Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

DivaVocals:

Nope.. Jury isn't out on this at all, .

I beg to differ. The is the 1% where we still don't agree.

DivaVocals:

but from your posts you sure seem determined to prove that there is truth to this.:smile: .

I'm most certainly determined to prove this one way or the other... if possible.

DivaVocals:

This little test ya'll are running isn't going to prove or disprove anything...

This depends on exactly which tests you are referring too. As you have hopefully observed, the cats have gone wild, all doing their own little tests, with no real idea what they are trying to show (or not show), and this no theory/test/theory/test process I agree, they will be able to prove nothing.

If only we didn't have that bit of panicing early in the peice, I could/would have guided the tests to prove one case or the other (which case, I've no idea. Not important). As it stands now, I'm not sure if we still have valid controls in place (a test site in a known and specific configuration, as defined by the initial control that were set up).

I thought all was lost in this regard, until the 'odd' behaviour of feznizzles site remaining in the top 2 in spite of the logic that suggested it should have been dropped. As long as feznizzle doesn't fsck things up going off on his own little tangent again, I hope I'll be able to bring his test sites back in line so that we will actually be able to prove something with empirical evidence. I won't be holding my breath though, as so far he has done nothing but throw a spanner in the works at every turn. If only I could make him realise that I'm not out to 'get' him, I'm not out to prove 'my' point. I simply wish to conduct a controlled experiment that we will all benefit from.

DivaVocals:

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.. .

Jumped the shark again. To Google there is NO DIFFERENCE between native versus re-written URLs WHATSOEVER. This is BEYOND DISPUTE.

I try to avoid putting words in other peoples mouths (A courtesy I wish others would give me), but I'm going to make an exception here. I think/suspect/hope that what you MEANT to say was "to me only serves to prove that there is no real discernible difference between KeyWord laden URL's vs Non-Keyword laden URLs."

There is a huge difference between the two comments. You can see that can't you?

DivaVocals:

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"

This is one of the most absurd things I've read in a long time. You are basically saying you are willing to take someones word over something even though there may be evidence to the contrary! That defies all logic.

DivaVocals:

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..

So can we stop this bickering and try to get back to trying to demonstrate it?

DivaVocals:

There is enough evidence that demonstrates that GOOD content, not the URL will deliver the best click through rates..

This has been unanimously agreed on MANY occasions, even by the folk at Google. I'm currently running my own test to prove this. I'm a little worried though. Up until yesterday/today I've taken this as a known and proven fact. Now I'm not so sure. Think about feznizzle's top two sites. This has thrown a spanner into the works in a big way... Totally unintentionally, but nonetheless, it has caused me to rethink whether 'Content is king' after all.... If content really is more important than the URL (for any given search query) then how is it possible for the current top two test sites to be there in spite of the fact that they contain** no content relevant to the search query **"Wurldbitzer Debibulator". The only thing that appears to be keeping them at the top is the content of the URL.

This is NOT something I would ever have expected if 'content were king'.

Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts or theories that would explain this apparent oddity that defies everything we had all previously agreed on?

The only thing I can think of is that URL trumps content. This really doesn't sit well with me.. it is a challenge to one of my core beliefs, bit I don't have any other explanation. please discuss.

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

and I'm convinced that several of you are not seeing this.
I guess that includes me. :smile:

I've made several other posts since that one that may have helped a little. Did they?

Cheers
Rod

Feznizzle:

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:

I really hate saying this, but we need you :)

Feznizzle:

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

I've mentioned my academic backround before haven't I? When studying I had it constantly drummed into me to Never rely on a single reference source, and never ever assume what someone write is fact (regardless of their credentials). I have found errors in official Cisco Documentation. I've found errors in many different training manuals (of various topics). I'm not about to accept what "Matt Cutts says..." as gospel. I'm not alone.

I'm not in any way implying that what he says is wrong either... I'm simply way back to where this all began, and that is I WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.

I'm not trying to disprove what Matt says. I don't even want to prove him wrong. If anything I want to prove him RIGHT!

Will you help me do that?

Feznizzle:

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.

I hope you are wrong (not for any personal reasons).... it'll mean the test I was planning for you to do for us will lead to another dead end.

