OT: Google link?

OT: Plane Fares to Dallas for MIVA Conference (was: Re:



Yeah, I'm a real line stopper, my 10 pound laptop gets it's own bin, then
the camera and cell phone in another bin, shoes, sweater, laptop bag,
purse in another bin but don't blame me if you are late...I get there two
hours ahead just for the security checks.

Leslie <---who will be heading through LaGuardia this week

> Oh and don't forget they are sure to check the pilots out and make them
> take their blazers off and are sure to not let them put that coat over
> top of that laptop and when they are being extra careful are sure to
> not let that cell phone in there with the friggin laptop.........I
> better quit this
> Bedtime.
>
> Barrett
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 11:40 PM, Chuck Lasker - DoublePlus wrote:
>
>> And people don't differentiate between taxes and regular ticket price.
>> So,
>> effectively the government is pulling 25% of the perceived ticket
>> price for
>> "security." It's straight out of airline funds. It's no wonder the
>> airlines
>> are going bankrupt one by one. But boy don't we all feel so much safer
>> on
>> the plane knowing they scanned our shoes, kept our fingernail clippers
>> and
>> they kept old 60s singers from landing in the US? Worth every penny.
>>
>> Chuck
>>

OT: Plane Fares to Dallas for MIVA Conference (was: Re: OT: Google link?)



Consistent syntax of your urls.
In the case of SFL using the directory style type like.
http://domain.com//page/store_code/CTGY/cat_code
Barrett

On Wednesday, May 18, 2005, at 02:25 PM, linda wrote:

>
>
> Barrett wrote:
>
>> Main thing to get out of all the excitement is:
>>
>> Stick with directing the SE's to static or dynamic pages not both.
>> Use robots.txt to control this.
>
> Ok...
>
>> Your site map at one jump off your index or SFNT page should use the
>> same link style method as the rest of your site.
>> .htaccess rewrites are how to control the link style.
>> We just happen to use SFL directory style that evolved out of the
>> issue where the SE's including google could not or would not spider
>> dynamic urls in the past. Also they are more human friendly for send
>> links in email for example.
>
> Dumb question number gazillion....what do you mean by "link style
> method"? :)
>
> And thank you for the reply.
>
> --
> Linda T
> www.corsetsandcostumes.com
>
>

OT: Plane Fares to Dallas for MIVA Conference (was: Re: OT: Google link?)



IF you want to know for sure what pages are the merchant ones you can
use this search on google...
allinurl: mydomain.com merchant.mvc
Don't put in the www. part of your url just the domainname.com part.
You can do this for any links you want to find even name value pairs... like
allinurl: mydomain.com screen=

Kelly


linda wrote:

> Trying to follow all this stuff and I think I understand the issue. I
> have done some investigating on my site...
>
> I googled a generic costume phrase "plus size gypsy costume" to see
> which and where my static catalog page occured.
> It had picked up the static catalog page and then the static product
> page that was linked from the catalog page. (did others and they all
> landed at 33 and 34 respectively in Google, not sure what that means?)
>
> Google - 33rd item listing out of 59,400 or so listings. (not terrific
> but should get better as I get more incoming links)
> Netscape - same place as Google
> Yahoo - 2nd item out of an unknown amount of listings
> MSN - 15th out of unknown total
>
> I am fairly certain that Google has picked up the product pages from
> the miva merchant (since it does say they have 500 plus pages from my
> site, and I only offer 35 products), but they are so far back that
> going through 28 pages on Google did not produce one miva product
> listing for any of the generic items I had on my static catalog. I
> doubt that anyone is going to cruise through anything more than maybe
> 10 pages to find what they want..
>
> So it is obvious for me, that the static catalog page is the way to
> go, but you don't want duplicates or you get penalized...
> Here are my questions...
>
> Instead of having the static catalog listing point to a seperate
> static product page, I have changed it to point to the actual miva
> product page. Since they are picking up the catalog page first
> anyway, then linking it directly into the Miva product page should
> work, right? And since I have deleted the static product pages, do I
> need to do an htaccess redirect for those pages I deleted just in case?
>
> Thanks for all the tremendous help the "techies" and other users
> contribute to this list...
>

OT: Google link?



Hi, I'm using miva on a domain hosted on Interland. The problem is that I
need to implement the CVV code for credit card processing. Now I don't see
that option and the Interland support team asked me to vrite to a miva
techincian to know if it is possible to implement it.

So the question is: can I buy a module that implements CVV and install it o=
n
the interland miva server?

Thanks, to all.

--=20
Gianluca Romito
Go Online WEB Limited
Via Roma, 52
37060 Castel d'Azzano (VR)
ITALY

Web go-online.it
email [email protected]=20

Need some relax, beauty and well-being products? Look at
www.beautywell-being.com

OT: Google link?



linda wrote:
>
> 3. A site map seems very important ( I have a lame one on site now,
> that I did freebie on the net, but it only did static pages) .. so could
> I use Swap Link from Bill Weiland, for the site map... but since I
> already have Static Catalog Generator, do they duplicate stuff, or
> cancel each other or what?
>
> So which is it by popular opinion (a.), (b.) or (c.) I am leaning
> towards (c.), but is that overkill? and is there one module out there
> that will do all that?

It appears that google's new philosophy is that overkill will kill your
site. Apparently they do not want two different urls with the same
content. So if you use static pages, you might want to limit them to a
bit different content and pointers to your merchant.mvc product pages OR
use them instead of the merchant.mvc pages. With the speed of MM5, no
need to take time to generate static pages to improve performance. But
since this is the MM4 list, I won't continue on that subject.

As example of static pages, you could have a catalog of categories or
alphabetized links all pointing to the merchant.mvc product pages. You
could have a briefer format using sitelink (sitemap) page(s) to have a
link to each category and product. The key is that those links should
be the SAME as the links you see in your merchant.mvc. So a static page
link like
<A HREF ="http://www.emporiumplus.com/go/wcw/PROD/1AAG/1AA00001">http://www.emporiumplus.com/go/wcw/PROD/1AAG/1AA00001</A>
needs to be the same that the merchant.mvc is using. The .htaccess
re-write can accomplish this along with a module in your merchant.mvc
That said, it is not clear to me how google is going to handle two
different urls going to the same product page when the product is in
multiple categories. The url is going to be different for each instance
of that product depending on the category code.

--
Bill Weiland A2Z Emporium Plus <A HREF ="http://www.emporiumplus.com/store.mvc ">http://www.emporiumplus.com/store.mvc </A>
Modules for eCommerce. Mail Mgr, Coupon, PayPal, Froogle/Yahoo feeds
Rate This, Gift/Wish List, Wait List Mgr, EZ Batch, Shipping & more
Online Documentation <A HREF ="http://www.emporiumplus.com/docs">http://www.emporiumplus.com/docs</A>
Question <A HREF ="http://www.emporiumplus.com/mivamodule_wcw.mvc?Screen=SPTS ">http://www.emporiumplus.com/mivamodu...vc?Screen=SPTS </A>
|

OT: Google link?



Hi Linda,

To diagnose what is going on with your PPC campaigns by proxy without
really analyzing and comparing your stats is virtually impossible.
Unfortunately only you can compare your store's referral stats with your
Adwords stats and try and glean some sort of pattern that has changed
from when your PPC campaigns were working. That would be a good place
to start.

Adwords and organic listings in Google are completely separate.
Rankings in one are not contingent on another. You may have just been
outbidded. Or as Barrett mentioned, your Adwords competitors may be
bidding lower but their CTR % are higher. Revise your ads and see if
this improves your CTR. The idea is to write a compelling ad, that not
only entices visitors to click your ad, but to stay and purchase what
you are advertising. Plus, refining your keywords, purging keywords
that do not convert, and ensuring that when they click through to your
site you are bringing them to a page that is relevant to your ad. Some
advertisers even create pages solely for their Adwords campaigns,
offering the PPC visitor something that entices them to convert them to
customers.

Lastly, your experience is exactly why I use QwkTracker. I never have
to 'guess' on how my advertising campaign(s) are doing. I can, at a
click of a button, compare my click throughs in my store with the
Adwords/Overture stats and make sure the hits match. The $350ish that
QwkTracker costs was one of the best investments I have ever made in my
store. I have been able to refine my PPC campaigns to the point where I
spend less money to bring more customers. Because I can see which
keywords, ads, landing pages, etc. work and which don't. QwkTracker
probably paid for itself in the first month of usage :-)

I hope this helps.

Julie

Linda Katz wrote:
> Thanks Barret but that's not it at all. It's been working fine for 2 years
> and hasn't run out of money. It's showing as active (not dropped) but with
> no activity- where as up to now it always hit my limit. It just DISAPPEARED
> for ALL keywords. The diagnostic tool shows nothing disallowed and nothing
> wrong.
>
> It's probably a coincidence- but having it dropped at the same time as my
> storemap links suddenly disppeared made me think something screwy might have
> happened to other users too... I hope it is just a server glitch. I wrote to
> Google- they didn't respond yet. It's awfully scary though...
>
>
>>Speaking on your Paid Adwords -
>>Your ads performance are naturally related to how much you bid for
>>position, BUT also if your ad is not as popular on click thru as one
>>that may not be bidding as much as yourself, they will show up higher
>>on the page. I would take a real hard look at what you are targeting
>>and what key words or phrases you are using to trigger the ad. Afaik
>>know - not a fact - only heard through the grapevine, if you are too
>>haphazard about keywords for your ad and you do get high click thru's
>>but the shopper doesn't find what they want and then click back right
>>away; somehow google figures this out and sees the result as not
>>relevant in that it was quickly determined to be a waste of time...hope
>>that makes some sense.
>>One real basic example that some overlook with the adwords - say you
>>were Acme Widgets and have an ad for Super Gold Plated Widgets and on
>>click the ad runs them to your storefront, big mistake - you should
>>instead land them on the Gold Plated Widgets page.
>>________________________________________________ ________________________
>>__
>>What type of links did your store map have ?
>>Should have had SFL directory style along with your whole store.
>
>
> I set them to directory style (not the one with "session appended")
> yesterday when Jason told everyone to. But they look the same as before- and
> so does the storemap once regenerated. I do not know what else can be done-
> there's only 3 configurable choices. ???
>
> I plan to match my html pages (non Merchant static doorway and info pages)
> with the same style links- but with so many posts showing so many formats, I
> still am not sure how they should look. Can you send a good example?
>
> And I'm still not sure if all the other dozens of mods we have need to be
> checked - to see if the links they create will match-- or if SFL takes care
> of the entire store??
>
>>The main moral with dynamic SFL or static html links and pages is to
>>use one or the other and stick with it.
>>If you have a site that is getting hammered by the spiders and traffic
>>to where it is a problem; using the static pages is the key for server
>>performance and in that case you block the spider from /Merchant2/
>>directory via the robots.txt file to prevent the illusion to the spider
>>of duplicate content and plowing thru and calling dynamic pages.
>
>
> I understood that- and thanks for taking the time to be so clear- but I see
> little choice. I need the doorway pages because I have to constantly change
> my site and I need the html pages for flexibility I can't get in Miva-
> probably even if I had serious proficiency with tokens, which I totally
> don't.
>
> Using just dynamic links is not a viable choice. I can see from what has
> happened now- where all I have are the dynamic links- that they are too far
> removed from index to get decent rankings. I was on page 1 or 2 with
> storemap pages- now I am buried.
>
>>________________________________________________ ________________________
>>____
>>
>>Being that the root of this new dilemma is related to duplicate content
>>and server performance or load - my gut tells me that the static html
>>solution has merit, but then that flys in the face of the whole reason
>>sites are built with database driven backends and create pages on call
>>in the first place. Now because a spider is going to load a server or
>>because someone can get so much traffic that the dynamic generated site
>>and server can't handle it we have to revert back to static page
>>management....??? This being such great solution; then why hasn't all
>>the great engineers at Miva built the new templated mouse trap to
>>conveniently and accurately produce and manage a site run in html ???
>>That would seem to me logical if the move to static pages for high load
>>site is totally sound. What then are the big players like umm Compusa,
>>HomeDepot, BestBuy, Lowes, Costco, Ciruitcity and so on running ??? I'm
>>sure it ain't static sites - oh yes don't even start with me about
>>zillion dollar budgets - just want to understand the mechanics....
>>I did hear that ebay runs separate and mirrored servers for each
>>individual category browsed so as soon as you hit a category you go to
>>that server and even if it choked you'd never know because it's twin
>>picks up the ball... Wowser (my neighbor works for a big time company
>>involved with that stuff and he said Miva ????..sorry come again...)
>
>
> That's why I said I'm thinking of giving up on Miva- though once invested it
> is awfully hard to throw all that effort away. I'm too small to ever worry
> about server overload from the spiders (and I also have Hostasaurus)- but
> Miva dynamic links are basically worthless. None of the other merchant carts
> seem to have these issues. Tiny foreign stores with no content are now
> filling up Googles top rankings for my keywords and I don't exist. Thank
> goodness for repeat customers... and though I never thought I'd say it- for
> Overture.
>
> Linda Katz
> www.israeliproducts.com
>
>>Thanks,
>>-Barrett
>>http://handmade-paper.us
>>Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
>>ShipWorks by Interapptive.com

