Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

lhungil:

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.

So should Ultimate SEO users be okay with just this not found page: http://www.prommart.com/x ?

EDIT: I tested some of the participants' homepages with an x at the end of .com/ = .com/x

My Ultimate SEO URL site prommart.com goes to Zencart's page not found with site map.

So does my Fashion-Mart.biz (Simple SEO URL)

BN's CEON entry also does.

Feznizzle's CEON entries seem to go to homepage.

All of the native/dynamic url entries that I looked at go to the server's 404 page: white screen of death.

My latest Ultimate SEO entries also white screen of death, but they are in subfolders.

My latest Ultimate SEO entries also white screen of death, but they are in subfolders.<<<

EDIT: they are also likely older versions of Ultimate SEO URL.

EDIT: BN's native/dynamic url site onyour bike does go to Zencart's page not found with sitemap.

DivaVocals:

The notion that re-writers provide an SEO "boost" is misguided.

Isn't the jury still out on that? Have to wait for things to settle down to see final test ranking?

New Entry: CEON

NAME: SPH

URL: http://www.prom-mart.com/debibulators/wurldbitzer-debibulator

REWRITE: Yes, CEON

XML SITEMAP: No, not installed. Also no webmasters or analytics

COMMENTS: Downloaded latest CEON from ZC plugins, but see it is out of date. So may get around to updating it. This is the domain where my three recent subfolder entries are under.

Made a "debobulator" category for test product, as I think that more realistic.

Took about 17 minutes total to download of CEON and get product up. Not familiar with CEON, so only category and products are being rewritten so far.

CEON goes to ZC's page not found - http://www.prom-mart.com/X - instead of 404 white screen of death.

ZC 1.5.1

EDIT - CORRECTION: prom-mart.com apparently is in webmasters. But not verified so assuming not active?

Is also in analyctis, but no activity.

SPH:

Isn't the jury still out on that? Have to wait for things to settle down to see final test ranking?Nope.. Jury isn't out on this at all, but from your posts you sure seem determined to prove that there is truth to this.:smile: This little test ya'll are running isn't going to prove or disprove anything.. They only seem to support what BOTH sides say and that to me only serves to prove that there is no real discernible difference between native versus re-written URLs.. Is there anything posted by Matt Cutt or anyone from Yahoo or Bing that says that there is a SEO benefit to be had by the use of a URL re-writer?? I think that trumps any "results" that might be found in this "test"

It seems logical that when someone from GOOGLE (or Yahoo or Bing) says that a "pretty URL" is somehow better for SEO than a dynamic/native one, that there really will be a definitive answer on this.. Until then it's a PERCEIVED benefit because that's the line that so-called SEO "experts" would have folks believe. There is enough evidence that demonstrates that GOOD content, not the URL will deliver the best click through rates. So yes, the notion that a pretty URL will somehow provide some sort of SEO boost is very much misguided (see what Matt Cutt says on this if you still believe otherwise).. When Matt Cutts answer questions related to this topic his answers always circle back to having good content on your site that will increase your click through rate.. I think Matt Cutts is a better source to guide what the answer is versus this "test"..

Feznizzle:

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.

I note that you finally saw where I stated that this was NOT the reason. (Wouldn't it be easier to READ WHAT I WRITE before trying to respond?)

Feznizzle:

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.

That is/was my 1st guess/theory (after ensuring that Google had already re-crawled your site)

Feznizzle:

WOAH! BY GOD THAT IS INTERESTING???

Hell yeah. Why to you think I asked/queried if you had any ideas? (Hmm, no answer needed. You thought I was trying to test you or something didn't you?).

This thread would go a lot better if some of you would simply realise I'm not here to prove any particular point(s). I'm here to see what we can learn from what was supposed to have been a controlled experiment. Even though the control has been lost, the initial setup for the test(s) is such that we can easily make some good and valid comparisons, and even draw valid conclusions (albeit, not as many as I hoped we could).

