Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

robbie269:

Love this thread!

Eeeek, another lurker :)

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

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

dgreviews I think it's called in the downloads section. We use it and it works well.

SPH:

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.

I suspect that google will love it.... lots of words/text = google good.

Customers... I have to admit, If I were the customer that followed a google link to the site (or got their another way), I'd probably NOT be disappointed..

Sure, I'd acknowledge that the junk reviews are just that, junk reviews, not even related to the product. I might even suspect that something has gone wrong with the site that has caused these reviews to be erroneously displayed. I might also think that the site has been compromised in some way, but that's me, I'm not the 'typical customer'. What were your thoughts? Did you consider these junk reviews could be a sign of something far more sinister?

SPH:

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.

Some of the best ZenCart's I've seen, I've not even been able to tell they were ZenCarts until inspecting the code for tell tale signs.
I understand what you mean though.. It's much like I find the ZenCart default 'classic green' to be a real turn off, it is an instant sign that its a newly developed site with little/no history and therefore little/no reputation (same as your observation, but from the opposite perspective).

SPH:

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

There is.. and it is actually more effective and less distracting than the page you've referenced above.
Take another look at our store (shop.vcsweb.com).

Note how the products pages have two tabs, one for the product description, one for the reviews? Click on the reviews tab, and the reviews (if any) can be seen. Click on the button on the page and new reviews can be added.

"Ah", I hear you say, "but these reviews are not on the products page, so its not the same thing".

But "grasshopper", I respond, "Click back and forth on the tabs, and tell me what you notice".

You respond (hopefully).. "I see the content of the page is changing, but the page itself isn't being reloaded".

I respond with, "Exactly. This is because the page itself isn't actually changing.. The only thing that changes is what you see"

You respond with "but how does 'google' manage to press the 'tab' button so that it can index the reviews section".

I respond with... "View the source". "You will easily observe that all of the data, ie, both the product description AND the reviews are both clearly visible. It is this page that Google will index. It doesn't need to 'tab' between the pages like us people do".

Here endith this lesson :)

Cheers
Rod

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.

Question:
You've removed the Wurldbitzer Debibulator product from your site, and if you check the Google cache, it is plainly obvious that "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" doesn't appear anywhere on the pages.

If Google removes links when things disappear, then why does your site still rank #1 & #2?

I do have a couple of theory’s about this, which I'll be more than happy to share if:

A) You don't really know either AND
B) You actually want your site to be de-listed when "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" is used as the search query.

I'm also happy to hear anyone elses' theories on this too. Please keep in mind, that there is nothing 'magical' about any of this, it is still just a numbers game, and if we look and dig deep enough we'll find the answer (even if it means putting some of the theorys to the test to see the effects (The scientific method).

Sorry Feznizzle, I know you wanted 'out' of this thread, but I honestly think that this may have you as perplexed as it has me. Am I wrong, or am I simply missing something obvious?

Cheers
Rod

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.

sigh

Nope, I do not have a clear understanding of the technical operations of how a rewrite or redirect work. A fact that doesn't embarrass me in the slightest. Doctors who visit my websites to buy surgery tables and anesthesia machines probably do not know how build circuit boards from raw material, nor how to build software to translate 1 and 0's into a gui. But they can use a computer to google what they need and find me.

Similarly, apparently you did not have a clear understanding of how Ceon, nor the rewrite tools here, work. Where I believe it is better to ask, apparently you believe it is a personal failure to not know.

Not knowing the technical whys has not prevented me from choosing Ceon, a tool that works well (even the greatest mind on the planet, RodG, finally agrees).

Your lack of understanding drove you to prove (via experiment) that Ceon URI was technically inferior to native and rankings would be automatically penalized. My lack of understanding caused me to think you might be right, thus to test it to find out. Had you been correct, bet your bottom dollar that I would have dumped Ceon (and probably all rewrite tools) forever.

Had my assumption proven correct (Ceon URI's do not receive automatic penalty) then you probably… oh wait, that assumption is what the original experiment proved, right? And what was your reaction? Long rants and personal attacks.

Notice the keywords in the URL in your browser (Hoping-to-pick-the-brains-of-some-old-pros!). Notice that my question (technical operations cause by rewrites?) was not directed at the Australia's favorite son. I wonder if we could get this forum to change the URL to: Hoping-to-pick-the-brains-of-some-stubborn-old-bullies

To be honest, I guess I don't really care how the rewrites work, only that they work. I guess it's like the ABS system on my car… it doesn't matter how it works, so long as it gets my kids safely to school.