Anyway,** if** it does stay on top (courtesy of the keyword loaded URL, I am assuming) the test I propose is that you add another Wurldbitzer to your store, being careful to not cause conflict with the original. The new entry to have the exact same description as the first, with the only difference being the URL.
I ask that for this one you create the URL without the keywords.
I will also ask that you get this new product into Google using the same manner that you used for the 1st.

With me so far?

OK, now when this new addition gets listed, I'm expecting it will end up taking 2 of the top four spots.. possibly and hopefully, but not assuredly pushing the existing two links down a little. If we don't see this then there is another factor at work that we've not considered. The test will end, having shown nothing useful.

However, if my expectations are correct, and your sites take the top four positions (or at least close to it), the next thing to do would be to remove the new addition in the same manner that you removed the original.

Then we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

If it isn't obvious, what this little test will give us is a single site identical in every way except for the URL's. Two of which will be the original KeyWord laden URL's the other two being the Non-Keyword ones.

If the two Keyword laden ones bubble their way back to the top two positions, I think this could be considered as** positive proof **that there is a definite benefit to be had. That'll be the end of it. Case and debate closed. We'll need to urge the ZenCart developers to update the code to produce this type of URL natively, and that'll kill all the debates about rewrites vs native as well. We will never, ever have to have this debate again. I think we would all agree that this would be a great outcome that will have made this entire thread worthwhile, don't you?

On the other hand, if the 4 links are randomly dispersed, we should be able to conclude the URL's contents are totally insignificant. A conclusion that many will still debate, but a conclusion nonetheless.

Another possible outcome is that all 4 links simply disappear (as you are expecting?), which will show Google is doing its job :)

The final possible outcome would be that the 4 links remain, but fall to the bottom of the list.... Content is King.

Does this seem all reasonably, sensible and logical to you? To others? Can anyone see a flaw to my logic and/or the conclusions that we may (or may not) be able to draw from the results? If so, please speak up now, BEFORE this test starts, and we may be able to modify/adapt to meet your concerns.

Cheers
Rod

This...

RodG:

If only I could make him realise that I'm not out to 'get' him, I'm not out to prove 'my' point.

...would be much easier w/o this:

RodG:

As long as feznizzle doesn't fsck things up going off on his own little tangent again, I hope I'll be able to bring his test sites back in line so that we will actually be able to prove something with empirical evidence. I won't be holding my breath though, as so far he has done nothing but throw a spanner in the works at every turn.

That said, I do appreciate that you have dialed it way back (on me, anyway). I really wish you had not gone off on Diva, I suspect you are in for a spanking... though really, I think it unnecessary for her to expend the effort. I think the words already spoken have not been undone, any logical person that has the time and patience to read it will see it for what it is. There is nothing to defend.

Rod, with regard to academia and learning to never accept what is written as fact, I too have been to school (not that it matters). I have 2 business degrees and a degree in corporate finance (interned at Morgan Stanley) and have studied risk management intensely (though not to the point I could teach the subject at a college level). I have also earned money by publishing business strategy papers written in school that went on to become study guides used by graduate students and seniors in undergrad business strategy courses all over the world, including Australia. The underlying theme of those papers, by the way, was maximizing the value of risk… a concept that is at the core of capitalism. Simply avoiding all risk (one path to risk management) obviates the point of running a company, something that is inherently risky.

Despite my education, I must admit that I have never carbon dated a rock before, nor would I even know where to begin. Yet I do believe it is reasonable to accept that the earth is older than 6000 years.

If you look at the exponential growth of technology (Moore's Law) and it's applications, it's pretty hard to imagine our lifestyle being possible if every little wheel had to be reinvented each time a furtherance were to occur. You can reserve the right to hold a doubt (intellectually agnostic -- probably a good thing), but to expend energy on personally verifying resoundingly agreed up facts (large numbers of qualified scientists agreeing almost unanimously that carbon dating is a pretty accurate process) would make life pretty rough. Next time the doc writes you a prescription, how long will it take you to verify his diagnosis and then verify the pills work before they go in your mouth?

Google is the only one privy to the secret ingredients of their formula. Their financial success is based upon people trusting them. To lie to webmasters seems illogical, to put it mildly. So, much like trusting the work of geologists, any further exploration of the use of keywords in urls must begin with acceptance of google's 'writing' on the subject… at least to be interesting to me.