No one is going to learn anything if many of you have nothing better to do than twist my words to your own ends, for no other reason that to try to make me look like a fool. I can't see any other reason for it :(

Feznizzle:

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

That was the first thing I thought of too. In fact **I was just about to call this as proof that it does matter (much to the glee many). ** Until I sat back, and considered the situation, and realised that it wasn't possible to call it just yet.. To do that we need to find why your site is still holding the 1st two spots. We both jumped to the conclusion it was the keywords in the URL (which could still be true), but it is more likely to be the URL stored in the db that is keeping it there, keywords or not.

Sooooo...... Now that we have made this important and useful observation, YOU are in the ideal position to configure your test site to demonstrate/show/prove which of the two possibilities considered so far is the correct one (if any). Can you do that for us please?

I shouldn't need to do this, but I feel it important to stress "which of the two possibilities considered so far". The new/additional test may not show anything useful, in which case we'll need to consider other possible explanations. I'm hoping we won't need to do this though.

Thanks,
Rod

Feznizzle:

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.

You haven't thought this through (sigh). Oh well, go ahead and do this... It may show something useful, but it wasn't what I had in mind at all.

In the interests of avoiding a three way comparison I will let you run your proposed test first, and after we've noted the results I'll explain how to make this a valid two way comparison in which we will be able to draw a conclusion.

NOTE#1: I have no idea at all what your test will show, It is a comparison between apples and oranges.

NOTE#2: The test I have in mind will be like comparing two different apples to see which is the nicest one to eat. (keywords or no keywords). I have no preconceived idea as to which it will be.. it may be both apples taste pretty much the same (I hope not though).

NOTE#3: This is a 'biggy'. It is important to realize that regardless of the outcome of the test(s), it will tell us nothing about whether URL rewrites are good/bad or indifferent. This is a different kettle of fish, and I'm convinced that several of you are not seeing this.

NOTE#4: Another 'biggy'. **If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. **

NOTE#5 Another 'biggy'. **If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. ** (worth repeating)

PLEASE, All of you, I think Notes 4 & 5 should be plainly obvious, but if you don't understand or follow PLEASE ASK ME TO ELABORATE before continuing this discussion, because it means you are going down a path and making comments, statements and claims that are totally and completely irrelevant when you look at the big picture.

I'll repeat this once again... **If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. **

And again.... **If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. **

There is virtually no point in going any further with this discussion until you see the truth to this.
**If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. **

Have I made myself perfectly clear? **If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. **

Hmmm, perhaps I should make this my signature line :)

Cheers
Rod

ps **If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. **

lhungil:

I'd rather give an example to help people learn

Generally speaking, so do I. This is/was a 'special case' though.

Incidently, I don't know how you managed it, but you combined two **totally different messages **into a single response.

Confusion reigns.

Cheers
Rod

DivaVocals:

Nope.. Jury isn't out on this at all, but from your posts you sure seem determined to prove that there is truth to this.:smile:

Not really, especially as our "test" has progressed. Dynamic Urls have no problems getting found and indexed...but then neither do the rewritten urls insofar as I can tell. I think you agree.

I'm just sitting back waiting to see further results when the actual test product from all entries have arrived at google.

RodG:

If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's.

I think about the only thing left would be seeing if ranking is affected, once all entries have reached google with the actual test product. Should the rewritten urls consistently rank higher, I'd say there is a SEO benefit.

But I'm just sitting back waiting to see.

RodG:

and I'm convinced that several of you are not seeing this.

I guess that includes me. :smile:

DivaVocals:

Doing "a feznizzle" on you??? Seriously?? I've not read ANYTHING into anyone's statements,

I beg to differ. You even managed to do it in this response!

However, before pointing it out, you have me really bamboozled, your entire response reads as though you and I are somehow in total disagreement with each other, which is strange, because I am:

1. 100% in agreement with Conors words (as posted by you, earlier in this thread)
2. 99.9% in agreement with all you have said.

PLEASE READ POST #369 before responding and let me know if you agree or not. (If not, please give a short explanation).

DivaVocals:

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..

As have I, but this thread is the first one ever (at least in my experience) where, as a result of the tests, we have a very good chance of providing empirical evidence to prove someones point (not necessarily mine) that will settle the matter once and for all.

PLEASE READ POST #369 before responding.

Anyway... let go back to where you are putting words into my mouth.

DivaVocals:

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" .

