose, or break even. In the case of the topic of discussion, we haven't proven the lose scenario, but we can't prove any gains either, the only possible outcome is a break even.
Would you still take on a $$$ bet if the only possible outcome is that you'll break even? Would there be any point in taking the bet (aka 'risk').
How/why are the rewriters any different?

DivaVocals:

The ONLY indirect SEO benefit from a re-writer is that they allow you to create keyword ladden URLs.

And this brings us back the full circle.... are keyword ladden URLs a proven benefit? No, not at all, and although many don't appreciate/realise this, until the cats ran wild and went their own ways in regards to the direction of the experiments/tests, we did actually have a very good chance of finding a pretty definitive answer to this question. I've no preconceived ideas as to what this answer would be though. I can/will/do argue for/against both possible outcomes, and this is why the "debate" can and will never end until we have evidence one way or the other. I was hoping we could somehow demonstrate the effects with the experiments and some essential controls put in place. The controls have been tossed out of the window though, which means we have fallen back to the debate/opinion stage where a resolution isn't possible.

This has NOTHING to do with rewriters though. It is a SEPARATE and independent topic.

DivaVocals:

Yeah.. No I don't think so.. If you had spoken to Conor privately you would know that he neither had time/energy or interest in doing any such thing...

I don't mean to insult you, but I did say IF he had.........

And yes, I've had a number of private email conversations with Conor.

DivaVocals:

So what you are saying is that you do not know which module it was???

I don't even know if it was a ZenCart module. (I do development/support work for a number of difference eCommerce systems).

DivaVocals:

(your original statement seemed to indicate you knew which module it was)

I'm not going to go back to verify, but if you/others read what I write rather than what you think I write, you'll find I'm very consistent. I suspect my actual words were "I know of at least one module that uses redirects only". You'll also note that I am a very 'wordy' person.. I don't just make claims and statements, I take time to explain why I make the claims/statements, and I can assure you, if I had any idea which module/store it was, I would have made it known at that time. Why wouldn't I? It was something I was hoping to use to demonstrate a point about why redirects are totally ineffective.

DivaVocals:

So I have some follow-up questions..

1. Do you know for sure that the site in question was using any of the known add-ons discussed (SSU, Ultimate, Magic, Ceon) versus some other re-writer module that no-one in this thread is aware of?

I'm not even sure it was a ZenCart module.

DivaVocals:

2. How do you know from looking at the site you saw this module used on that the add-on was using re-directs versus re-writes?

This is actually a very good question that I'm not sure I want to answer until feznizzle does his homework and learns the functional/operational differences.

I will tell you that I became involved in the site because there were serious functional errors (pages not loading, wrong pages loading, page not found errors, and 'endless loop' errors. Since this kind of behaviour is almost always the result of rewrites and/or redirects, the 1st thing I did was head straight for the .htaccess file(s) where I found the most horrible mishmash of redirects (with the occasional rewrite) imaginable.

If I were forced to state that 'all SEO rewriters/redirects are bad', which is how some have taken my words (note how I'm not distinguishing the difference between rewriter/redirect there) it wouldn't be because the tools or techniques are bad, but because it is generally the 'n00bs' that want them 'For SEO reasons', and because they are 'n00bs' they are the ones most likely to make a mess installing/implementing them, and they end up breaking their stores, and then coming to these forums asking for help in how to solve the problems that they needlessly created for themselves.

I suspect that if these 'n00bs' weren't baffled with the bull they wouldn't install the tools and they wouldn't get into the strife in the first place.

On this basis alone I would encourage new Zenner's (in particular) to avoid these tools until they gain a little more experience and know what they want, and why they want it. This is particular true when current tests show that ZenCarts 'native behaviour' isn't lacking in any way.

Oooops, I'm ranting again.....

DivaVocals:

Finally can you share which site you saw this on? If you do not want to share publicly, a PM will be fine.. I'd like to see this for myself as a matter of understanding this more thoroughly..

If I were able and willing to share the site there is nothing more there to see. I would have left it back in its 'native' state, having explained that there were no proven benefits to URL modifications anyway.

