Hoping to pick the brains of some old pros!

Observation:

Having our sideboxes turned on with New Products, etc., rotating through is not enough to make our original test product unique enough to avoid being buried in the omitted duplicate results. At least insofar as I can see.

I wonder if adding the cross-sell plugin showing additional products on the main product column will be sufficient to avoid duplication? That is, does it add real additional content? Will have to see.

SPH:

Don't know what you're looking at, but my results using your +"Wurldbitzer Debibulator" +"Lain led and fact none" search term and after clicking to show "omitted results" show that my human friendly urls currently are nos. 2, 3, 4 & 8 (with no. 8 being fashion-mart recently falling behind for some reason.)

Curious. I've just checked again (google.com), and this is the order of the listings that I'm seeing.

#1 //cscycles.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=215011
#2 //shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=223
#3 //shop.vcsweb.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=222
#4 //bizsitehost.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=195
#5 //onyourbike.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1336
#6 //prom-mart.com/debibulators/wurldbitzer-debibulator
#7 //prom-mart.com/demo-3/wurldbitzer-debibulator-p-217.html
#8 //promdressesforless.us/wurldbitzer-debibulator-p-36.html
#9 //fashion-mart.biz/blush-homecoming/wurldbitzer-debibulator

Are you getting different results?

SPH:

But "zencart native urls" do pump-out alot of "ancillary links", seemingly more so than "human readable urls"....

The 'ancillary links' have nothing to do with the type of URL's being generated, they are simply the effect of having sideboxes, new products, etc enabled.
As I've stated many times, "ancillary links" don't exist. A link, is a link, is a link. What you (and others) refer to as being "ancillary links" is just a term coined by someone in this forum to describe links that don't go to the actual product page. It is incorrect to assume that this is what the person using Google is actually looking for.
When you perform a Google search are you always looking for a 'product', or do you perform just as many (probably more) searches for things that aren't products?

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

I think we'd have to change the product "content" so that it is not duplicated with the other site's using the same "gibberish" text. .

Correct. :)

What I'd be suggesting though is do as I have done. Keep the original product/description intact, and use a duplicate product to make changes with. This way you'll be able to compare your original product with the product that has changes.

You may note that my product#223 has finally outranked my original product #222. The only difference between these two products is an extra paragraph of text (which is probably irrelevant), and the addition of 3 more of the "Wurldbitzer Debibulator" keywords. I think it is this addition that has caused #223 to finally rank higher than #222.

Cheers
Rod

SPH:

Observation:

Having our sideboxes turned on with New Products, etc., rotating through is not enough to make our original test product unique enough to avoid being buried in the omitted duplicate results. At least insofar as I can see..

They won't. No reason to think they would really. The test product description is still a dupe of all the other test sites using the same original description.
Google indexes pages, not sites. (although it can/does filter/sort pages using a site: criteria). Nonetheless, every 'page' is it's own 'unique' entity, unless Google finds another that it considers a 'dupe'.

SPH:

I wonder if adding the cross-sell plugin showing additional products on the main product column will be sufficient to avoid duplication? That is, does it add real additional content? Will have to see.

No. The only way to avoid the pages with the original WB descriptions is to modify the page itself. As stated in previous message though, you are better to keep these original entries intact, and make changes on your own duplicate of the product, that way you'll be able to compare the effects of any changes you make against the original entry. (I hope that make sense).

Cheers
Rod

PS. In the near future (perhaps even tonight) I plan to add a 3rd WB to our site. 100% identical to the original, BUT, I plan to create a 'human friendly' URL for it (and at the same time, I'll be blocking the Zen Native URL, so that Google only has one way to access the page). Should be interesting to see how it fares against the original (although I do suspect I'll need to dig it out of the 'omitted' results)

RodG:

Are you getting different results?

Yes:

http://www.promdressesforless.us/images/results-pic-2.jpg

Basically the opposite of yours. My fashion-mart.biz used to be in order with my other human readable entries, but has recently fallen.

RodG:

They won't. No reason to think they would really. The test product description is still a dupe of all the other test sites using the same original description.
Google indexes pages, not sites. (although it can/does filter/sort pages using a site: criteria). Nonetheless, every 'page' is it's own 'unique' entity, unless Google finds another that it considers a 'dupe'.

I was initially hoping that the sideboxes showing on the test product page itself would constitute sufficient additional content to avoid duplication and being buried in omitted results. But we have seen that that is not the case, as we all have sideboxes turned on. Furthermore, I recently found live products that were buried as omitted results since I began using the mfr description. So I am adding new content to those in the description.

No. The only way to avoid the pages with the original WB descriptions is to modify the page itself. As stated in previous message though, you are better to keep these original entries intact, and make changes on your own duplicate of the product, that way you'll be able to compare the effects of any changes you make against the original entry. (I hope that make sense).

In addition to the sideboxes, I am hoping that adding a cross sell plugin will add sufficient new content to avoid duplicate results, as they would show on the main product column vs a sidebox. It doesn't work with just the sideboxes. If it doesn't work with the cross sell, then I am back to square one wondering just what does google consider for page content. Do you think it will all come down to the description area? What about Read Only attributes listing various "Features"? And are those as good as bullet-points in the description itself?

SPH:

then I am back to square one wondering just what does google consider for page content

I'm sure we've covered this before.

Go to a web page, any web page. Right click, then select 'view page source'. What you see on that page is what Google will consider as 'content' for that page.

If you refresh the page (which may or may not cause the contents to change, eg, different banners/sideboxes being shown, then right clicking on that page will be what Google will have seen (and indexed as content). In other words, on sites using sideboxes, etc google will see (and index) different content each time it visits.

Cheers
Rod

my ceon (lessthan) version has shown up in google here in uk, again in omitted results

bn

RodG:

I'm sure we've covered this before.

Go to a web page, any web page. Right click, then select 'view page source'. What you see on that page is what Google will consider as 'content' for that page.

If you refresh the page (which may or may not cause the contents to change, eg, different banners/sideboxes being shown, then right clicking on that page will be what Google will have seen (and indexed as content). In other words, on sites using sideboxes, etc google will see (and index) different content each time it visits.

Cheers
Rod

My point is that this sidebox content is not sufficient to avoid the test product from being buried as a duplicate result. I am trying to determine what it takes to avoid that.

bn17311:

my ceon (lessthan) version has shown up in google here in uk, again in omitted results

bn

Yes, I now see it.

SPH:

My point is that this sidebox content is not sufficient to avoid the test product from being buried as a duplicate result. I am trying to determine what it takes to avoid that.

Suggestion: Create another copy of the WB product (using the original description). Wait until it shows in Google (as a dupe). Then change a line or two of the new product, with until Google re indexes it.. If its still a dupe, change another line or two of the description. Sooner or later it'll show up as a unique page.

You'll then be able to compare how much you needed to change: eg, 2, 4, 6 lines, 1/4 of the page, 1/2 the page, 1/3 page, etc. Hardly scientific, but it'll give a ballpark figure where you/we'll be may be able to refine the test.

You'll need to be patient with this one though, if you make the changes before Google has time to re-index it could be seeing the results of 2 changes rather than just one.

Cheers
Rod

RodG:

Suggestion: Create another copy of the WB product (using the original description). Wait until it shows in Google (as a dupe). Then change a line or two of the new product, with until Google re indexes it.. If its still a dupe, change another line or two of the description. Sooner or later it'll show up as a unique page.<uncloak>
SPH,
Wait more than 30 seconds.:P
</uncloak>

Well, my fashion-mart.biz just made a dramatic come-back, now mid page one in line with my other human readable url entries:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22Wurldbitzer+Debibulator%22+%2B%22Lain+led+and+fact+none%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=#q=%2B%22Wurldbitzer+Debibulator%22+%2B%22Lain+led+and+fact+none%22&hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.b2I&fp=de1c82bb3029da5e&biw=1680&bih=945

Perhaps it was my recent WB text banner? And wonder how long will last.