This is the complete opposite to what I said! READ CAREFULLY :

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

How does **"A rewriter will do no harm **, This was certainly proven way back when it was 1st added to Apache a couple of decades ago" get translated to
"you say that the harm was proven after the introduction of Apache re-writes"?

This type of misquoting has been rife throughout this thread, and I really can't understand why. I seriously wonder if anyone is actually reading what I write at all.
As I stated at the start of this post, I'm in 99% agreement with your own views, yet you still managed to "quote" the exact opposite to what I said, which means you are arguing with yourself, but using me as the opponent. How does this make sense? <shakes head in dismay>

Please, don't take this personally, you aren't alone, every one of the avid rewriter supporters have done the exact same thing.

Frankly, I'm now getting rather sick of it. :(

DivaVocals:

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??

FerfuxSake.. lets review this tiny little bit of our conversation shall we?
**
You:** So what you are saying is that you do not know which module it was???
Me: I don't even know if it was a ZenCart module.
You: 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?
Me: *I'm not even sure it was a ZenCart module. *
You: 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

My turn again... I suppose I could repeat the same thing for the 3rd time, but screw it, if you don't understand now I don't think you ever will.

Anyway, PLEASE READ POST #369 before responding. **At the end of the day, the entire discussion(s) about rewriters being good/bad is a totally and completely MOOT point. A non issue, a red herring. **

If this isn't understood there is no point in discussing anything more. The plot has been lost, and the big picture isn't being seen. FWIW, I stated I'm only 99% in agreement with everything you have said. If you understand and accept the above, you'll have no reason to stick to your guns (nor would I), and as such, we'll be in 100% agreement with each other.

Do you follow?

Cheers
Rod

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?

http://shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?main_page=x (ZenCart 404 page)
http://shop.vcsweb.com/x (Apache/custom 404 page) .... I really must take care of this sometime :)

Cheers
Rod

RodG:

You haven't thought this through (sigh). Oh well, go ahead and do this... It may show something useful, but it wasn't what I had in mind at all.

No worries... I was too busy with real life to do anything. I was hoping others would propose a better way to test that. When I checked back up here, I found that Diva had eloquently removed any doubt whatsoever for me. No need to test the idea with ANY further action on my part:

DivaVocals:

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

2. Re-written URLs are not inherently "harmful" or "detrimental" (provided that they are generated correctly).

3. There is NOTHING wrong with native Zen Cart URLs with regards to SEO ranking if you use relevant content on the site.

4. 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.

5. 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.*

Three simple, powerful words: "Matt Cutts says..."

Really, to question that (or waste time testing) seems pointless to me. "Matt Cutts says..." = "Google says..."

There is no appealing a Supreme Court decision. The verdict is in. It is done. (Sorry for the geo-colloquialism!)

If you haven't already seen the video, you should take a moment to hear the words in context. He is very clear. It does help a little bit. Don't waste your time worrying about it. But it does help a little bit to have keywords in the url. I don't see 30 minutes (15 for install, 15 for configuring) as a huge deal. The project I just started will last about 2 months... 30 minutes is fairly insignificant in that light.

As fun as the conversation has been at times, I honestly don't have the time to continue this line of questioning… now that google has spoken.

My conclusion:
I like pretty URLs, find them more effective when sending humans emails. I also like that google adds a bit of bold to my listings when my keywords match search terms. And it is now super clear that Ceon vs Native is not an issue. Further, Diva has provided us with direct confirmation from Google itself that keywords in URLs really do get noticed (something I have always believed). However little that matters to SEs is immaterial to me, considering that it isn't that big of a deal to me in terms of time/effort.

So I will now REALLY reduce my role to lurker.

That said, I am glad for having had this discussion. It has removed a quiet but persistent fear I've always had about rewrites. And, most shocking and unexpected, uncovered indisputable truth that "it does help a little bit to have keywords in the URL".

Cool beans, y'all!!!

Rod, I will leave that URL up. I am curious to see what happens when the google index catches up to the google cache. I suspect that it will drop dramatically in rank, if not disappear. If can still be found when searching werlister debibulator, I will be truly blown away. If the cache and the index listing match (neither giving reference to wurldblitzer debibulator) yet the url turns up in a search, it could only be because of the keywords in the URL. But I'm guessing it will simply disappear because keywords that do not match content.

