Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

Cool.

No SEO discussion on a forum has reached full maturity if the name Matt Cutts had not been spuriously invoked. Nice to see that this thread has reached that level. I am still rooting for it becoming a record breaking thread.

Also, nice to see that we have got to the 'google must be broken' stage of logic. Hmmm, let's think about that line of argument a bit more and see if we can see any flaw to it. Of course, if we can't find anything wrong with it then it will be our social responsibility to let them know so they can put it right and adjust their commercial business policy to match what we think would be best.

Keep it up guys. I am sure that the epiphany is just around the corner. Or at least within the next few hundred ( or thousand ) posts :-)

niccol:

Also, nice to see that we have got to the 'google must be broken' stage of logic.

Do you have another explanation for what we have observed?

niccol:

Hmmm, let's think about that line of argument a bit more and see if we can see any flaw to it.

Err, it's not an 'argument' it is an observation that has been made that appears to go against one of the core principles that everyone has agreed on. Even the folk at Google.

niccol:

Of course, if we can't find anything wrong with it then it will be our social responsibility to let them know so they can put it right and adjust their commercial business policy to match what we think would be best.

FWIW, I've already sent 'em email detailing the observation to see if they have an explanation. If/when I get a response I'll post it here.

niccol:

Keep it up guys. I am sure that the epiphany is just around the corner. Or at least within the next few hundred ( or thousand ) posts :-)

LOL.... I've one word for you Niccol... "b i tch" (meant in the nicest possible way). :) (if you choose to be offended, I humbly apologise and take it back). OK?

Cheers
Rod

"Babe In Total Control of Herself" ;-) (just to cover my asss... I know how many people will take me out of context)

FYI: This is what I've submitted to Google (Feedback)

General query regarding an oddity noticed as a result of some controlled tests being performed by a number of participants in regards to the Google rankings, and differences between what is shown in the indexes and what is visible in the Google cache. The cache has the latest page data, the index showing the contents of the same page before it was updated.

"New Product : Stratesys Group" being just one of many examples. (A screenshot of the Google index and cache page was attached)

Questions are:
1: Is it normal for the cache and the index to be out of sync with each other?

2: How is it possible for "stratesysgroup's " entry to achieve higher page rankings using the seach query "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" when the page doesn't contain a single reference to this search query, whereas lower ranked pages have this search query listed/mentioned multiple times?

Is this a possible flaw/bug in the Google algorythms or is there some other explanation?

Thanks in advance for any information that you can provide.
Rod

Cheers
Rod

Without any proper use of what most people would regard as scientific procedure what you have 'observed' is meaningless.

I am staying away from the phrase 'scientific method' on purpose. One part of scientific procedure is that it is really necessary in any experiment to reduce the variables that are effected to the very minimum that you can otherwise any results achieved are very much suspect. You have failed in this spectacularly.

As an example you watch Louis Hamilton driving around a track in a red sports car. At the same time I am driving around the track in my grey ford fiesta. Of course, Louis Hamilton is quicker. The 'observation' is that a red car goes faster than a grey car. The implication that red cars go faster than grey cars is obvious nonsense.

I am not saying that any of the observations you have made are wrong. I am just saying that you can't make any solid generalisations from them because there are far too many variables left in the mix for anything sensible to be deduced. While you can't see that there are going to be a lot of people who sit back and giggle at the amount of effort that is being put into this.

Now let's go back to the example about the cars. After that a group of friends sit in a pub and discuss it. One of the friends decides to defend the concept that red cars are faster than grey cars. He does that to the extent that he feels it is necessary to be didactic, opinionated and downright rude. Please really try and visualise that scenario..... wouldn't it be worth at least a small giggle ?

As I have said, this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

Wow. Man. I. Am. Not. Really. Sure. What. Else. To. Say..... wow.

Why on God's green earth would... ?

Amazing. I am completely blown away. I don't think I could even begin to have imagined you would do something like that.

Wow.

Well super.

Not fer nuttin, but the index has already caught up with the cache and my listings have gone poof as expected. Whoever at google that reads note will be scratching there head (if they look). I wonder if supersonic jets notice ants 20k feet below?

I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for pointing me out to google and that very important and worthwhile note. And I deeply appreciate you once again for posting a search term in the clear that could easily be linked to one of my clients. We all know my goal in this conversation was to raise my profile. Thanks.