I mostly like your proposed test, find it interesting. But for me to play, the hypothesis and any subsequent conversation has to be re-coached. I have no interest in proving the words of Matt Cuts. That portion of the conversation has been settled conclusively (at least for me). Expounding on and finding ways to enhance the opportunities his words present (keywords in the URL do make a little difference) is interesting to me. But if proving an accepted truth from an authoritative source is even remotely a part of your plan, then we are setting ourselves up for conflict as the wheel gets reinvented. And as has been pointed out, there is simply not the controls possible using this method (portions of the test being run by participants that don't really seem to understand what is going on being one of the biggest).

Nevertheless, interesting things have been brought to light. More could come. But if you really want me to participate:

• We have to start on the same page: acceptance of "it does help a little bit to have keywords in the URL". Honest, heartfelt acceptance. If you cannot, that's fine, I can except why, no need to repeat yourself.
• No more long rants at me, Diva, or anyone else.
• Less pontificating, more pondering.
• You have to kill all those "superfluous" links… google only gives a few results per page, scrolling thru 6 pages of results to figure out where the interesting ones are is extremely irritating.

If you can't do that, let's shake hands and call it a day. I will lurk around, as advertised.

Please don't pick apart the above post! I don't want to feel the compulsion to reply. If you disagree, just say it and be done. I will move happily to lurking, you can move on happily to testing whatever you want to test with the others who are here.

Thanks!

RodG:

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).

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.

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

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. :(
For Christ's sake chill out Rod.. I misunderstood what you wrote.. It wasn't an attack (as you have implied) it was a daggone QUESTION dude.. Sheesh.. I didn't spend as much time asking a SIMPLE question about it as you did writing out this LONG a$$ed response..

and while we're at it.. Nope.. I AM NOT going to re-read #369 as you keep imploring me to do.

and BTW Rod referring to me as "avid rewriter supporter" is a bit of a stretch and at the end of the day it's simply YOUR interpretation of my position.. I am a supporter of using the right tools to meet a client's needs.. So I'm not a for or against anything in particular.. I am FOR the right solution to serve a client's business need.

RodG:

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. A script... How clever of you.. So much better than a direct response.. So thanks for the paraphrased "recap".. that clears up any questions I had on this quite nicely..

Feznizzle:

This...

...would be much easier w/o this:

That said, I do appreciate that you have dialed it way back (on me, anyway). I really wish you had not gone off on Diva, I suspect you are in for a spanking... though really, I think it unnecessary for her to expend the effort. I think the words already spoken have not been undone, any logical person that has the time and patience to read it will see it for what it is. There is nothing to defend.No worries.. I honestly don't think Rod realizes that some of his responses come off as if he is scolding children instead of having a discussion with adults.. Which is why I am not going to spent any time doing tit for tat in his two posts responding to mine.. No spanking on my part.. I will continue to post my opinions, ask questions when I have them, and share information if I think it's relevant.. I won't spend anymore time checking the "tone" of anyone's responses even if they come off snarky.. That's apparently just how Rod gets down.. It's cool..

Anyway I will continue to follow with amused interest the results of this "test"..

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".
...
So, the situation NOW is that Matt and Conor (the experts) aren't in agreement with each other. Actually, I do recall Conor saying in a thread early last year (no idea where or how to find it) that, even though he had no "SEO" purposes to writing his URI Mapping mod, he did notice that there was a slight benefit in rankings or some other form of Google result. Like Matt Cutts, he said it was not significant, but real.

gjh42:

Actually, I do recall Conor saying in a thread early last year (no idea where or how to find it) that, even though he had no "SEO" purposes to writing his URI Mapping mod, he did notice that there was a slight benefit in rankings or some other form of Google result. Like Matt Cutts, he said it was not significant, but real.
Exactly!!! Thank you Glenn!!!:smile: Conor's words are in the two threads I posted earlier.. (there are others like this, but Conor's opinions remain consistent on this)

DivaVocals:

That's apparently just how Rod gets down..

lololololol. I just spilled my coffee, thanks a lot! :D

I have to agree, I don't think it's intentional, just how he is wired. I hope he gets to your last post before he begins responding... we might have a lot less to read tomorrow.

EDIT: woops, post before last.

Sabianstore.

My theories:

1. Google likes it's new description a little better than our original test "gibberish",
2. The little Rubik template rocks. I always suspected that. :wink:

Interesting:

1,Google skips sabianstore's first line of description so far and goes for the second sentence.
2. Category "ancillary link" actually ranks higher right now than product itself.

DivaVocals:

For Christ's sake chill out Rod.. I misunderstood what you wrote.. .

Yes, repeatedly and consistently.

DivaVocals:

A script... How clever of you.. So much better than a direct response.. So thanks for the paraphrased "recap".. that clears up any questions I had on this quite nicely..

That wasn't a 'script' nor was it paraphrased. They were exact quotes, cut 'n' pasted from this thread.

If it weren't for the fact that the latest response annoyed you I doubt that we would ever have broken out of that loop.

RodG:

This depends on exactly which tests you are referring too. As you have hopefully observed, the cats have gone wild, all doing their own little tests, with no real idea what they are trying to show (or not show), and this no theory/test/theory/test process I agree, they will be able to prove nothing.

Rod, if you want to try again with a new test product I'm in and can use several sites.

This is NOT something I would ever have expected if 'content were king'.

Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts or theories that would explain this apparent oddity that defies everything we had all previously agreed on?

The only thing I can think of is that URL trumps content. This really doesn't sit well with me.. it is a challenge to one of my core beliefs, bit I don't have any other explanation. please discuss.

I've come across competitors that rank high with seemingly NO content on their products or categories, at least in the sense of unique description. Take this result:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Alyce+2038&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

Promoutfitters(dot)com at no. 2. The only real thing distinguishing this dress from the next may be the "related products" (something our ex-SEO guy said to do.) This probably isn't my best example, but one I recalled.

This is a fairly new competitor coming out of the blue. (Or if they've been around, only now getting our attention.)

RodG, would it be useful if we put up a product with nothing except for the product name (and maybe model no. and quantity)? No description at all. One dynamic url and one rewritten. See if one, both or none make it to google.

Feznizzle:

The underlying theme of those papers, by the way, was maximizing the value of risk… a concept that is at the core of capitalism.
Simply avoiding all risk (one path to risk management) obviates the point of running a company, something that is inherently risky..

I really must be misunderstanding you. The risk in running a company is generally a risk worth taking. There are potential gains to be had.. profit! Of course, it is a risk the company could also go bust. A loss. That is why we call it a 'risk' and not a 'threat'.

I can only keep repeating what I've been taught in my Risk Management classes, if there are NO POTENTIAL GAINS the risk shouldn't be taken. It is foolhardy at best, irresponsible at worse.

Feznizzle:

Despite my education, I must admit that I have never carbon dated a rock before, nor would I even know where to begin. Yet I do believe it is reasonable to accept that the earth is older than 6000 years.

So do I. The majority of experts agree. I have no reason to make my own decision on this matter.

If the majority of experts agreed that that pretty URL's have positive benefits to the search engines, then I'd be guite happy to accept it as fact. That isn't the case though, we don't have a majority in agreement, which is why this is an ongoing debate, unlike the 6000+ year rock scenario.

Admittedly, there are also going to be a few nutters out there that can somehow ignore proof and make silly claims anyway. Did man really land on the moon, or was it all staged? (rhetorical question).

Feznizzle:

but to expend energy on personally verifying resoundingly agreed up facts (large numbers of qualified scientists agreeing almost unanimously that carbon dating is a pretty accurate process) would make life pretty rough.

I know what you are saying, but we are not discussing 'agreed facts' by 'large numbers of qualified scientists'. I don't what logic you are using to make such a comparison.

Feznizzle:

Next time the doc writes you a prescription, how long will it take you to verify his diagnosis and then verify the pills work before they go in your mouth?

You really don't want to go there..... Seriously. My wife's father was a pharmacist (before he passed away). We've been made far too aware over the years that many doctors aren't quite 'with it' when it comes to possible interactions with different drugs, so yes, I/we do research any new drugs that are prescribed to us before having them filled, and if we have any concerns at all, we discuss them with our pharmacist before having them filled. We are on a 1st name basis with our local pharmacist (Bill) as a result.

Feznizzle:

To lie to webmasters seems illogical, to put it mildly.

And once again, another example of putting words into my mouth when I've never suggested or even hinted at such a thing.

If you have a problem understanding the difference between "may" and "will" then that is your problem. Don't place your shortcoming back onto me.

Feznizzle:

I mostly like your proposed test, find it interesting. But for me to play, the hypothesis and any subsequent conversation has to be re-coached..

Was there e a flaw in my logic or the methodology? If so, please explain/elaborate so that the issue can be corrected.

Feznizzle:

I have no interest in proving the words of Matt Cuts. That portion of the conversation has been settled conclusively (at least for me). .

No problems. I shall contact the various companies that write/produce dictionaries and let them know that they've had it all wrong for all these years, and that "will" and "may" mean exactly the same thing. I'm glad we have that sorted. BTW, I don't suppose you know when the definition got changed do you?

Feznizzle:

. And as has been pointed out, there is simply not the controls possible using this method

Apparently you didn't read the latest experiment proposed? Or, if you did, you simply didn't understand it... OR, you have identified a flaw in the logic and/or methology I proposed, in which case, please elaborate.

-------------------------- repeat ------------------------------------------------------------
If it isn't obvious, what this little test will give us is a single site identical in every way except for the URL's. Two of which will be the original KeyWord laden URL's the other two being the Non-Keyword ones.

I don't think it could get much more controlled than that. Clearly I'm missing an important factor, but unless you tell me, I'm not going to have a clue what it is.

Feznizzle:

(portions of the test being run by participants that don't really seem to understand what is going on being one of the biggest).

What the other participants are up to, I really don't know. The test has nothing to do with them or their own experiments. Please explain why you think otherwise.

Feznizzle:

But if you really want me to participate:

I wish you had phrased that better. I would rather have anyone but you conduct this experiment. Sadly, not one of the other participants have matched your 'badass' SEO status (not even me). You have serendipitously (accidentally) exposed an apparent flaw in the way Google is handling the method that you got your sites(s) rapidly indexed, and has kept them in the top two spots, even though it is acknowledged they should have been removed soon after Google reCrawled your site and discovered the KeyWord references were no longer in place/relevant.
The proposed test is/was to take advantage of this apparent flaw in that it gave/gives us the perfect situation whereby we can make valid comparisons between the keyword and non-keyword laden URL's. everything else would be equal. It simply couldn't get any better than this.

If I knew exactly what you did, and how you did it, I'd be trying to replicate it (I have determined that there is more to it than just the Google analytics code).

Hhmmm... I wonder if you realise the significance of what you have stumbled on to? I suspect not..... and as much as I don't wish to put ideas into your head, if this really is a flaw in the Google logic/code (and not a result in the 'index not being in sync with the cache', which is the other possibility), you could use (abuse?) this to great advantage for your clients. Other SEO experts/badasses will be knocking at your door asking how you are leaving them dead in the water.

OMG. I just realised.... I've just done something almost incomprehensible, I've suggested there may be a flaw in the Google logic/code. Clearly this can't be true.. Google doesn't make mistakes, so the mistake must be mine. Oh well, perhaps it isn't a flaw after all, and the oddity really is nothing more mysterious than the indexing & cache are out of sync, which would make the test pointless anyway.

I have a feeling that you won't even accept that it is even possible for Google to make a mistake.

Feznizzle:

• We have to start on the same page: acceptance of "it does help a little bit to have keywords in the URL". Honest, heartfelt acceptance. If you cannot, that's fine, I can except why, no need to repeat yourself.

IF I could do/say this** and be sincere about it**, then I wouldn't be debating the issue, and I'd see no point in doing the test.

I don't see how this 'request' will have any bearing whatsoever as to the logic or methodology of the proposed test. It will have no effect as to the results of the test.

If I've missed an important point that indicates otherwise please elaborate.

Feznizzle:

• No more long rants at me, Diva, or anyone else.

A leopard cannot change its spots. Neither can I.
I don't see how this 'request' will have any bearing whatsoever as to the logic or methodology of the proposed test. It will have no effect as to the results of the test.