Either way, I am very curious!

I do hope you guys will go on to discuss/test more interesting things though. Are there any other big SEO issues that everybody bickers about that we could try to test? And, not to beat a dead dog, but I really am curious about the effects actual traffic has on rank. Anyway, if you guys go on I will probably pipe up here and there… provided it does not become a pising contest. :)

+++
A final thought to offer on Conor and Ceon. Though I'm sure I did not know him as well as Diva, I did get to know him first thru his stellar support on his Ceon threads and then privately while hiring him to consult a bit. He was a super sweet guy and, like Diva, I cannot begin to imagine him being confrontation with anyone about… really about ANYTHING.

Despite the fact that I already have a copy, twice this week I will be buying the Admin module to accompany his Ceon module. I would post a link to his site so others could follow me, but I think it is against the rules to promote paid modules like that. It's not hard to find. If you are working on a large site, plan to edit sql directly for adding prod/cats (or use tools like Easy Pop for the same reason), then that mod will save you a ton of time and effort. I am buying it on my clients' dime, already had it in the budget during my original proposals, long before I knew he had passed.

That mod is excellent, pretty much the only paid mod that I would recommend whole heartedly. He did a wonderful job. Though he is gone, I'm guessing the proceeds go to someone/something that he cared about when he was alive.

I know his site is still up. I will post a follow up if the site is no longer allowing the purchase of the mod.

SPH:

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

I'm way ahead of you :)

SPH:

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

Sorry, but I can neither confirm nor deny if I'm using TPP... simply because whatever it is, I installed it several years ago and can't remember.

If you can't identify which it is from the download descriptions and are seriously interested I'll be more than happy to see if I can identify it for you.
I'm just being a bit lazy at the moment. Hope you understand.

SPH:

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

Yes. Not quite the same as what you suggested though. Even though the controls I put in place have been tossed out the window by several participants, my original site entry still serves a purpose as being a 'control', and the worst thing I could possibly do is to mess with this control.

Product_id 223 is exactly the same as the control (222) in every way except I've added a little more text. I'm expecting that the new entry will outrank the original (the additional text included additional references to the product name), and I'm curious to see how it will fare against any of the other test sites (assuming I can identify one that 1) uses rewrites, and 2) still has the original Wurldbitzer description).

Incidentally, those of you doing your own little tests, are you just making changes and waiting to see what the results will be, or, are you using the scientific method in that you have developed a theory as to what you are expecting as a result of the changes, and then performing the tests to prove/disprove the theory?

There was an important lesson that I learned about 40 odd years ago (when I was learning the electronics servicing trade) that has proven itself true over and over again, and can be applied to these tests, the lesson being, "It is no good taking a measurement unless you know what to expect". Or, putting it another way, if you don't know what to expect from any given test, the test is worthless. The same applies to the tests we are doing here.. Making changes and watching the results can certainly be very interesting, even enlightening, but unless you use the theory/test/theory/test basis it can't be used to 'prove' anything.
Does that make sense?

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

Perhaps, then, a benefit for Feznizzle pulling out?

Yes! This serendipity at its best!

Cheers
Rod

DivaVocals:

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...

You won't, and you never will. If you think this is even possible you've lost the plot. You are not seeing the big picture.

Read post #369 and let the penny drop. If it doesn't, you aren't seeing the big picture. You are getting yourself bogged down with the names that us people give things to help clarify what we are talking about.

This shouldn't be complicated or difficult to grasp. GOOGLE DOESN'T HAVE ANY WAY TO KNOW IF A URL IS NATIVE OR REWRITTEN, ergo there isn't anything anything for Google to 'backup' (or refute). IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

READ AND UNDERSTAND POST #369 before continuing this discussion.

DivaVocals:

One form of URL is NOT better than the other..

By 'form" I assume you mean Keyword loaded vs non-keyword loaded? (How they are generated is irrelevant).

DivaVocals:

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..
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..

Please read post#369.
Please understand that there are TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT things being debated here. One of them being the Native vs the ReWritten URL's.
This is a moot point, a non issue, a red herring.

The other debate being are KeyWord loaded URL's better or worse than non-keyword loaded URL's.
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE! It is the only thing that actually matters.