I really didn't have anything better to do today than ask the moderators to change yet another of your posts. Super. I was just hoping to find some good use of my time. I really enjoy annoying the moderators. Awesome.

Who/how does one direct a comment to Google (feedback) anyway? Not that it matters. Whatever.

Also insignificant, but how does contacting google regarding our insignificant endeavors to understand how they treat key words in urls help? More important, why would you contact them about a perceived anomaly BEFORE waiting to see if it gets handled naturally? Your wait would not have been long.... the cache has already caught up (at least here) and the index has been changed.

I really think you could use some whiskey, man. Make it a double. Just sit back and relax a bit. Got any cigars? I understand you feel you have been 'under attack', but I think you kind of bring it on yourself. I get that a leopard doesn't change his spots, but if he chills with a nice relaxing drink before launching assaults, maybe it will take the edge off a bit?

Rod, I guess I will concede that red cars are faster. But I still think the reason statistics show they get more speeding tickets is that the eye is drawn to red, hence more cops will point radar guns red cars before grey. That's all I'm saying. :D

On a side note, it's interesting that the category on our sabian site is ahead of the product listing even though the category has no description and has only one product so defaults to the product listing. The category was only created maybe 2 or 3 minutes before the product and I don't know if the SEs have a way of knowing this unless the site was immediately crawled after the category was created and before the product was which is highly unlikely. Also, it's at the top of the heap even though it was added 4 or 5 days after most of the other site. I think this might be related to keyword density in the description. And I also believe that the algorithm looks for this and for keyword stuffing in the description along with many other factors such as more weight (relevance) for <h1> over <h2> etc.

In a week or two we can see how it fares against SPH's site that uses the same description although Steve's site may or may not be operating under some sort of penalty/have some issue(s) that demote it.

I think everyone was jumping the gun with the whole fez site still being at the top and all that was shown is that it can take several days for the index to be updated. Perhaps they give a lower priority to hugely unpopular search strings vs popular ones as a resource management protocol. Who can say...

I also disagree with Rod about "ancillary" links in results from the point of view of bounce rate/dissatisfied searchers (not about total links in results). If I remember correctly you said you don't use Google Analytics, do you use any type of metric analysis? I do, and use several others, and can see that people are bouncing when they land somewhere totally unrelated to their search due to the new/featured/specials sections indexing their search string on an unrelated product/category. Yes, some do go on to use our site's search function or category menu but many do not since they can find other SE results with what they want and click the back button, or do so out of frustration. The main point of an ecommerce site is to sell products. Sure, people can be looking for reviews or general info but I don't see how searching for a review of a Debibulator that ends up on your privacy notice page will immediately give the person the info they seek without having to click around your site looking for it. You usually only have a second or two before most people bounce.

RodG:

Yes, repeatedly and consistently.

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.If you say so..:smile:

Well thanks for the entertainment as niccol so aptly observed

niccol:

As I have said, this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

I hope this "test" gives everyone the results they seek..

"test" used in quotes because as niccol observed:

niccol:

Without any proper use of what most people would regard as scientific procedure what you have 'observed' is meaningless.

I am staying away from the phrase 'scientific method' on purpose. One part of scientific procedure is that it is really necessary in any experiment to reduce the variables that are effected to the very minimum that you can otherwise any results achieved are very much suspect. You have failed in this spectacularly.

niccol:

Without any proper use of what most people would regard as scientific procedure what you have 'observed' is meaningless.

On the contrary, what has been observed is far from meaningless, as your car example can show.

niccol:

I am staying away from the phrase 'scientific method' on purpose. One part of scientific procedure is that it is really necessary in any experiment to reduce the variables that are effected to the very minimum that you can otherwise any results achieved are very much suspect. You have failed in this spectacularly.

It seems to me that you have a little difficulty determining the difference between an observation and a controlled experiment (or even an uncontrolled one)

niccol:

As an example you watch Louis Hamilton driving around a track in a red sports car. At the same time I am driving around the track in my grey ford fiesta. Of course, Louis Hamilton is quicker. The 'observation' is that a red car goes faster than a grey car. The implication that red cars go faster than grey cars is obvious nonsense.

I can appreciate that some people could jump to this silly conclusion, but I'm not one of them. My lifelong experience tells me that the colour of the car isn't important. It is a moot point anyway.

Try this for size... same two cars. Logic and knowledge tells us that the sports car will win the race, BUT, what if it doesn't? What if the clutch fails on the sports car causing it to lose? We will clearly be able to OBSERVE that the sports car lost the race. We don't need a 'scientific method/procedure' to validate the observation. The observation speaks for itself.
What would a sensible observer do in this situation? Jump up and down saying the observation is invalid because there are 'too many variables'? Or would they realise that something wan't right, and proceed to investigate why?

This is the exact same situation that we are in now. Logic and knowledge tells us that if we do a Google search for a given phrase, we should expect that phrase to show in the search results, wouldn't we? The observation is that this is not always the case. If you wish to toss your hands in the air and deny the observation because of 'other variables' by all means do so. I find it makes a lot more sense to investigate the anomoly to find out why.

niccol:

I am not saying that any of the observations you have made are wrong. I am just saying that you can't make any solid generalisations from them because there are far too many variables left in the mix for anything sensible to be deduced.

You really didn't think this through did you? Besides, no generalisations have been made at all. We have a yet to be explained anomally. I am seeking an explanation. This is the sensible thing to do (assuming I have no wish to put my head in the sand and hope the anomally goes away, which appears to be your approach to things you can't explain)

niccol:

While you can't see that there are going to be a lot of people who sit back and giggle at the amount of effort that is being put into this.

I can see a lot of people will be doing a lot of giggling. I hope as many are giggling with me as there are at me. A good time to be had by all.

niccol:

Now let's go back to the example about the cars. After that a group of friends sit in a pub and discuss it. One of the friends decides to defend the concept that red cars are faster than grey cars. He does that to the extent that he feels it is necessary to be didactic, opinionated and downright rude. Please really try and visualise that scenario..... wouldn't it be worth at least a small giggle ?

More than a giggle I'd say. This car scenario had me in stiches. I'm off to investigate why the sports car lost the race, meanwhile you and your made feznizzle (whom I'm sure has never had an original thought in his life) are sitting down the pub, debating which colour car was the fastest, and being didactic, opinionated and downright rude to the person puzzling over why the fastest car managed to lose.

Absurd. Totally and completely absurd.

Certainly made ME laugh though.

Rod

niccol:

At the same time I am driving around the track in my grey ford fiesta.

nice example for someone normally stuck in a traffic jam :laugh:

bn

@bn :smile:

lankeeyankee:

I think this might be related to keyword density in the description. And I also believe that the algorithm looks for this and for keyword stuffing in the description .

Do you think that our original "gibberish" description is a factor? It has alot more "content" in that there are more words/text. Maybe google really doesn't like that as well.

along with many other factors such as more weight (relevance) for <h1> over <h2> etc

So the template may be a factor? I've always suspected this, but not sure how it would. I also wonder if your Sabian site has more "content" via buttons, tag text, etc.?

And where on the product page does it make the "content" more relevant? Do our sideboxes count as product-page content?

In a week or two we can see how it fares against SPH's site that uses the same description although Steve's site may or may not be operating under some sort of penalty/have some issue(s) that demote it.

I hope no penalty or other issues, but have suspected that. I've recently effectively rebuilt (butchered) my site by upgrading with no db upgrade, just shot up saved products via easypopulate. Also went from dynamic urls to Ultimate SEO. I still see google in who's online in admin, looking for old products/dynamic urls.

And I'm always messing with the template, changing for the "right look." In fact, I want to return to another template today. Will that have an effect with google, I wonder. Will be another Picaflor template, closely similar layout.

And seriously re-considering Cherry Zen (drumfactory) and the Rubik (sabian) templates.

I think everyone was jumping the gun with the whole fez site still being at the top and all that was shown is that it can take several days for the index to be updated. Perhaps they give a lower priority to hugely unpopular search strings vs popular ones as a resource management protocol. Who can say...

I still see Feznizzle at the top of yahoo/bing. So do they also have a problem? Or could google perhaps have received and already acted on RodG's email?

I also disagree with Rod about "ancillary" links in results from the point of view of bounce rate/dissatisfied searchers (not about total links in results).... You usually only have a second or two before most people bounce.

I fully understood Feznizzle's point there, and my understanding is that bounce rate is a google factor. And really, would a searching customer want to see a bunch of links going to a site they have already visited and left?

But I think it interesting how the dynamic urls sites seem to product so many more "ancillary" links. I have sideboxes turned on...maybe not as many as some...but no where with these other sites in those results.

Feznizzle:

I deeply appreciate you once again for posting a search term in the clear that could easily be linked to one of my clients.

How so? This is amembers only list. I've posted nothing here that you haven't posted yourself. The email to Google isn't going to be seen by any of your customers. No harm done.

Feznizzle:

I really didn't have anything better to do today than ask the moderators to change yet another of your posts. Super. I was just hoping to find some good use of my time. I really enjoy annoying the moderators. Awesome.

Boy, did that set my billshot detecter off or what. Yeah, I can see you running to the moderators with all sorts of annoying complaints, no problem there, but to imply that the moderator(s) have already changed/edited any of my posts is just plain crop. Not that I get any special treatment from them. I don't. It is simply because they don't do that kind of thing without very good reason (usually privacy issues), and they always add text to the bottom of any postings they change that reads something like "Edited by moderator". It is the ethical/moral thing to do, and one thing I've learned about the moderators is that they are morally and ethically good people.

Feznizzle:

how does contacting google regarding our insignificant endeavors to understand how they treat key words in urls help?

It doesn't. Not in the least possible way. Please try to keep up... this is a different issue than anything that has been previously discussed in this thread.

As for 'our insignificant endeavours' ... they are not as insignificant as you may imagine. The world is full of people like youself, thinking that just becaue a business is a huge international conglomarate(sp) that they'll never take any notice of us little guys (or worse, that the business is infallible). You may choose to run your busines(es) this way, but the larger companies (such as Google) do listen to what us 'insignifants' have to say. They also encourge people to report issues and anomalys.

Feznizzle:

More important, why would you contact them about a perceived anomaly BEFORE waiting to see if it gets handled naturally?

More importantly, what concern is it of yours when or where I report issues too? I didn't have to let anyone here know what I do in my spare time. I just thought that some of you may be interested to know that someone is at least attempting to find an explanation for what we had observed. I've been able to explain (or try to explain) most of what we have been seeing, but this has me baffled. Sure, the index/cache being out of sync is (err, WAS) one possible explanation, but this didn't/doesn't sit well with me, so I thought it worth asking about it. Nothing wrong with that. It's just another way I learn things and keep my knowledge up to date. You should try it sometime. It probably explains why you are still using advice that was given ten years ago.

Feznizzle:

Your wait would not have been long.... the cache has already caught up (at least here) and the index has been changed.

Interesting. I did the Wurldbitzer search query earlier today (google.com, not .com.au, which incidently is now showing rankings with geoloacation taken into account), anyway, both of your listings still appeared. One still has the keyword laden URL, but the really interesting one is the other.. This is right near the bottom of the list, the Wurldbitzer keywords don't appear anywhere in the index list itself (it would be bolded if it were, right?), nor do they appear in the cache page, in fact both the cache page and the listing entry are currently in sync, which has blown the index/sync theory out of the water. I can see no reason whatsoever why this entry would still be showing in the search results, but nonetherless it is. I sent my report to Google shortly after. I've just rechecked it, and both listings are still there <????>

Feznizzle:

I really think you could use some whiskey, man. Make it a double. Just sit back and relax a bit.

I think I need it. You wouldn't want me aound here after I've had a few though..... I tend to lose all restraint and write what I *really^ think.

Feznizzle:

I understand you feel you have been 'under attack', but I think you kind of bring it on yourself.

Well Duh! Of course I bring it on myself..... But the alternative is to sit back and watch people give misinformation or bad information based on thier limited knowledge, and those with even less knowledge accept what they've been told as if it were fact, and so the cycle goes. I realise that I'll never be able to keep everyone from making fools of themselves, but that doesn't mean I shoudln't try to get through to some, even if I am under attack by those that should know better.

Is it so wrong that I ask and encourage people to think for themselves, rather than taking everything they've ever read or heard as gospel? No, I'm not saying everyone should question everything, which is what you would like to think I'm saying. I'm simply saying that if there is a debate you shouldn't just pick the side you like and stubburnly stay with it. You should listen to both sides of the argument and make a sensible decision.

Red cars go faster... my asss....... It's not the color, its the racing stripes down the side that makes 'em fast.

Sheesh!

Rod

DivaVocals:

"test" used in quotes because as niccol observed:

Obiously you didn't take much note of the proposed test either. All variables were considered in that a single store was used, with identical product descriptions.. or more precicly, with the products taken out of the equation. The ONLY difference (variable) being the URL itself.

If I've mssed something PLEASE TELL ME WHAT!!!!!

