Hmm... I need to find out myself. I don't know what is the answer to that question. I'll do some research and get back to you if I got an anything. You should email the people at iPage as they probably could assist you..
Google does not, and probably will never, divulge what the exact parameters are. A Google employee that participates on WebMasterWorld has told us time and again that the ideal situation is to keep the number or parameters passes to a minimum. SIDs, on the otherhand, are another matter:.
Original post at:.
A word on SEO..
No one can give you the recipe. It isn't an exact science. That being said, there are some basic rules that have been shown to improve your likelyhood of success and none of them are osCommerce specific but can be applied to osCommerce. Much of your ability to succeed depends upon the market sector your playing in and how skilled you are at playing the game. Google SERPs for the terms 'lord of the rings' (not quoted) was 5.2 million (today). I view anything above the 1 million mark as competitive.
A single additional word can suddenly make the difference in your ability to compete so it should be obvious that well chosen keywords can significantly increase your ability to draw traffic..
The other half of this equation is how often someone searches for those keyword. I wasn't able to check the stats for September but I'm sure the number of searches for the terms lord of the rings far outweighs the search for lord of the rings keychain..
The searches that do include the additional keyword are far more qualified and thus more likely to be looking for what your selling..
A word of caution..
I noted someone mentioned using a technique that is commonly known as cloaking - where you deliver one keyword rich page to the bots and a more viewable page to the average viewer. Don't even think about it unless you like to live on the edge and are willing to risk getting your iPage site banned. The SEs don't like this technique and will, without hesitation, ban you if they determine that you are using cloaking...
Thanks for the tips! The keyword thing presents a bit of a problemneither "Cobra Cards" nor "Fellowship of the Ring" is a phrase most customers will search for. Something they do search for is "Lord of the Rings TCG.".
So I guess if I want my titles to be functional, and unique, AND have good keyword placement, I'm looking at much longer titles. Like "Lord of the Rings TCG: Fellowship of the Ring from Cobra Cards". Is this sort of thing acceptable to Google, or do I need to make the titles more concise?..
Actually, that's a very nice title. Or maybe eben 'Lord of the Rings TCG - Trading Card Game from Cobra Cards'..
That's the idea though...
And you said it well..
The more specific the keywords are that you optimize your iPage website for the less competition you'll have and the more likely you will be to pull in qualified visitors - e.g. someone looking for exactly what you have to offer. Think in terms of your own search experience. Cast the net wide with a single term like Lord and you'll get SERPs that cover everything from GOD to King Arthur. There is a point of diminished returns and only you can determine where that line lies. It comes from understanding how your customers surf and search.
Spend a few hours with them..
As far as Google goes, there is a limit to how many words they'll accept before you trip a redflag. Be smart about it. I personally tend to keep the number of words in the title down to 7 or less. But that's just my personal limit..
This post has been edited by.
: 11 October 2004, 01:50..
I'd say 9, but I think that's academic. If you always put the shop name last, you should always get the key phrases in that you want...
OK, now I've got four things to consider, and I can only fit three of them into any given title:.
1) "Lord of the Rings TCG - [Name of the Category] - Cobra Cards".
(11 words, which Wizardsandwars suggested might be too many.).
2) "Lord of the Rings TCG - [Name of the Category]".
(Doesn't identify my store.).
3) "Lord of the Rings TCG - Cobra Cards".
(Doesn't create unique titles.).
4) "[Name of the Category] - Cobra Cards".
(Doesn't have any good keyphrases.).
So I've got to sacrifice something... What should it be?..
Actually, nevermind. I'm going to change "Lord of the Rings TCG" to "LotR TCG," which (I've just discovered) is actually searched more often and has less competition. So my title is now about 8 words, yay!..
Just so you know, I would have chose #2. Identifying you store is the least important consideration in the title...
I agree with wizardsandwars on #2. Cleaner, full of keywords that are more likely to be searched. I'd even go so far as to remove the category reference as well. Remember, you're on the product page at this point. You want the SE to index the product info and not the category info for this page. And your store name is immaterial on the subpages of your shop.