Sadly, this concludes the bickering portion of our program tonight (at least for me). Been fun! :)

RodG:

Question:
You've removed the Wurldbitzer Debibulator product from your site, and if you check the Google cache, it is plainly obvious that "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" doesn't appear anywhere on the pages.

If Google removes links when things disappear, then why does your site still rank #1 & #2?

I do have a couple of theory’s about this, which I'll be more than happy to share if:

A) You don't really know either AND
B) You actually want your site to be de-listed when "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" is used as the search query.

I'm also happy to hear anyone elses' theories on this too. Please keep in mind, that there is nothing 'magical' about any of this, it is still just a numbers game, and if we look and dig deep enough we'll find the answer (even if it means putting some of the theorys to the test to see the effects (The scientific method).

Sorry Feznizzle, I know you wanted 'out' of this thread, but I honestly think that this may have you as perplexed as it has me. Am I wrong, or am I simply missing something obvious?

Cheers
Rod

No worries.

I'm guessing there are two reasons. First (most important), google has not recrawled my site. As soon as it does, my ranking for that page will drop way down.

The second reason, why it will drop in rankings but not disappear, is because I have not gotten around to removing that URL, stored in the db.

WOAH! BY GOD THAT IS INTERESTING???

Holy crap, we may have just stumbled into a way to test whether or not keywords in URLs really matter!

If I leave my URL up (and I will) and (after Google crawls me again) my URL simply drops in rank but still shows up when Wurldbizer Debiblator is searched, then it could only happen because of the keywords in the URL.

Well, crap. A few flaws in that. But I do think that this will be very interesting to see.

Woops, I missed that you said to check the cache. So they have crawled me.

Yet the old description still exists in the search result, despite the cache showing it is gone.

Maybe crawling and indexing and the indexing itself is a disjointed process. I'll be curious to see what happens after the description shown in the search result catches up to the cache shown to the side of the listing.

Dadburnit. Now I am excited again! :yes:

Alright, I will test the idea. What I will do is create a page that has nothing to do with wurldbitzer debibaloter and ONLY use the words in the URL. I'll make a unique name for a product so we can be sure to see it got indexed, then wait to see if it shows up with all the other listings.

One major flaw to this idea is that meta data that is unrelated to content gets ignored by SEs, right? Anybody see a way around that?

RodG:

... if it's not too late, please don't answer this ...
I'd rather give an example to help people learn, or at least point them in the right direction where possible, as opposed to just ignore a person's request for help. I do believe in some aspects of Karma... Who knows, maybe one day someone else will help me?

:wink2:

Feznizzle:

I've always thought the rewrites did come with some sort of performance penalty ...
Think about it this way... Everything a computer does takes up processing time... Even "idling" uses processing time because the computer has to look through different inputs to see if it should no longer be idle.

This is reason behind telling people to unplug their electrical appliances. Electrical appliances which can be powered on in more than one way (a direct switch, power button, timer, remote, etc) are typically checking the inputs (and powering the input receivers and circuits) even when "off".

Feznizzle:

... cause some kind of hit on the 'server performance' aspect of SE rating ...
This would depends on what the "search engine" considers detrimental performance and the performance capabilities of your web server. Does 0.0008 of a second (or even 0.08 of a second with a slow running SQL query) really make an large impact to the way a "search engine" ranks the website?

Like the subject of "search terms in URLs" the "page load speed" impact upon "search engine" ranking has been tested and discussed to death all over the internet and by "SEO experts". Most of the "search engines" also have published some very basic (and sometimes necessarily vague) guidelines.

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.
To further clarify the two cases:

1. By default a request to the file "index.php" in the Zen Cart installation for a resource Zen Cart does not know exists will result in Zen Cart's 404 page being displayed.
2. Other requests for folders/files which do not exist in the Zen Cart installation will result in the web server's configured 404 page being displayed.
3. Requests for folders/files which do not exist outside the Zen Cart installation will result in the web server's configure 404 page being displayed.

So with the default Zen Cart installation you could have two different 404 pages served even for folders and files within the Zen Cart installation. Number 2 is not the behavior most people expect of web applications or online CMSs.