Am still testing templates, and for real. Looks like Picaflor's Lancaster Lux template rides the highest above-the-fold (smallest header height width), with the highest product/main photo display, matching those of our highest competitors. So may be putting Lancaster Lux on fashion-mart.biz today. Then try to rebuild site for real.

dbltoe:

<uncloak> SPH, Wait more than 30 seconds.:P </uncloak>

I can do a day or so. :)

Have we any conclusions regarding human readable urls?

From what I notice (my results, linked below), it appears that CEON is worthy of serious consideration:

1. My CEON entry with the original test product, a later entry at that, is holding above my other human readable entries using different tools.

2. BN's CEON entry, also a later entry, is ranking above his two native entries. I suspect that BN may be handicapped by his .co.uk domains vis-a-vis the rest of the entries.

As for using human readable urls in general, it also looks promising and definitely not yet shown to be a detriment:

1. My human readable entries all rank above Rod's native entries (two products) (again, what I see in the results.)

However, the top result is still Fez's native bizesite, which I understand may have additional optimization. A human readable url may not be the end all/be all, but does it not appear to be a favorable factor in optimizing one's site?

What I currently see:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22Wurldbitzer+Debibulator%22+%2B%22Lain+led+and+fact+none%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=#q=%2B%22Wurldbitzer+Debibulator%22+%2B%22Lain+led+and+fact+none%22&hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aWM&fp=de1c82bb3029da5e&biw=1680&bih=945

SPH:

Have we any conclusions regarding human readable urls?

Yeah. We can't make any conclusions.

SPH:

1. My human readable entries all rank above Rod's native entries (two products) (again, what I see in the results.)

That's still not what I'm seeing. ?????

SPH:

However, the top result is still Fez's native bizesite, which I understand may have additional optimization.

I'm not seeing his bizsite anywhere in my listings.

SPH:

What I currently see:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22Wurldbitzer+Debibulator%22+%2B%22Lain+led+and+fact+none%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=#q=%2B%22Wurldbitzer+Debibulator%22+%2B%22Lain+led+and+fact+none%22&hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aWM&fp=de1c82bb3029da5e&biw=1680&bih=945

Even clicking on the link I'm not seeing what you are seeing. Time to clear our caches I reckon.

Cheers
Rod

And I get yet different results which are all the same with 3 different browsers, 2 of which never searched for this term before.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Wurldbitzer+Debibulator&oq=Wurldbitzer+Debibulator&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
My site is still 1 and 2, and the other one is 6, even though it's been a week and a half or more since I took them off.
Here's a screen shot from the link above. What do you guys get when you use this link? It must be a geolocation thing.

you guys do know about pws=0 ?

http://www.rankpanel.com/blog/google-search-parameters/

niccol:

you guys do know about pws=0 ?

No, of course not. :)

But I just tried it after clearing (I think) my browser cache and making sure I was logged out of google, and still receive the same results.

But Rod appears to be seeing the opposite of me, so it must look to him like native urls are trashing the human readable urls. But then Rod is down under, where everything must be backward and upside down. :)

What do you see? Are the human readable urls holding up well in your results, or not? (Primarily interested in the duplicate omitted results for our test product)

well, to be honest de-localising and de-personalising the SERPs remains a real challenge to me. it is obvious what you are meant to do but actually when I have tried it across proxies it never seemed to work the way I might like. personally, I think that it is almost impossible to get a 'uninfluenced' set of SERPS because google believes and relies on personalisation and localisation, but that is just an unfounded opinion . Which brings me back to the my earlier point about conducting experiments like this by oneself is the only valid way of doing it because other people's actions always muddy the waters.

I mean, you are seeing exactly the opposite to Rod. I see results more like you are with the dynamic style URIs not showing so well. Lankey see's his pages still there which to me argues on how strong personalisation actually is.

I am trying really hard not to say that the fact that you all can't agree on the 'observations', let alone any interpretation of those facts, kind of supports my earlier point that this is all a bit flawed. I am trying to find a way not to be entirely negative but it is kind of hard.

I think that a reasonable point that perhaps is all that comes out of all of this is that:

'Keywords in the URL seem to have less effect, either positive or negative, than many of the other factors in play.'

Which actually most of us agreed with from the start...