I really do think people spend FAR too much time and energy on "SEO".
I prefer to work on the basic principle that the developers of the original software know what they are doing, and create their URL's in a specific way for a specific reason, and any attempts to alter this basic behaviour will eventually cause a problem (whether it be due to upgrade problems or something else entirely)

I also work on the principle that the folks at Google also know what they are doing, and it is their aim to give the best results/user experience in spite of many 'SEO experts' attempts to give a particular site an 'unfair advantage'.. This places the SEO developers in a constant battle with Google. This can never end well.

If people could simply accept these two simple principles (Especially Zenners) a lot of people will have a lot less headaches.

Cheers
Rod

A side note re post #328:> prom-mart.com/demo-2/wurl...tml?cPath=3_10

Is also under DVD Movies/Action, but category is obfuscated by the category dressing pic "Cat 3 Sample". For search engine/accessibility purposes, image-replaced links in Categories Dressing are given alt/title tags of the original category name, so they ought to be followable without reading the image.

We now return to your regularly scheduled debate;)

SPH:

Again, this is the greatest thread ever!.
<smiles>

SPH:

It was earlier advised to NOT delete sold out products, but simply so mark them. And last night I saw another thread here where RodG suggested it was a mistake for a zencarter to delete some 1,700 products (replacing them with 404 errors in webmasters.) So I advised my sister to no longer delete her products (which is exactly what her ex-SEO guy had also advised.)

See, I'm really not Anti-SEO, some times we can even agree on things :)

FWIW though, I didn't recommend replacing with 404 errors (did I?) (reference please), it is FAR better to simply leave the products as 'sold out' (or similar), it maximises site content.

A 404 error means the page/item can't be found, and as such google will drop the link from its index, BUT, because the server has been configured to display a custom page when a 404 error occurs, google will index the custom page, as well as any links it contains... so you lose one link from Google, but gain a dozen more. :)

Without the custom 404 page, the browser's default page is displayed that contains no useful content.

Lesson here: ALWAYS create your own 404 error pages.

A word of warning though:

Web servers can typically be configured to display a customised 404 error page, including a more natural description, the parent site's branding, and sometimes a site map, a search form or 404 page widget. The protocol level phrase, which is hidden from the user, is rarely customized.

Internet Explorer, however, will not display custom pages unless they are larger than 512 bytes, opting instead to display a "friendly" error page.^[3] Google Chrome includes similar functionality, where the 404 is replaced with alternative suggestions generated by Google algorithms, if the page is under 512 bytes in size. Another problem is that if the page does not provide a favicon, and a separate custom 404 page exists, extra traffic and longer loading times will be generated.^[4][5]

What this means is that customers following a link to a deleted product that gets redirected to a custom 404 error page may not see the same page that google is going to see.

Cheers
Rod

gjh42:

A side note re post #328: For search engine/accessibility purposes, image-replaced links in Categories Dressing are given alt/title tags of the original category name, so they ought to be followable without reading the image.

We now return to your regularly scheduled debate;)

I meant obfuscated for the readers of this thread, they might not know where the DVD Movies category is. It is an excellent plugin that we use on another site and will probably include on others.

RodG:

<smiles> FWIW though, I didn't recommend replacing with 404 errors (did I?) (reference please), it is FAR better to simply leave the products as 'sold out' (or similar), it maximises site content.

No, that was the zencart user's result for deleting some 1700 products. Thread is here:

http://www.zen-cart.com/showthread.php?203938-I-m-getting-hammered-with-URL-404-errors

Without the custom 404 page, the browser's default page is displayed that contains no useful content.

Lesson here: ALWAYS create your own 404 error pages.

Now here's another possible takeaway from this thread. Until recently I had on prommart a custom 404 error page (folder). But read somewhere that it's really not needed, because of Zencart's error page, such as this:

http://www.prommart.com/x

Is this something different or not sufficient?

gjh42:

We now return to your regularly scheduled debate;)
Love this thread!

SPH:

RodG, I have a question.

Can I consider your test description a good or fair example of what a good product description should look like? I'm NOT referring to the gibberish, but to the amount of text and the amount of times you used the product name (keywords, search terms).

Or is lankeeyankee's description a better example, albeit much less text?

Thanks for any info. I'm thinking I should use one, or both, of yours as a model.

Geeze, you know how to ask some tough questions, and I really don't know how to best answer this one.

How about if I sum up what I consider is a good description and let you take it from there?

A good description would consist of at least one paragraph of text that is **easy to read **and informative for the customer.