One way to change number 2 is to modify the behavior of the web server to send requests for folders and files which do not exist in the Zen Cart installation folder to the Zen Cart 404 page by sending the requests to "index.php?main_page=page_not_found". This is typically done using a rewrite (in the folder where Zen Cart is installed) to avoid impacting other folders on the web server.

At least one of the rewrite tools for Zen Cart add this behavior as part of their rewrite rules (I've not personally checked all of them). This makes Zen Cart behave similar to other web based CMS applications. If this behavior is configured and Zen Cart is installed in the website root, then you only need to create one 404 page.

As with all other websites, you may wish to enable your 404 page to respond based upon the request URI. This allows you to craft different 404 responses to better aid the customer. But I digress...

RodG:

Me neither.

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) **

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

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.

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?

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.
Doing "a feznizzle" on you??? Seriously?? I've not read ANYTHING into anyone's statements, and I do understand the topic thank you very much for asking..

I posted my opinions about the use of re-writers based not only on THIS thread but on every thread on this over beaten, tiresome topic where NO ONE has provided anything more than anecdotal "evidence" to "prove" their point.. and though I stated this in my previous posts, let me be clear about who I mean when I say NO ONE. I mean neither the "re-writers are good for SEO" nor the "re-writer's are bad for SEO" camps have proven their points EVER with anything more than anecdotal "evidence".. THEY ALL post anecdotal evidence..

Rod, with regards to re-writes, though you say that the harm was proven after the introduction of Apache re-writes "a couple of decades ago" I've not seen this information shared here. Unless after several decades it is no longer an issue??? If it is an issue, something more than anecdotal evidence on this point would be useful. My own research which consisted of speaking to my work colleagues who are knowledgeable on the topic seems to indicate that properly written re-writes/re-directs are not problematic. (i.e. "harmful") If there is other evidence to the contrary, then I think that should be quite useful..

When I quote YOU Rod or have direct questions about YOUR statements I will ask them to YOU. I didn't quote YOU with regards to making statements about re-writers being harmful. I in fact made a general statement about the most commonly posted reasons why NOT to use a re-writer (they are "harmful" or "detrimental" to your site). You say "In fact I don't recall anyone making any such claims", but ummmm... I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread where this statement is in fact made/implied.. and then you should also take a look at every other post where the biggest opposition to these re-writers have posted with the same "re-writers are detrimental/harmful" message..

You partially quoted my post and replied in a way that tends to give the impression that my customers "wishes to use this methodolgy for unproven SEO benefits".. I'm sure that this was not the intent, but I do want to make it clear that these are claims that I NEVER made. So here is the FULL quote you used which says clearly what I stated.. Your response with a partial quote of my words could give someone following this thread the impression that I am pushing forth the opinion that re-writers are somehow an SEO helper. I want to make it clear that this is not in fact what I am stating.

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 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.

You stated "I also work on the principle that the folks at Google also know what they are doing". Well so do I.. My thoughts on the INDIRECT benefit of keywords in URLs comes directly from Matt Cutts of Google: http://tinyurl.com/2vwxajy

Matt says the following:
~ "it does help a little bit to have keywords in the URL”
~ "it doesn't help so much that you should go stuffing a ton of keywords into your URL"

I think Matt Cutts knows what he is doing.. Please note that nowhere in this video does Matt Cutts say NOT to do this.. He also doesn't say that there is any "advantage" to the practice. He says simply that it's not a BAD idea. Also note that Matt stresses GOOD content which seems to be the big takeaway he frequently wants to communicate..

RodG:

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.Yeah... ummm.. Not insulted.. No reason to be.. You stated:
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.I saw that you said IF.. My point simply was that it is UNLIKELY that Conor would have ever given a rats a$$ about software that other developers were developing enough to say anything to them about it regardless of IF he had "time/energy/inclination".. In other words, this is an UNLIKELY scenario for Conor and I wanted to point that out since Conor is no longer with us to speak for himself lest others walk away from this thread under the impression that Conor cared about this crap.. (but I'm sure that since you had private conversations with him you know this)

RodG:

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

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.

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

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.
I read what you actually wrote, not what I thought you wrote (as you stated above). I even included your actual statements when I posted my questions so it was clear what it was I was inquiring about. Based on the context of your original statements, you certainly left the impression that you were speaking of specific Zen Cart modules and that you were speaking of a Zen Cart store. Which is why I asked for clarification on your statements to start.