Rod

SPH: Or could google perhaps have received and already acted on RodG's email?<<<

I guess not. I see that Feznizzle is back on top of google. Assume we're seeing same things.

niccol:

As an example you watch Louis Hamilton driving around a track in a red sports car. At the same time I am driving around the track in my grey ford fiesta. Of course, Louis Hamilton is quicker. The 'observation' is that a red car goes faster than a grey car. The implication that red cars go faster than grey cars is obvious nonsense.

Not if there are only two cars: Red (sports = rewritten url) and Grey (non-sports = non-rewritten url). (I note your UK spelling of gray. :) )

As I have said, this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

Ditto.

SPH:

SPH: Or could google perhaps have received and already acted on RodG's email?<<<

I guess not. I see that Feznizzle is back on top of google. Assume we're seeing same things.

same here google.co.uk,

cscycles 2nd here

onyourbike ????

bn

RodG:

Obiously you didn't take much note of the proposed test either. All variables were considered in that a single store was used, with identical product descriptions.. or more precicly, with the products taken out of the equation. The ONLY difference (variable) being the URL itself.

If I've mssed something PLEASE TELL ME WHAT!!!!!

RodYes... OBVIOUSLY!!

Now let me go and polish up my red car.. I challenged niccol's grey Ford Fiesta to a race and I want to see if red cars really are faster than grey ones..

RodG:

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.

But even if Zencart did come with the option to turn-on rewritten urls, the fighting would not end. We would then be arguing if the solution chosen is the BEST rewriter available. Example: Zencart choses something like Ultimate SEO. Others may still argue that something like CEON is really better. Or vise-versa.

I don't visit prestashop forums alot but recall someone wanting a "better" url rewriter than what cart came with. And lo and behold: just today I received a Prestashop newsletter stating that in their very latest cart "URL's have been simplified for enhanced SEO". So apparently rewriters can be improved for SEO?

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).

I have a Prestashop and Opencart (both a little out of date) in subfolders in area where my recent "demo" entries are. Okay if I put test product on them...assuming I figure out how to work these carts?

SPH:

Do you think that our original "gibberish" description is a factor? It has alot more "content" in that there are more words/text. Maybe google really doesn't like that as well.

Any and all content is a factor. Whether its a good factor or a bad factor is another question ;)

SPH:

And where on the product page does it make the "content" more relevant? Do our sideboxes count as product-page content?

I thought I'd answered this before. Probably not the exact same question, but the answer is still the same.
"Content" is whatever the server returns to Google as a result of a http[s] request, or, putting it another way, it is the same as what you'd see if/when you 'view source' of any given page.

SPH:

I still see Feznizzle at the top of yahoo/bing. So do they also have a problem?

What a bloidy good question... It never occured to me to compare the apparent anomolly with them. Of course, now that it has been mentioned I'll bet I was the only one here that didn't think of it <g>

This'll help answer the index/cache delay query too. I must go check when I'm done here.

SPH:

Or could google perhaps have received and already acted on RodG's email?

Not very likley. They've certainly recieved it (I got the standard auto-reply) but I'd expect it'll take up to a week or more before they'll get around to investigating, and if they do find an issue it'll take another couple of weeks.. possibly longer to rectify (previous experience). They don't just push out changes/updates willy nilly, they go through a zillion tests before deploying any change on thier live servers.

SPH:

I fully understood Feznizzle's point there, and my understanding is that bounce rate is a google factor.

Yes, he does have a point, and yes, it is a Google factor, BUT, like most of this stuff it needs to be placed in context in a real world situation. If we only use our test sites as a guide this could be a real problem because there are so few sites and so many links that the 'ancillary' links literally 'swamp' the 'product' links (which would typically contain more of the keywords). In the real world situation, the 'product' links from 1000's of other sites, all of which would typically contain more of the 'key words' would/should take the top few thousand places (I may be exaggerating a little here for emphasis) and all the 'ancillary' links, with just the odd keyword here and there will be way down the list where few people would venture, and even less would click, unless the preview/cache provided a clue that the link(s) contain whatever it is they are seeking. In short, in the real world situation the bounce rate would be minimal on these links. Nonetheless, the Google algorythms are still 'aware' of them, and they are taking into consideration when deciding which of the top 1000 make the top 20.

Not exactly rocket science.. it all comes back to a 'simple' numbers game.

Cheers
Rod