This is ALSO the one that is the hardest to prove/demonstrate (I still haven't given up all hope on this though).

On one camp we have, Conor, myself, and others (even you) stating that KeyWord loaded URL's look pretty, but have no** proven** SEO benefits
On the other camp, we have Matt Cutts, and others saying keywords in URLs "does help a little bit".

I think we all agree that both Matt and Conor are experts in the field, don't we? Soooo, on this basis, let consider the rest of us (myself included) as uninformed idiots. OUR opinions mean NOTHING. Is that acceptable?

So, the situation NOW is that Matt and Conor (the experts) aren't in agreement with each other. They aren't necessarily in disagreement with each other either.
Stale mate.

OK, so what if we can continue these tests and either prove or disprove what one of these fine people have to say?
This is my ultimate aim in this discussion/thread. everything else is irrelevant.

Has the fog lifted yet? I'll repeat it again.... **If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's. **

Still not clear? How about if I re-repeat GOOGLE DOESN'T HAVE ANY WAY TO KNOW IF A URL IS NATIVE OR REWRITTEN

Put these two statements together, and think about what it means. If it STILL isn't obvious that the 'rewrite' debate is a red herring and should be dropped from the discussion I'm not sure how I can shed more light on what I'm saying... Hmmm, on the other hand.... How about we try this for size........

Let's assume that ZenCart produced 'pretty URL's right out of the box. Not hard to imagine... Tell me, what would become of CEON and all the other URL rewriters?
We wouldn't need them would we? They'll simply cease to exist, no point in rewriting a 'pretty URL' with another 'Pretty URL' is there? That'll be the end of the debate about whether rewriters are good or not, wouldn't it? This is what I'm getting at with post#369. The rewriters are unimportant, a red herring, they are a tool that modifies ZenCarts native behaviour. Essentially, a non issue. Not worthy of wasting another word discussing.

The question then remains, are the pretty URL's beneficial to google or not. Matt says 'a little bit', the Google docs say 'it MAY' help, but nothing really conclusive.

Now, suppose, just suppose, that we can demonstrate without a doubt that they DO help, and let us even assume that we show that there are even significant benefits to be had (that'd be really great)... Where would that lead us?

I would hope/assume that since the ZenCart developers love us and their software so much, they'll go out of the way to modify the ZenCart so that it does produce the 'pretty URL's out of the box, and as already stated, CEON and co will be of no further use. End of discussion about to rewrite or not to rewrite.

Sooo..... we are now back to the only thing that actually matters.... If we can prove that KeyWord laden URL's have positive benefits we can cease ALL arguments and discussions about the benefits (or lack of) the use of Rewriter's because the ZenCart team would/could make the rewriters obsolete.
*
** On the other hand, if we show that there is* no benefit to be had**, there would be no reason for the team to change ZenCart's URL's, on the risk management principle that all change carries risk, and if no gains are to be made the risk shouldn't be taken. (This doesn't mean that the ZenCart team won't eventually bend to 'public demand' and make the change to produce native keyword laden URL's anyway, becuase they will gain on the simple basis that it will make the re-writers obsolete and they'll have far less support questions to deal with because people constantly mess up installing the rewriters.

The 3rd, less likely outcome is that there may, just may be, a very remote possibility that there are negative consequences, albeit currently unseen and unidentified (I do have a couple of theorys about how this can come about, but it is somewhat irrelevant, and not worth getting into a debate with). Nonetheless, until we prove the positive we can't ignore the the negative. Common sense. Again, I have no wish to debate this one.. it would be fruitless. I mention it simply because it is one of the three possible outcomes, as insignificant and unexpected it may be. Have I made myself clear on this. I'm not saying there are negative outcomes, just that it is one of the three possible outcomes.

Hopefully we are now all on the same page? Can we please stop this pointless bickering of he said, you said, she said, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... It is getting us nowhere.

SPH:

So should Ultimate SEO users be okay with just this not found page: http://www.prommart.com/x ?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Oh, I see... Yeah, that's fine. Looks like Ultimate SEO is doing all the work with this one.

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

The notion that re-writers provide an SEO "boost" is misguided.

Isn't the jury still out on that?

Yes!

Cheers
Rod