Feznizzle:

• Less pontificating, more pondering..

Seems to me that I'm the only one that is doing the pondering. It's you (and others) doing most of the pontificating (or has the meaning of this been changed too?)
I don't see how this 'request' will have any bearing whatsoever as to the logic or methodology of the proposed test. It will have no effect as to the results of the test.

Feznizzle:

• You have to kill all those "superfluous" links… google only gives a few results per page, scrolling thru 6 pages of results to figure out where the interesting ones are is extremely irritating..

1. I cannot and will not do that. This is an essential function of our store.
2. I cannot and will not do that. I still consider our store to be the 'control' for many the Wuldbliter comparative tests that are still underway.
3. I don't see how this 'request' will have any bearing whatsoever as to the logic or methodology of the proposed test. It will have no effect as to the results of the test, which was to compare your site with your site to to see if there are any observable differences between the keyword and non-keyword laden URL's.
4. If the test proves positive (the expected/anticipated result), you'll not need to "scroll thru 6 pages of results to figure out where the interesting ones are". The ones of interest will be the top four listed.

Feznizzle:

If you can't do that, let's shake hands and call it a day. I will lurk around, as advertised.

When I proposed the test and asked for people to let me know if they can find a flaw in my logic or the methodology, it was to ensure I hadn't missed some important point that would sway or invalidate the results. I wasn't asking for anyone to place unrelated and irrelevant conditions on the test <sigh>

Rod.

Feznizzle:

Please don't pick apart the above post! I don't want to feel the compulsion to reply. If you disagree, just say it and be done. I will move happily to lurking, you can move on happily to testing whatever you want to test with the others who are here.

Thanks!

ROFL.

I'll tell you what. You don't tell me how to repond, and I'll not tell you how to respond.

I can't be much fairer than that.

Cheers
Rod

DivaVocals:

No worries.. I honestly don't think Rod realizes that some of his responses come off as if he is scolding children instead of having a discussion with adults...

Actually, I do. I just can't help myself. If I get/see/recieve childish responses and behaviour I'll respond accordingly. I don't expect anyone to like me for it. Not my problem. Oh, not just online either. I do it in the classrooms too.

Funny thing I've observed about teaching computers & IT, the younger students (15-20yo's) are (generally) keen to learn. Rarely do I come across one that spits the dummy because I've said something they don't like. Most of them are more like SPH... keen to learn, with no axe to grind.
I've also found very similar with the 60+ group. Also keen to learn, never a dummy spit.

Then there's the 21-59 age group, especially those with a little bit of self taught computer experience. WORSE STUDENTS EVER. They will argue every preconceived idea they have. It is a battle to 'teach' them anything... Oh, don't get me wrong, they do learn, but rarely will they admit it..... It frustrates me at times, but I generally don't let it bother me.... at the end of the day I can (often) see that I've managed to get the lesson across and I move on to the next group.

DivaVocals:

Which is why I am not going to spent any time doing tit for tat in his two posts responding to mine..

See, you've learned something. Debating with me is a very time consuming process :)

DivaVocals:

No spanking on my part..

Now I'm really disappointed. What if I say 'pretty please, with a cherry on top'. Will you spank me then? :) :) :_

DivaVocals:

I will continue to post my opinions, ask questions when I have them, and share information if I think it's relevant..

Please do. If I've not made it clear before, I've found** your input**, opinions and ideas to be so close to most of the things that I try to teach that its not funny.
You could almost be my spokeperson. (and probably do a better job)

Other than the clash of personalities, the** only **thing I've been in disagreement with you is with the 'are KeyWord laden URL's of more benefit than the Non-Keyword laden URL's' , and to be perfectly honest, I'm still not sure exactly where you stand on this, so we may not even be in disagreement here either.

The difference, as I see it, is that you are willing to accept it as fact that they are better (even though you acknowledge it is only anecdotal evidence, and the difference is insignificant anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong), where as I feel we shouldn't accept the anecdotal evidence, especially if it is something that we should be able to prove, one way or the other. I haven't even seen the anecdotal evidence.

DivaVocals:

Anyway I will continue to follow with amused interest the results of this "test"..