That said, if I am understanding you now, you are stating that you are not sure that this was either a Zen Cart store or a Zen Cart module that you were speaking of. Am I understandig the gist of the post I am quoting above correctly??

RodG:

**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.....

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
You keep going back to SEO as the reason to not use these re-writers, and since you are quoting/responding to my post I can only assume you are responding to my post.. So let me re-state my words again so that I am clear what I am saying..
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. 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.

I too think the folks at Google know what they are doing.. A re-writer's only purpose should be to make pretty URLs. I do hope that this "test" aside that this is the real takeway that any responsible webmaster/site owner should walk away with.. If my client wants pretty URLS then I will install a re-writer for them (and ONLY Ceon URI as I think it is the only one that will not HARM my client's site). After that with regards to SEO I look to the folks at Google for guidelines
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769
**http://tinyurl.com/av7v4vy
**http://tinyurl.com/dzy6dj
http://tinyurl.com/de7tld
**http://tinyurl.com/ajq9swn
http://tinyurl.com/agx5xtn
**http://tinyurl.com/ak7qqpy
http://tinyurl.com/ddc5xq

(Please note that in many of Matt Cutts videos, Matt goes back to stressing the value of GOOD content)

Update:

GOOGLE: My fashion-mart.biz (Simple SEO URL) finally hit for the test product itself, it's about time. You'll probably have to go to omitted results to see it.

RodG:

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.

Example?

Feznizzle:

To be honest, I guess I don't really care how the rewrites work, only that they work. I guess it's like the ABS system on my car… it doesn't matter how it works, so long as it gets my kids safely to school.nods in agreement

Well the BIG takeaway for me from this "test" has been that the idea that a URL re-writer such as Ceon is "harmful" or "detrimental" (the most often cited reason I see posted to NOT use them) has not been proven.. Your sites alone prove that whether it's a native or re-written URL, one is not BETTER than the other.. the CONTENT not the URL is the important factor. (and this matches my own "anecdotal" experience)

I walked away from this test with what IMHO is the REAL result that was demonstrated by this "test":

1. Re-written URLs are not inherently "harmful" or "detrimental" (provided that they are generated correctly).
2. There is NOTHING wrong with native Zen Cart URLs with regards to SEO ranking if you use relevant content on the site.
3. The notion that re-writers provide an SEO "boost" is misguided.
   There is NO "magic bullet". Content is still king and Google's Webmaster Tools videos certainly emphasize the SAME concept.
4. The ONLY indirect benefit of URL re-directs are that you can create URLS which contain keywords.*
   Matt Cutts says with regards to keywords in URLs that "it does help a little bit to have keywords in the URL". However again CONTENT is important.*

RodG:

I suspect that google will love it.... lots of words/text = google good.... What were your thoughts? Did you consider these junk reviews could be a sign of something far more sinister?

I first thought that they were using gibberish to add content, as I was thinking of doing. But now I might wonder if anyone were home, minding the store. But an email to them before buying could establish that.

BTW, the original dress is $598 (and we are set to this minimum price by the designers). This China site is selling a copy for less than half of that. Maybe a good deal in current economy...or any ecomony, although there are alot of complaints re quality and delivery speed. Still, we have to look for lower priced designers to compete, as emphasising that ours are "originals" doesn't always cut it.

So, will our further tests include adding more text to the bottom ranking product, to see if it moves up?

There is.. and it is actually more effective and less distracting than the page you've referenced above.
Take another look at our store (shop.vcsweb.com).

It looks like you're using Tabbed Products Pro? And is there a Reviews plugin for this or does TTP automatically do that?

Also, I notice that you now have two test products, product id's 222 & 223. Are you running a second test?

RodG:

Question:
You've removed the Wurldbitzer Debibulator product from your site... Sorry Feznizzle, I know you wanted 'out' of this thread, but I honestly think that this may have you as perplexed as it has me. Am I wrong, or am I simply missing something obvious?

Cheers
Rod

Perhaps, then, a benefit for Feznizzle pulling out?

lankeeyankee:

dgreviews I think it's called in the downloads section. We use it and it works well.

Thanks. See it's for a much older zencart version. Does it work with zc 1.5.x?

Here's plugin:
http://www.zen-cart.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=116

EDIT: Returning to that China site and dress. Google search for exact product name:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sherri+hill+2925+Prom+Dresses&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

No result I can quickly find, but Sherri Hill is very aggessive in having sites removed due to copyright infrignment. So I guess we won't know if all of that gibberish review text helped.