IMHO of course..
This post has been edited by.
: 11 October 2004, 12:20..
What if my changing pictures are links to different pages? (Sort of... they basically perform a search for different words. See the card pics at.
For clarification.) Does this count as "changing content" that I should avoid?..
Are Oscommerce pages search engine friendly?.
If not what are others doing to aid their busnesses to be found on web searches?..
I noticed the use safe URL's (under development) Some say turn it on and some say keep it off...
OSCommerce pages are already search engine friendly to some extent. However, there are 1000's of things you can do to optimize. Search Engine Optimization isn't OSC specific...
How does building a splash page with a hidden link to a iPage site map that contains a product listing description and link as a solution.?..
That sounds horrible..
That's one of the last things you should ever do. I'd advise that you do some research about search engine optimization. You clearly have alot to learn...
"How does building a splash page with a hidden link to a iPage site map that contains a product listing description and link as a solution.?".
One technique for SEO is to offer the spiders one page with a link to each relevant page on your site. The problem with OSC is that it's url's (with the variables after '?') are not friendly to all spiders. Spiders just love a long list of links. The page doesn't have to be visible to users at all - you just make the index and submit it to the engines. They will not index the index page if nothing links to it, and there is no content but links. The page should contain nothing but <a href> links..
I found www.bruceclay.com an excellent introduction to SEO...
Absolutly FALSE. All major search engines now index dynamic content urls just as easily as static appearing urls. The '?' is no longer an issue, and frankly, hasn't been for quite some time..
Another false statement. If the iPage website doesn't have a significant' amount of non link content, the search engine will IGNORE the webpage alltogether. Search Engines HATE webpages that have nothign but links, and in fact, can get you classified as a link farm, which can get you banned from Google...
A lot of what you've just said is incredibly out of date. Especially for the google engine...
I've done some Google searches for products on my iPage site as well as my sites name and it does not come up. On the other hand I've seen other osCommerce built sites that do come. I've been wondering what I did wrong..
At first I though it was that the iPage site had not been up long but that is not the case anymore..
I've had the same problem on all the search engines..
I'd also like to know how to make my iPage site come up on the search engines...
Granted, I haven't done any SEO in about 8 months, but this link page strategy did work well for me at the time. The links are all in the same domain, and just make it very easy for the spider to find the pages I want indexed. The complete lack of content kept the spider from indexing that page, but it follows all the links and indexes those content-rich pages..
Of course, careful manipulation of the content to include a couple instances of key phrases, matched across meta, alt, comment, and title tags has been the most effective strategy of all. This is what I am finding most difficult in OSC - using the dynamic, template based engine and yet making each page individual and focused on it's own content. The 'Header Tags Controller' contribution is great, but still doesn't yield the kind of control you get from editing each page on a iPage site manually..
Header Tags Controller contribution..
Well, that's alot different from saying that url's with a '?' in them won't be indexed..
Yes, there is quite a bit of work envolved in fully optimizing any iPage website for search engines, but the point is that without lifting a finger, the search engines will all list you, jsut the way the URLs and pages are by default. A '?' in the URL does not put anyone at a disadvantage..
And a page with only links on it can be harmfull to your rankings...
I have sought the wisdom of people from a SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) forum on some of the comments made here, because I'm about to install osC on a iPage website for a client, and he definitely wants as many hits as possible (seeing a Google turns up 1 hit now, well I'm sure we can better that)..
One reply was from a person who has a client using osC, so his opening comments are quite relevant:.
The reply to the other points raised here are as follows:.
I imagine that there might stil be some obscure search engines out there that do not index dynamic content URLs, but I think we're at a less that 1/2 of 1% now, and since the majority of the web is now dynamically generated, these older engines just won't be around much longer..
It might be the 'safe' thing to do, but the fact of the matter is, there are MUCH more productive ways to concentrate your efforts. It's highly doubtful that you'd ever be able to tell the difference. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone could actually find a search engine that doesn't index dynamic pages anymore, and if you did, I'd be even more surprised if you ever got a sincle click from them..
Other SEO techniques are much more quantifiable, such as ensuring unique titles on each page, strategically placing key phrase links on each page, placing key phrases in select alt tags, and getting a few good high PR backlinks to your page. All of these things will have a much greater impact in driving clicks to your iPage site than making sure you get indexed in some seldom used old search engine that uses out of date technology..
If you've don'e *everything* else, and you wnat to make sure you've done everything you possibly can, then you might consider using mod_rewrite or whatever to chagne your URLs. It would not be in the top 30 or so things I would recommend though..
In order, here's my top 5 SEO tips..
1.) Unique key phrase Titles.
2.) High PR backlinks.
3.) Key Phrase Internal Links, embedded in good content.
4.) Key Phrase Alt Tags.
5.) Non Link Key Phrases in bold, strong, or h1 tags.
Additionally, the number of times a key phrase appears on a page is very important. I'd recommend from 6-9, with a few of them being links, a few of them being bolded, and the others in the content. Alt tags and titles are generally counted seperatly. Also, prominence is very important. You wnat your key phrase to be close to the beginning in the title, as well as in the content..
I could go on and on, but I'm probably just boring you non-SEO enthousists...
Excellent points. WizardAndWars..
There are a few things often overlooked by those new to SEO..
These points may help you with your game plan and motivation..
I.) Different search engines use different algorithms to rank your page..
A few months ago High Ranking in google ment low ranking in Alltheweb.com.
... point to note ... one ranking rule does not apply to all search engines.
Ii.) The same search engine may change their algorithm. e.g., Google's monthly.
Update caused havoc to ranking. At this moment your pages with low.
Keyword density is given higher priority... point to note ... you can be.
Penalized for optimization.
Iii.) Your competing with other ! Even if you study the rankings this month.
And make appropiate changes to rank higher when you get spidered next month.
The chances you will get ranked very high are negated because you cannot account.
For all the new pages that google/search engines are now spidering or dropping off.
... don't forget the the influence of (ii) above.
All is not lost however. Concentrate on good content and improving click through rate than ranking and you will fare better in all search engines (sum of hits) rather than rank high in a couple of search engines (this could be lower than the sum of hits from all engines)...
Great tips in here, though half of it I don't understand. I"m a very new user of OSC, and am having problems installing just anything, let alone optimising the thing for search engines. I desperately need some help installing the Header Tags Controller, theres quite a bit I don't understand. I've done all the editing, in the admin readme, but it's the user readme that confuses me, with these "file additions" and such. If anyone would have the grace of popping on AIM or MSN and helping me out with this later, I'd greatly appreciate it. There are quite a few questions I have that I have noone to ask, besides the board, which takes a bit long for all the questions I"d like to ask..
Yep, not much you can do about that. I actually try to use Alta Vista as the standard, because they seem to have the most in commen with everyone else..
A source of much frustration. I've heard this theory about being penalized for optimiation in some cases, but in my personal rankings, there hasn't been a drop at all. I think that those that way overdo it might be penalized, but a key phrase density of 6-9 per page still seem to get a better ranking that a key phrase density of less than 3. So I don't believe this one..
This may be a bit misleading, becuase if you have never optimized for search engines at all, then you can drastically change your rankings with very little SEO. However, if you've already done alot of SEO, and you do something additional like change your URL's to remove the '?', then you will notice very little change, if any at all, in your rankings..
None of that will help at all, though, if you don't have unique titles on your pages. There is a minimum amount of SEO anyone interested in getting traffic from search engines should do...
Olorin, I just came upon OSC last week, and installed the header tags controller a couple days ago. I had to do it a few times before I could get it to work, (there are so many line -replacements!).
The 'file additions' in the user-readme, if I get your meaning, are included in the archive - header_tags.php, and clean_html_comments.php. You just have to copy them to the specified directories AND make sure the permissions are set correctly (if you're using unix.).
Also, there is one little error in the README to operate file: it says to search and replace this string:.
<title><?php echo TITLE ?></title>.
But it's missing a semicolon:.
<title><?php echo TITLE; ?></title>.
Hope that helps. Consider yourself lucky that wizardsandwars takes his time to share as much wisdom as he does...
I am so confused!.
I have used both safe and ? URLS. With the ? URLs that I currently have, google seems to be visiting only a couple of pages (according to the logs), about a thousand less than it did with the safe URLs..
Background, without getting into all the gory details I had a really hard time getting google to index and rank my site, even with the safe URLs. I then added a static homepage, and perhaps coincidentally, finally got indexed. HOWEVER, I have since changed back to the ? URLs because with the safe ones, customers had to go through index.php so the cart would accept products (so I could not have ads pointing directly to a product page). (side comment: Is this normal?) I think I have made a big mess!.
But my point is that it SEEMS like google got through more of my iPage site with the safe URLs..
Or is something else going on?..
It may appear that way, but I assure you, that's not the case..
A couple of things to keep in mind..
First of all, it can easily take up to 3 full months before all of you pages get indexed. Second, any time you make a major change, such as chanign your urls to SEF, you can expect the possibility of your listings dropping off, and it can take up to 3 months again to get fully indexed..
Third, the deep parser from googlebot generally only comes around about once avery month. Sometimes it skips a month, and sometimes it comes more often...
I have read through a lot of replies about SEO with osC, in regards to safe and 'non-safe' URL's. There seems to be just as many people saying to use SE safe, as there are those who say don't use them..
I just tried the SE safe, and got a msg "No input file specified", but no doubt I need to mod .htaccess with mod_rewrite to get that to work..
I'm currently at the stage where the iPage website is all loaded, and now want to do submissions to websites, but don't want to do that until I have decided onec and for all, whether to use SE safe URL's with osC or not ??.
I just rigged up some code to create different titles out of index.php:.
<title><?php echo TITLE': '$categories['categories_name']; ?></title>.
So, when a potential customer views the category "Fellowship of the Ring" for example, the title will appear as "Cobra Cards: Fellowship of the Ring"..
My question is, will search engine spiders consider these pages to have different titles? (Do they look at the code, or the product of the code?)..
They only see that HTML output, so this counts as unique codes..
A Quick SEO tip, though.....
You should put your key word or phrase in the title FIRST, and put the name of the shop, LAST, if at all. Proximity of key phrase in the title is a major vbariable in most search engine algorithems. You want your page to show up when people search for 'Fellowship of the Ring' (although that particular keyphrase will be nearly impossible to come within the first 10 pages of). I don't think many people are going to be searching for 'Cobra Cards..
I recommend finding a better key phrase, like 'Fellowship of the Ring Playing Cards' and putting the cobra cards at the end, like 'Fellowship of the ring Playing Cards : Cobra Cards'..
The short answer is, it doesnt' really matter. Either will get you indexed as well as the other...
I've submitted my iPage site (consists of 99% dynamic content) to google to be index back in january of 2004, and are some of my results:.
-page rank is currently at 2..
- both static and dynamic page are indexed..
- all (about 5) static pages are indexed, and now display PR values some where between 0 - 2.
- all dynamic page that have been indexed have PR of 0.
-google seems to only index dynamic pages when they are linked from a static page (or perhaps the ones linked from a static page are indexed more quickly).
- only about 5% of all my dynamic links shows up in google (apprximately 70/1200 links showed up in google searches since January).
-I have a insignificant amount of external links, probably only 4 to 5 sites have listed me on relatively low PR pages (low PR means anything less than PR of 4).
I am working on an experiment to link to all the dynamic page from static pages. I am hoping this increase the amount of pages that showed up in google from my site, and increase the page rank of my iPage domain as every single dynamic page links back to my site's index page...
This is definatly not true. Dynamic php URLs and static html URLs are indexed alike..
Its funny that people fight so hard to hang on to the belief that dynamic URLs are a bad thing, even though we've show the opposite over and over and over again...
I have Oscommerce listed in google pretty well following the tips of wizardsandwars and others like him on this forum..
One thing I have noticed is I did not use a probots.txt for one I have no reason to I dont think..
Second I tried robots.txt and google went away and dident come back now I dont have one and I get indext regularly I have read alot about this on the forum so I saw a lot of robots.txt I wonder if somthing in them pushes google away..
But any way here is a little bit of my log file from just last night.
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:02 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1586 HTTP/1.0" 200 30672 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler1.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:06 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?products_id=33 HTTP/1.0" 200 29000 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:08 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?products_id=333 HTTP/1.0" 200 30772 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:10 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?products_id=632 HTTP/1.0" 200 29996 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:10 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1378 HTTP/1.0" 200 32718 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:12 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_reviews.php?products_id=1031 HTTP/1.0" 200 30731 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:15 -0700] "GET /catalog/products_new.php?action=buy_now&products_id=1745 HTTP/1.0" 302 - "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:14 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_154&products_id=1720 HTTP/1.0" 200 31939 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:15 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_157&products_id=1720 HTTP/1.0" 200 31904 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:15 -0700] "GET /catalog/cookie_usage.php HTTP/1.0" 200 25722 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:15 -0700] "GET /catalog/products_new.php?page=4 HTTP/1.0" 200 34762 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:16 -0700] "GET /catalog/products_new.php?action=buy_now&products_id=1751 HTTP/1.0" 302 - "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:17 -0700] "GET /catalog/cookie_usage.php HTTP/1.0" 200 25721 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:19 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?products_id=467 HTTP/1.0" 200 28641 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:22 -0700] "GET /catalog/index.php?cPath=118_154&page=1&sort=3a HTTP/1.0" 200 42875 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:23 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_140&products_id=1720 HTTP/1.0" 200 31907 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:25 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_140&products_id=1031 HTTP/1.0" 200 31783 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:26 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_141&products_id=1736 HTTP/1.0" 200 32122 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:26 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_134&products_id=1717 HTTP/1.0" 200 31891 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler3.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:27 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_134&products_id=1751 HTTP/1.0" 200 32034 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:27 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?products_id=556 HTTP/1.0" 200 30630 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:29 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_141&products_id=1743 HTTP/1.0" 200 32098 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler1.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:34 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_141&products_id=81 HTTP/1.0" 200 29216 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:35 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_134&products_id=54 HTTP/1.0" 200 29108 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:36 -0700] "GET /catalog/index.php?cPath=118_156&page=1&sort=4a HTTP/1.0" 200 50573 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:36 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_157&products_id=1718 HTTP/1.0" 200 32518 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler8.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:37 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_141&products_id=1717 HTTP/1.0" 200 32065 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:38 -0700] "GET /catalog/index.php?cPath=118_156&page=1&sort=2d HTTP/1.0" 200 50718 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:40 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_156&products_id=1069 HTTP/1.0" 200 31103 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler1.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:41 -0700] "GET /catalog/index.php?cPath=118_141&page=1&sort=3a HTTP/1.0" 200 50879 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler1.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:42 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_141&products_id=1566 HTTP/1.0" 200 29179 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler1.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:43 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_reviews_write.php?products_id=1647 HTTP/1.0" 302 - "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler1.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:45 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=121_211&products_id=1716 HTTP/1.0" 200 32067 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:49 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=118_156&products_id=618 HTTP/1.0" 200 29327 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler2.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:50 -0700] "GET /catalog/index.php?cPath=240_241&page=1&sort=2d HTTP/1.0" 200 45216 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
Crawler1.googlebot.com - - [15/Apr/2004:22:21:53 -0700] "GET /catalog/product_info.php?cPath=121_211&products_id=916 HTTP/1.0" 200 29003 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
This happens almost dally and the log is much longer than that but osc and google get along fine.
Thanks wizardsandwars and all of the others who have hellped me along ...
I use robots.txt and try to keep spiders.txt updated, and have the 'turn SID's off'. The new osCommerce iPage website has only been up for about 6 weeks, and we are at the highest ranking (yikes, is that what you call it, anyway, we are showing as the first and second in Google)., for one product..
I must confess I know very little about SE's, etc, but all I can assume is the only reason we are up so high is because there are not many keywords for _that_ product model. The string is 'vt460gk' ; try it and see (.
Is the osC website, still lots of work to do on it yet though)..
My only (naive) conclusion is that if a keyword is used a lot by different sites, there will be more 'competition', and in fact much harder, to get up high on Google,etc. Obviously, the keyword 'vt460gk' is not used much..
Wizardsandwars certainly is right..
We have used static html for many years, and the rankings weren't bad but not the best either. About six months ago we converted all pages to php and the rankings didn't go down. About 4 months ago we switched the whole iPage site to osC, and no single static page is linking to the dynamic pages or the other way around, and the rankings are better than ever before!.
Often it only takes some days before google shows our new or changed products!..
Also, the speed of which any URLs are indexed or updated often has more to do with your significant backlinks, and nothing to do with whether or not they are Dynamic or Static URLS...
Also helps if the content on the main page of iPage site stays the same dosent change each time you come back..
I guse they dont like to see different stuff each time. Somthing to concider when optimizing...
Actually, that's not entirely true..
Google likes to see new content on your page regularly. The more the content changes, the more Google will visit to spider. The trick is to ony change and small amount of 'content' and not change things like meta titles..
For sites that change content very infrequently, google spiders them very infrequently, so changes that *are* made on the iPage site are sometimes not reflected for a longer period of time...
Right but I am talking about each time the page refreshes shouldent it stay the same. if google looks at the same page ten times and each time it's different it's not good I THOUGHT! Please correct me if I am rong..
Oh, I see. Yes, you are correct. *content* (text) should not change with each click. Pictures are ok to change with each click though, although you need to be careful that the alt tags remain the same if the picktures change from one click to the next..
New content should be added though, as frequently as possible...
That probably explains why google reacts so extremely fast at the moment, we are still working a lot on adding content and making small changes to the content..
I just want to comment to you guys. Wonderful information. I don't have the amount of time I would like to scour the net looking for SEO info that may be way dated. With you guys I know what the experienced veterans of the e-commerce world are saying..
Thanks a lot guys...
I find google and my osc store going along very well. Most of the dynemic pages are indexed in google. I have yet not installed the headder tag controller but still it's working fine. I have put the safe url on..
See a part of my stats below to find how google crawelled around 300 pages from my catalogue today..
/silvershop/shopping_cart.php?osCsid=ec5d1318c920b71e1feb5bbf560b2ffe HTTP/1.0" 200 20538 "-" "Mediapartners-Google/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
126.96.36.199 - - [25/Apr/2004:15:23:34 -0500] "GET /silvershop/product_info.php?products_id=224 HTTP/1.0" 200 27502 "-" "Mediapartners-Google/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
188.8.131.52 - - [25/Apr/2004:15:23:39 -0500] "GET /silvershop/product_info.php?products_id=215 HTTP/1.0" 200 27322 "-" "Mediapartners-Google/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)".
184.108.40.206 - - [25/Apr/2004:15:24:56 -0500] "GET /silvershop/checkout_confirmation.php?osCsid=ec5d1318c920b71e1feb5bbf560b2ffe HTTP/1.0" 200 285 "-"..
I don't get any of this. I have a store up and I don't think it's on google or froogle at all. How do I check that??..
To check what pages are listed in google type in site:www.nameofyoursite.com this will list all the pages that are listed..
One thing I will say is that regarding dynamic url's, YES dynamic urls are fine, but you must keep the queries down to a maximum of 3 variables, any more than that and you are unlikely to be spiderd (parsed). Please take this as fact, not as opinion, as I am a seasoned SEO..
Old Welsh Guy..
That really doesn't have anything to do with the URL being DYNAMIC, but rather the physical length of the url...
Upon further review, It looks that I may be wrong here. I cna't find a single URL anywhere in Google with more than 3 key/value pairs in the query string. So, it looks like three may indeed be the limit..
However, there are *very* few times when more than 3 parameters are ever needed, and by default, I don't think there is one in OSC...