I note that you placed 'test' in quotes. Would I be wrong in assuming that this means you don't think the current proposed test is valid? Could you please elaborate (I mean this sincerely). I make mistakes just as much as anyone else, and although I have given careful consideration to all tests proposed, the initial (and ongoing) setup configurations, AND what I expect the various outcomes to be, it is still possible, even apparent, that I'm missing a vital piece of the puzzle.
I'm not seeing what it is though :(

Thanks for any more info you can shed to enlighten me.

Cheers
Rod

DivaVocals:

Originally Posted by gjh42 [IMG]http://www.zen-cart.com/images/styles/zencart/buttons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]
Actually, I do recall Conor saying in a thread early last year (no idea where or how to find it) that, even though he had no "SEO" purposes to writing his URI Mapping mod, he did notice that there was a slight benefit in rankings or some other form of Google result. Like Matt Cutts, he said it was not significant, but real.

Exactly!!! Thank you Glenn!!!:smile: Conor's words are in the two threads I posted earlier.. (there are others like this, but Conor's opinions remain consistent on this)

Assuming that Glenn is thinking of the same posts that you made earlier, then we are all in agreement. Some people have noticed anecdotal evidence of a slight benefit. One has to assume that this isn't a universal finding though, and it most certainly hasn't been proven. Many of us, including myself haven't found the same anecdotal evidence. We are about to lose the second chance of proving/disproving it (unless someone could please point out what I've missed with my logic and methodology).

Why blow this opportunity?

PrestaShop and Interspire (and no doubt others) produce these 'keyword laden' URL's right out of the box. They don't need the 3rd party add-ons that ZenCart needs to achieve the same results.

If you accept the anecdotal evidence, then dare I say that these other systems must therefore be superior to ZenCart, and they'll always have this slight edge over ZenCart in taking out the top rankings in Google (all else being equal).

If we depend on anecdotal evidence I feel that the ZenCart team will have no interest in spending the time and energy re-writing a core part of the ZenCart code to make it work like these others. The risk of breaking something in the process is simply too great for unproven gains.

If we could** prove **the gains, the team will have no excuse to not keep up with the 'competition'. :)

NOTE: Please be advised. I'm not a team member, and my views and opinions are in no way meant to suggest or imply that any of the team members have the same views or opinions. I speak for myself only.

Thanks
Rod

SPH:

Rod, if you want to try again with a new test product I'm in and can use several sites.

Thanks for the offer, but to be perfectly honest, I'm just about done with this thread. I've really taken it as far as I can go, in many ways, a lot further than expected, but the constant negativity has finally gotten to me. I've had nothing to gain (personally) from the outset, and even though many will say I've taught them nothing they didn't already know I'm sure that many other have learned a thing or three. (even if the lesson is that I'm an arrogant prock, and debating me is a long and painful experience) <g>

Not only that. I suspect you'll have a lot of trouble setting up the test environment needed, unless feznizzle wishes to share his secret :)

SPH:

I've come across competitors that rank high with seemingly NO content on their products or categories, at least in the sense of unique description. Take this result:

Yeah, its is a bit of a concern. It shouldn't be that way. Methinks Google may be a little bit 'broken', possibly a result of their latest algorithm update. If feznizzle has managed to stumble across this* apparent *flaw it isn't a surprise that others may have found it too, and using it to their advantage.

As I mentioned to feznizzle though, Google doesn't make mistakes, so it has to be me that is misinterpreting things wrong. <said with tongue in cheek>

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

RodG, would it be useful if we put up a product with nothing except for the product name (and maybe model no. and quantity)? No description at all. One dynamic url and one rewritten. See if one, both or none make it to google.

My 1st instinct was to say no, it probably wouldn't show anything useful, because with no relevant content the product(s) would be 'lost in the noise' (This is why feznizzles serendipitous sites would make the perfect test. They already have top rankings, with no relevant content).

On the other hand, I see no reason why you shouldn't do this test.. It seems as valid as any I've come up with. The only difference is that I don't know what we should be expecting from the results, so, it won't prove/disprove any theorys, but nonetheless the results could be interesting and we may be able draw some kind of conclusion, but that'll depend on the results..

Cheers
Rod