But on the other hand, how did I find this site in google?

lhungil:

I'd rather give an example to help people learn, or at least point them in the right direction where possible, as opposed to just ignore a person's request for help. I do believe in some aspects of Karma... Who knows, maybe one day someone else will help me?

:wink2:

Thanks for answering. If you ever need a witness for the Karma court, feel free to call on me. :)

DivaVocals:

I too think the folks at Google know what they are doing.. A re-writer's only purpose should be to make pretty URLs. I do hope that this "test" aside that this is the real takeway that any responsible webmaster/site owner should walk away with.. If my client wants pretty URLS then I will install a re-writer for them (and ONLY Ceon URI as I think it is the only one that will not HARM my client's site). After that with regards to SEO I look to the folks at Google for guidelines
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769
**http://tinyurl.com/av7v4vy
**http://tinyurl.com/dzy6dj
http://tinyurl.com/de7tld
**http://tinyurl.com/ajq9swn
http://tinyurl.com/agx5xtn
**http://tinyurl.com/ak7qqpy
http://tinyurl.com/ddc5xq

(Please note that in many of Matt Cutts videos, Matt goes back to stressing the value of GOOD content)

Cool resource of vids, thanks. Subscribed to the channel, plan to spend a good deal of time there soon.

Here is another video from him that talks about loading keywords into URLs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=971qGsTPs8M

Two interesting things. First, he doesn't address whether or not adding keywords is helpful to SE ranking (bummer). Second, he does go on make suggestions about how best to do it (from a user experience). It does seem as though google accepts this as a function of SEO.
+++
Edit: I just saw this -

Matt Cutts says with regards to keywords in URLs that "it does help a little bit to have keywords in the URL".

Wow. Interesting. Kind of a bummer! Any chance you could post the source of that so I could see it in context?

Feznizzle:

DivaVocals:

I too think the folks at Google know what they are doing.. A re-writer's only purpose should be to make pretty URLs. I do hope that this "test" aside that this is the real takeway that any responsible webmaster/site owner should walk away with.. If my client wants pretty URLS then I will install a re-writer for them (and ONLY Ceon URI as I think it is the only one that will not HARM my client's site). After that with regards to SEO I look to the folks at Google for guidelines
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769
**http://tinyurl.com/av7v4vy
**http://tinyurl.com/dzy6dj
http://tinyurl.com/de7tld
**http://tinyurl.com/ajq9swn
http://tinyurl.com/agx5xtn
**http://tinyurl.com/ak7qqpy
http://tinyurl.com/ddc5xq

(Please note that in many of Matt Cutts videos, Matt goes back to stressing the value of GOOD content)Cool resource of vids, thanks. Subscribed to the channel, plan to spend a good deal of time there soon. You're welcome.. All of these philisophical discussions aside, THIS should be the guide that folks use if they want to know the best way to configure content for their sites.. I have noticed that NO WHERE do any of the Google Webmaster resources (articles or video) backup the most frequent claims that the "native URLs" versus "re-written URLs" camps subscribe to.. One form of URL is NOT better than the other.. One is not more HARMFUL than the other.. The only SEO "advantage" to be seen is in those sites that use GOOD content regardless of what kind of URL they use.. (a recurring theme in MANY Google Webmaster videos)

Feznizzle:

Here is another video from him that talks about loading keywords into URLs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=971qGsTPs8M

Two interesting things. First, he doesn't address whether or not adding keywords is helpful to SE ranking (bummer). Second, he does go on make suggestions about how best to do it (from a user experience). It does seem as though google accepts this as a function of SEO.
+++Yes they do accept them as part of SEO, but they assign no great importance to it.. Which you will see in Matt's original video on the topic..
Feznizzle:

Edit: I just saw this -

Wow. Interesting. Kind of a bummer! Any chance you could post the source of that so I could see it in context?I posted the link to this video just above the text you quoted from my post... My quote is a direct quote from Matt Cutts in the video..

DivaVocals:

I posted the link to this video just above the text you quoted from my post... My quote is a direct quote from Matt Cutts in the video..

Doah! No idea how I missed it that link. Guess because I read to the end before folowing the other links. Worse, my mind added the word NOT the quote, both times you said it (hence why I said bummer):
""it does NOT help a little bit to have keywords in the URL""

Man, do I need some sleep! :frusty: