lukesdiesel Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 How do I use search engine friendly url's with OScommerce? Thanks, Luke
Jack_mcs Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 You need to install one of the url rewriters. I recommend Ultimate SEO V2.2d but there are others - see this. Support Links: For Hire: Contact me for anything you need help with for your shop: upgrading, hosting, repairs, code written, etc. All of My Addons Get the latest versions of my addons Recommended SEO Addons
lukesdiesel Posted May 31, 2010 Author Posted May 31, 2010 Is this something I should do to help search engines find my website? Luke
♥kymation Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 No, this is something that will not do you any good. The major search engines do just fine with stock osCommerce URLs. Add a good meta tag Addon, and go write good content for your site -- that will do you some real good. Flame war in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... ;) Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
NodsDorf Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 No, this is something that will not do you any good. The major search engines do just fine with stock osCommerce URLs. Add a good meta tag Addon, and go write good content for your site -- that will do you some real good. Flame war in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... ;) Regards Jim I hope that was sarcasm. The SEO Url's should be a must. Concise url's are very beneficial. (Here is a good read.) Of course just having good clean URL's aren't going to do it alone. You must get yourself promoted, hit forums, blogs, wiki's, get as many free links as possible on the best possible relevant sites. Make sure you content is keyword optimized and unique. Use search engine sitemap's and feeders. SEO is the one the most important things you can do for your website.
♥kymation Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 No, that was not sarcasm. "SEO" URLs are obsolete. They will do you no good in any of the major search engines, and possibly some harm. Put your time into something better. The people who say they increase click rate haven't looked at the Google results page. Google has been deemphasizing URLs in search results for several years, and is now in the process of dropping them completely. If you want real answers, don't read a bunch of opinions from outsiders, read what Google has to say on the subject. Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
♥14steve14 Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Without wishing to get into an argument on something i know very little about, surely its better to not have the oscid in the URL. REMEMBER BACKUP, BACKUP AND BACKUP
MrPhil Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Yes, you want the session ID out of the URL, when that URL is being bookmarked or indexed by a user or search engine. Since each session gets a new session ID, it makes a saved URL unusable. That said, removing session IDs has nothing to do with "SEO" URLs. Long ago, in a distant galaxy, search engines had trouble with "dynamic" URLs, i.e., ones with a URL Query String (e.g., /index.php?cat=25&product_id=7774). A whole industry and folklore sprang up around making these "static" URLs (e.g., /index/catp/25/7774/). For a while now, most search engine spiders have been able to handle dynamic URLs quite nicely, thank you. Whether Google, et al., weight static URLs more or less heavily than they used to, is a deep dark secret known only unto them (and is subject to change at any time). The bottom line is that "SEO friendly" URLs don't do all that much for you any more, except make your URLs look nicer. They also can be used to hide your underlying technology, so if you want to switch from PHP-based osC to, say, an ASP.Net-based cart, you could do so without invalidating all your customer bookmarks and search engine rankings. Hiding the technology probably doesn't help all that much with keeping hackers out. The downside to SEO URLs is that it's another layer to break, and additional load on the server to translate the static-form URLs back to dynamic, so PHP can handle them.
♥FWR Media Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Yes, you want the session ID out of the URL, when that URL is being bookmarked or indexed by a user or search engine. Since each session gets a new session ID, it makes a saved URL unusable. That said, removing session IDs has nothing to do with "SEO" URLs. Long ago, in a distant galaxy, search engines had trouble with "dynamic" URLs, i.e., ones with a URL Query String (e.g., /index.php?cat=25&product_id=7774). A whole industry and folklore sprang up around making these "static" URLs (e.g., /index/catp/25/7774/). For a while now, most search engine spiders have been able to handle dynamic URLs quite nicely, thank you. Whether Google, et al., weight static URLs more or less heavily than they used to, is a deep dark secret known only unto them (and is subject to change at any time). The bottom line is that "SEO friendly" URLs don't do all that much for you any more, except make your URLs look nicer. They also can be used to hide your underlying technology, so if you want to switch from PHP-based osC to, say, an ASP.Net-based cart, you could do so without invalidating all your customer bookmarks and search engine rankings. Hiding the technology probably doesn't help all that much with keeping hackers out. The downside to SEO URLs is that it's another layer to break, and additional load on the server to translate the static-form URLs back to dynamic, so PHP can handle them. Basically .. yes. I think however that people tend to forget the "other 50%" of SEO which is the customer .. example .. You are looking for a red designer handbag, which would you be more likely to click? www.mysite.com/product_info.php?products_id=9 Or www.mysite.com/great-red-designer-handbags-p-9.html Also while I am seeing serps results highlighting such text I feel there is added benefit. Ultimate SEO Urls 5 PRO - Multi Language Modern, Powerful SEO Urls KissMT Dynamic SEO Meta & Canonical Header Tags KissER Error Handling and Debugging KissIT Image Thumbnailer Security Pro - Querystring protection against hackers ( a KISS contribution ) If you found my post useful please click the "Like This" button to the right. Please only PM me for paid work.
♥kymation Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Google is removing the URL from the search result. URLs that they can't see will not influence the customer. Google has also stated that they do not consider words in the URL as part of a site's ranking. Now what happens when you change the product title? Let's say you use the Adwords tool to find out what your customers are looking for -- and it's not what you wrote. So you add a word to the title, or take one away. But your URL rewriter is putting the words from that title in the URL, so you just created a new page as far as the search engines know. Worst of all, Google now sees that page as a duplicate, since both URLs still work. If there are no external links, that will eventually self-correct; but if there are external links, Google will hang on to those URLs forever. So you don't dare ever make changes, even to fix a typo. Is a "pretty" URL worth this much hassle? Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
Guest Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 Google is removing the URL from the search result. URLs that they can't see will not influence the customer. Google has also stated that they do not consider words in the URL as part of a site's ranking. Now what happens when you change the product title? Let's say you use the Adwords tool to find out what your customers are looking for -- and it's not what you wrote. So you add a word to the title, or take one away. But your URL rewriter is putting the words from that title in the URL, so you just created a new page as far as the search engines know. Worst of all, Google now sees that page as a duplicate, since both URLs still work. If there are no external links, that will eventually self-correct; but if there are external links, Google will hang on to those URLs forever. So you don't dare ever make changes, even to fix a typo. Is a "pretty" URL worth this much hassle? Regards Jim I have used an seo url for a few years now. I didn't see much improvement as far as search engines go. I am in the process of redesigning my site. What affects would there be if I did not use an seo now? If I just resubmit my sitemap, do you think I should be ok? Thanks Brian
♥kymation Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 You will lose any external links to your pages, and the ranking that Google gives those links. You can forward (301 redirect) all of the old URLs to the new ones. That won't help with the ranking, but your customers will still be able to find your pages by following those links. From what I have seen in the past, it will take about 3 months for Google to find all of your new pages, even with a sitemap. This could happen faster if your site is really popular/highly ranked. Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
Guest Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 You will lose any external links to your pages, and the ranking that Google gives those links. You can forward (301 redirect) all of the old URLs to the new ones. That won't help with the ranking, but your customers will still be able to find your pages by following those links. From what I have seen in the past, it will take about 3 months for Google to find all of your new pages, even with a sitemap. This could happen faster if your site is really popular/highly ranked. Regards Jim Thanks Jum. I'll have a go with the 301's. I'm not worried about the page rank because there really isn't one. Part of the redesign includes better product descriptions. I do have and will keep the meta tag seo. Thanks Brian
♥FWR Media Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 No, that was not sarcasm. "SEO" URLs are obsolete. They will do you no good in any of the major search engines, and possibly some harm. Put your time into something better. The people who say they increase click rate haven't looked at the Google results page. Google has been deemphasizing URLs in search results for several years, and is now in the process of dropping them completely. If you want real answers, don't read a bunch of opinions from outsiders, read what Google has to say on the subject. Regards Jim This is just wrong. That article and it's views are nothing new. Google has been able to deal with dynamic urls for ages but that is not the point. While static URLs might have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates because users can easily read the urls, the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking Clear here, correctly rewritten uris improve click through, there is very little left in SEO that is easy to apply which offers a significant advantage. You may be able to remove some parameters which aren't essential for Googlebot and offer your users a nice looking dynamic URL. Yup, exactly what the rewriters are doing. Basically all Google is saying is that they recommend you do not try to create static uris simply because you might get them wrong which could have a negative impact, well of course they could, if they are wrong. They specifically give examples of where an sid is incorporated within the static uri, an issue we all know to avoid. Static and meaningful uris are still a very useful SEO tool which is known to improve click through rates, also don't forget that Google is not the only search engine around and more importantly are the user. Urls are visible all over the web to users and uris that are meaningful to the user are of far more benefit than unmeaningful dynamic urls. Perhaps more research should have been applied before the statement ""SEO" URLs are obsolete" as it will just mislead forum users. Ultimate SEO Urls 5 PRO - Multi Language Modern, Powerful SEO Urls KissMT Dynamic SEO Meta & Canonical Header Tags KissER Error Handling and Debugging KissIT Image Thumbnailer Security Pro - Querystring protection against hackers ( a KISS contribution ) If you found my post useful please click the "Like This" button to the right. Please only PM me for paid work.
♥kymation Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 Nice flame. I've already stated why I think you're wrong, so no more reply is needed. Have a nice day. Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
♥FWR Media Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 Nice flame. I've already stated why I think you're wrong, so no more reply is needed. Have a nice day. Regards Jim Jim it was not a flame. You made a statement "SEO URLs are obsolete" which was wrong, I simply explained why you were wrong. The example you gave "read what Google has to say on the subject." is a well known piece that expressly does not confirm your statement. Ultimate SEO Urls 5 PRO - Multi Language Modern, Powerful SEO Urls KissMT Dynamic SEO Meta & Canonical Header Tags KissER Error Handling and Debugging KissIT Image Thumbnailer Security Pro - Querystring protection against hackers ( a KISS contribution ) If you found my post useful please click the "Like This" button to the right. Please only PM me for paid work.
♥kymation Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 OK, if you want to discuss the subject, let's start with that article. Here's the relevant part: Should I try to make my dynamic URLs look static?Following are some key points you should keep in mind while dealing with dynamic URLs: 1. It's quite hard to correctly create and maintain rewrites that change dynamic URLs to static-looking URLs. 2. It's much safer to serve us the original dynamic URL and let us handle the problem of detecting and avoiding problematic parameters. 3. If you want to rewrite your URL, please remove unnecessary parameters while maintaining a dynamic-looking URL. 4. If you want to serve a static URL instead of a dynamic URL you should create a static equivalent of your content. Let's look at those one at a time: I agree with this statement. Since it's hard, we should expect some benefit from that hard work, or just not do it. This sounds to me like Google doesn't want us to rewrite. Not a hard rule, but definitely a bias. OK, but none of the rewriters I've seen do this. If you know of one that does, please point it out. Nope, they don't do this either. I know some sites that do, but none using osCommerce. This also appears to be hard, but has some real advantages for heavy-traffic sites. So Google is saying it's a bad idea to rewrite dynamic URLs to look like static URLs. They don't explicitly say not to, but they certainly give the impression they don't want you to.I don't always agree with Google, but I think they make some good points here. Your previous post says that static URLs get a better clickthrough rate. I've never seen a study that shows a significant difference; can you point to one? Since Google is removing the URLs from its search results, I don't think they consider them to be very useful in any form. Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
♥FWR Media Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 Well it becomes interesting rather than disagreement, thanks Jim. Should I try to make my dynamic URLs look static? Following are some key points you should keep in mind while dealing with dynamic URLs: 1. It's quite hard to correctly create and maintain rewrites that change dynamic URLs to static-looking URLs. Response > I agree with Google and you in this. The average "web maker" more often than not does not have the necessary acumen to do this so should leave it well alone. Those thinking of using a uri rewriter should be sure that it is a quality product avoiding potential issues. 2. It's much safer to serve us the original dynamic URL and let us handle the problem of detecting and avoiding problematic parameters. Response > Again, related to 1) "web makers" should avoid "playing" with dynamic uris as it is far to easy to get it wrong and create HUGE problems. E.g. redirect loops, duplicated content, unreachable pages etc. The result of rewriting uris badly is catastrophic so I agree with Google that on average "web makers" should leave it well alone. Those thinking of using a uri rewriter should be sure that it is a quality product avoiding potential issues. 3. If you want to rewrite your URL, please remove unnecessary parameters while maintaining a dynamic-looking URL. Response > This is done in both the old (original ) 2005 ultimate seo urls and the latest USU5 series. With osCommerce however there are very few unnecessary parameters attached to the uri. Keys like sort, osCsid etc. Contributions can add some "nastiness" however 4. If you want to serve a static URL instead of a dynamic URL you should create a static equivalent of your content. Response > The content catered for by seo urls tend to be a static page e.g. a product, a review, a list of categories. osCommerce paging can create issues but can be handled well by contributions such as KissMT which issue correct canonical elements or follow/no index tags. Ultimate SEO Urls 5 PRO - Multi Language Modern, Powerful SEO Urls KissMT Dynamic SEO Meta & Canonical Header Tags KissER Error Handling and Debugging KissIT Image Thumbnailer Security Pro - Querystring protection against hackers ( a KISS contribution ) If you found my post useful please click the "Like This" button to the right. Please only PM me for paid work.
♥kymation Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 1. I think we agree on this. 2. Is any URL rewriter foolproof? I don't think so. Users should be aware of the dangers and the amount of work involved. I don't believe that most users are aware of this. They blindly apply an Addon without thinking about it. 3. The osCsid is adequately handled by stock osC. I'm not familiar with how either of those rewriters handle the sort parameter; can you give an example? The only way that I know to hide parameters is to use POST or session variables. Are there any other good ways to do this? 4. I read this as requiring true static pages. There are systems that use PHP or other backend code to generate static HTML pages that are then saved to a file. It is those files that are being served. This is what I believe Google is talking about here. Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
♥FWR Media Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 1. I think we agree on this. 2. Is any URL rewriter foolproof? I don't think so. Users should be aware of the dangers and the amount of work involved. I don't believe that most users are aware of this. They blindly apply an Addon without thinking about it. 3. The osCsid is adequately handled by stock osC. I'm not familiar with how either of those rewriters handle the sort parameter; can you give an example? The only way that I know to hide parameters is to use POST or session variables. Are there any other good ways to do this? 4. I read this as requiring true static pages. There are systems that use PHP or other backend code to generate static HTML pages that are then saved to a file. It is those files that are being served. This is what I believe Google is talking about here. Regards Jim 2. Is any URL rewriter foolproof? I don't think so. Users should be aware of the dangers and the amount of work involved. I don't believe that most users are aware of this. They blindly apply an Addon without thinking about it. Responce > I cannot speak for other rewriters but I will speak for my own Ultimate Seo Urls 5 ( and the soon 5 PRO ). I agree again that users should be "aware" but a lot of work went into ensuring that USU5 creates no SEO problems and after many hundreds of downloads there are zero problems currently. 3. The osCsid is adequately handled by stock osC. I'm not familiar with how either of those rewriters handle the sort parameter; can you give an example? The only way that I know to hide parameters is to use POST or session variables. Are there any other good ways to do this? Responce > Sort was a bad/wrong example as it has to be present in the querystring to produce the sort functionality, a good example is linking from a category to a product. osCommerce as standard appends cPath which is not necessary and can create duplicate content, USU5 does not unless the "feature" is enabled in admin. 4. I read this as requiring true static pages. There are systems that use PHP or other backend code to generate static HTML pages that are then saved to a file. It is those files that are being served. This is what I believe Google is talking about here. Responce > A static page is a static page whether it is saved as an html file or delivered parsed by PHP, AS LONG as the content remains the same. Ultimate SEO Urls 5 PRO - Multi Language Modern, Powerful SEO Urls KissMT Dynamic SEO Meta & Canonical Header Tags KissER Error Handling and Debugging KissIT Image Thumbnailer Security Pro - Querystring protection against hackers ( a KISS contribution ) If you found my post useful please click the "Like This" button to the right. Please only PM me for paid work.
♥kymation Posted June 1, 2010 Posted June 1, 2010 2. Problem: The site owner changes the product's name. Say he changes the name from Good Product to Great Product. In stock osC, the URL for both cases is http://www.example.com/product_info.php?cPath=1&products_id=23. With a rewriter, the first is http://www.example.com/good_product_p23.html and the second is http://www.example.com/great_product_p23.html. The static URL to the page has just changed. Google will see these as duplicate pages. If the page has an external link pointing to it, Google will keep the old version as long as the external link exists. 3. The cPath is needed to keep the Categories box pointing to the correct category if you have products that are in multiple categories. For products in multiple categories, I prefer to add a noindex tag to the duplicates and not mess with the URL. cPath can be safely removed only if every product is in only one category. If you want to do that, it can be done with dynamic URLs just as easily as with a rewriter. 4. True. I'm not arguing against caching; but I think that it has nothing to do with URL rewriting. That's a separate problem, so maybe we should keep it out of the present discussion. If possible. Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
♥FWR Media Posted June 2, 2010 Posted June 2, 2010 2. Problem: The site owner changes the product's name. Say he changes the name from Good Product to Great Product. In stock osC, the URL for both cases is http://www.example.com/product_info.php?cPath=1&products_id=23. With a rewriter, the first is http://www.example.com/good_product_p23.html and the second is http://www.example.com/great_product_p23.html. The static URL to the page has just changed. Google will see these as duplicate pages. If the page has an external link pointing to it, Google will keep the old version as long as the external link exists. In other seo url contributions ( including he old 2005 version ), yes this is a problem, but with USU5 the old is redirected to the new with the correct 301 header thereby preserving the seo benefit of the page and without causing duplicate content. USU5 correctly redirects all forms of osCommerce url and all forms of ultimate seo url ( including he old 2005 version ). USU5 goes further in curing the problem of the "product not found" page for inexistant products by issuing the correct 404 header. Goggle does not retain 301 redirected nor 404 pages. 3. The cPath is needed to keep the Categories box pointing to the correct category if you have products that are in multiple categories. For products in multiple categories, I prefer to add a noindex tag to the duplicates and not mess with the URL. cPath can be safely removed only if every product is in only one category. If you want to do that, it can be done with dynamic URLs just as easily as with a rewriter. I understand why you may think this but it is incorrect. Example ( vanilla osC install ) Go to DVD Movies > Action then click on "Fire Down Below". The querystring will be: - product_info.php?cPath=3_10&products_id=11 Remove the cPath=3_10 and the menu is still correctly highlighted, therefore the cPath in the querystring is irrelevant. A lot of time, work and testing went into USU5 which is why all these issues do not exist. 4. True. I'm not arguing against caching; but I think that it has nothing to do with URL rewriting. That's a separate problem, so maybe we should keep it out of the present discussion. If possible. Well I only answered this as you included the point. Ultimate SEO Urls 5 PRO - Multi Language Modern, Powerful SEO Urls KissMT Dynamic SEO Meta & Canonical Header Tags KissER Error Handling and Debugging KissIT Image Thumbnailer Security Pro - Querystring protection against hackers ( a KISS contribution ) If you found my post useful please click the "Like This" button to the right. Please only PM me for paid work.
♥kymation Posted June 2, 2010 Posted June 2, 2010 In other seo url contributions ( including he old 2005 version ), yes this is a problem, but with USU5 the old is redirected to the new with the correct 301 header thereby preserving the seo benefit of the page and without causing duplicate content. USU5 correctly redirects all forms of osCommerce url and all forms of ultimate seo url ( including he old 2005 version ). USU5 goes further in curing the problem of the "product not found" page for inexistant products by issuing the correct 404 header. Thanks for the information; I didn't know that the duplicate problem had been solved. The correct use of a 301/404 is always a good thing. Goggle does not retain 301 redirected nor 404 pages. Oh how I wish that were true. Example: I have a client that I converted from an ASP system to osCommerce in 2004. I carefully added a 301 redirect from every one of the old pages to the appropriate osC page. Now, over 6 years later, 2 of those ASP pages are #3 and #4 on a site: listing. Google Webmaster Tools tells me there are still a couple of external links to each of those pages, which I assume is why they are still listed. Since the osC pages are also listed, I assume these are splitting the page rank. If you know of a way to get Google to let go of those redirected pages, I would really like to know how. I believe that they do remove 404 pages after some time. 410 pages seem to be deleted quicker, but I have no solid evidence to prove that, just a small sampling of cases. I understand why you may think this but it is incorrect. Example ( vanilla osC install ) Go to DVD Movies > Action then click on "Fire Down Below". The querystring will be: - product_info.php?cPath=3_10&products_id=11 Remove the cPath=3_10 and the menu is still correctly highlighted, therefore the cPath in the querystring is irrelevant. A lot of time, work and testing went into USU5 which is why all these issues do not exist. OK, let's try this. In the Admin, copy "Fire Down Below" into the Drama category. Then go to the catalog side and click on "Fire Down Below" in the Drama category. Now remove the cPath=3_15& from the URL and reload. The navigation jumps back to the Action category. The breadcrumb trail also jumps to the wrong category and the wrong cPath in the product link. In a large store with a complex category structure, a customer can get confused when you mess with the navigation. I believe this is a serious problem. Do any of the rewriters resolve this issue? Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
♥FWR Media Posted June 3, 2010 Posted June 3, 2010 Sorry for the slow reply .. was busy last night. Oh how I wish that were true. Example: I have a client that I converted from an ASP system to osCommerce in 2004. I carefully added a 301 redirect from every one of the old pages to the appropriate osC page. Now, over 6 years later, 2 of those ASP pages are #3 and #4 on a site: listing. Google Webmaster Tools tells me there are still a couple of external links to each of those pages, which I assume is why they are still listed. Since the osC pages are also listed, I assume these are splitting the page rank. If you know of a way to get Google to let go of those redirected pages, I would really like to know how. I believe that they do remove 404 pages after some time. 410 pages seem to be deleted quicker, but I have no solid evidence to prove that, just a small sampling of cases. Sadly Google are a law unto themselves, all we can do is issue the 301s and 404s and hope. OK, let's try this. In the Admin, copy "Fire Down Below" into the Drama category. Then go to the catalog side and click on "Fire Down Below" in the Drama category. Now remove the cPath=3_15& from the URL and reload. The navigation jumps back to the Action category. The breadcrumb trail also jumps to the wrong category and the wrong cPath in the product link. In a large store with a complex category structure, a customer can get confused when you mess with the navigation. I believe this is a serious problem. The problem is that using the osCommerce system of "copying" simply creates instant duplicate content and in my opinion should not be used. If someone really must do this they should simply turn on "Add cPath to product URLs?" in USU5 which then acts exactly like osCommerce appending the cPath and highlighting the correct categories. Ultimate SEO Urls 5 PRO - Multi Language Modern, Powerful SEO Urls KissMT Dynamic SEO Meta & Canonical Header Tags KissER Error Handling and Debugging KissIT Image Thumbnailer Security Pro - Querystring protection against hackers ( a KISS contribution ) If you found my post useful please click the "Like This" button to the right. Please only PM me for paid work.
♥kymation Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 Sorry for the slow reply .. was busy last night. No apology needed. I'm late as well, and this is only a discussion. Nothing urgent. Sadly Google are a law unto themselves, all we can do is issue the 301s and 404s and hope. Agreed. They don't seem to be interested in fixing the 301 issue either. The problem is that using the osCommerce system of "copying" simply creates instant duplicate content and in my opinion should not be used. If someone really must do this they should simply turn on "Add cPath to product URLs?" in USU5 which then acts exactly like osCommerce appending the cPath and highlighting the correct categories. There are legitimate business reasons for having a product in multiple categories. This is another case where Google's practices do not match common Internet usage. Unfortunately we have to add special code to get around Google's eccentricity. So it goes. By way of a conclusion, it appears that USU5 does not introduce any new problems beyond those in stock osCommerce. I still don't think there is any great advantage to using any rewriter, but if someone wants to use a URL rewriter, this is the one they should use. Thanks again for taking the time to explain things to me. Regards Jim See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.