If you keep the customer happy, you'll be keeping Google happy.

Now comes the 'tricky' bit, and this is where the real SEO experts are worth their weight in gold. I am not one of those experts.

There is a 'balancing act' between what 'people' like and what 'google' likes. These are often mutually exclusive.

The gibberish description of our Wurldblitzer is something that Google will thrive on. Lots of text... and more text. Every single word is giving google another link for people to follow, BUT, these links will only be useful if the customer performs a search using one or more words in the description.

From the customers perspective, The gibberish description of our Wurldblitzer product is a definite turn off, so in that respect is is obviously a bad description.

As for the number of times the keywords/search words are used... Again, this is where the SEO experts can be worth their weight in gold. It is yet another balancing act between what people like and what google likes. Google will thrive on the repetition, which is why I suspect that sooner or later the product page for our test product will eventually outrank the 'ancillary' pages. (all else being equal). The 'trick' to this is being able to sprinkle enough 'key words' throughout the description so that google ranks the page higher than similar pages with less of the same keywords, but to do so without being annoying to the customer for the same repetition. Not an easy task.
It can also backfire... having 'too many' of these 'key words' on a page can be interpreted by google to be an attempt at 'key word spamming' (or any other similar phrase), and the page will be penalised (in what way, I cannot say. I've never had it happen to me), so the number of times a given word or phrase appear in the description needs to be weighed carefully against the other text on the page..

This is where the choice 'SEO experts' becomes important. We've all heard of horror stories where a site has ended up in 'google hell' after an SEO 'expert' has been involved... Bad SEO practices are worse than no SEO practices at all. Too help avoid future confusion, I am using 'SEO' in the context of site content only, and this has no bearing, relationship or connection with URL rewriting as a method of SEO which has predominated this thread. I'm sure someone will manage to combine/confuse the two and come to some kind of idiotic conclusion though. :(

Hopefully this is a satisfactory answer, because it really is one of those things where a balance needs to be made between what people want/like and what google wants/likes, and this is always going to be something that each merchant needs to establish/consider for their own particular stores, products and needs.
It isn't really 'rocket science' but as stated, a good SEO person is worth their weight in gold. (the hard part is finding a good SEO person). This forum has both good and bad examples.

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

No, that was the zencart user's result for deleting some 1700 products. Thread is here:

http://www.zen-cart.com/showthread.php?203938-I-m-getting-hammered-with-URL-404-errors

Ahh, ok. Makes sense now. The products were already deleted, the 404 custom page suggestion is/was a method to help ensure they weren't a dead loss.
Still better to not delete at all.

SPH:

Now here's another possible takeaway from this thread. Until recently I had on prommart a custom 404 error page (folder). But read somewhere that it's really not needed, because of Zencart's error page, such as this:
http://www.prommart.com/x
Is this something different or not sufficient?

Again, another good question.

How would it sit with you if I said you need both?

The ZenCarts error page is the one that will be displayed if the 404 error is a result of a request to the zencart folder/files.
The 'custom' error page is the one that will be displayed if the 404 error is a result of a request to a page other than the zencart folder/files.

Cheers
Rod

RodG:

There is a 'balancing act' between what 'people' like and what 'google' likes. These are often mutually exclusive.

The gibberish description of our Wurldblitzer is something that Google will thrive on. Lots of text... and more text. Every single word is giving google another link for people to follow, BUT, these links will only be useful if the customer performs a search using one or more words in the description.

From the customers perspective, The gibberish description of our Wurldblitzer product is a definite turn off, so in that respect is is obviously a bad description. Rod

Thanks!

Take a look at this:

http://www.capromdresses(dot)com/sherri-hill-2925-prom-dresses-p-2852.html

A China zencart using (I think) Ultimate SEO. Using an on product Reviews page to load up on text, most gibberish and I suspect entered by the site itself. Wondering how it will eventually fare with google...and customers.

For several years now we've been facing stiff competition from Asia selling copy dresses but using the mfr. photos. But they do have, IMO, very impressive Zencarts. I think an impressive Zencart helps one to look legitimate. I think the best-looking Zencarts are from Asia.

Would be nice if there were a zencart plugin to allow for reviews directly on the product page.

They also have a nice product layout with something akin to Tabbed Products Pro.