OT: Google link?



Ok now I'm gonna have to have a drink.....

Just took out the robots.txt edit till I get this figured out.

Where should we 301 redirect all the old pages???
Simply to the SFNT ?
Or maybe to a special static page that explains that was an old page
and suggest the hit the Search page or the Storefront and provide them
the links ??

What would we all do without this group...

Thanks,
-Barrett
http://handmade-paper.us
Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
ShipWorks by Interapptive.com




On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 06:15 PM, Kelly XR wrote:

> Why don't you also do a rewrite rule to directly anything from /home/
> to your new storefront?
> That would update any bots (ones that respect 301s anyway) like
> googlebot. And means that links listed that way won't just be thrown
> away by the search engine... they'll be updated to the new location.
>
> RewriteRule ^/home/$ http://yourdomain/ [NC,R=301,L]
>
> Maybe even send them to your sitemap! If it's a spider... that would
> help it index your new pages.
> RewriteRule ^/home/$ http://yourdomain/sitemap.html [NC,R=301,L]
>
> FYI
> NC means no case (upper lower case of the url doesn't matter)
> R=301 means permanently redirect this link to the new one I'm giving
> you.
> L means stop right here... quit htaccess... don't do anything else.
> If you need more stuff done to the url you just rewrote.. then leave
> off the L
>
> I think it's a good idea to head off trouble. But can I suggest you
> rewrite those urls instead of banning them via the robots file.
> You've got the urls in the serch engine... just to notify the bot to
> dump them ... not allow them... seems like wasting gold being handed
> to you.
> Instead 'correct' those sek results and permanently redirect them to
> the ones you want listed in teh search engine.
> That way also anyone who has those old links to you (that get followed
> by the spiders) will still be of value for inbound links (and will
> help the spiders update their search engines at the same time).
>
> I feel that just blocking those older urls... is like cutting off your
> nose in spite of your face... we fight for rankings and work so hard
> to get them..
> any inbound link to our sites is a treasure... a potentential revenue
> source... use them to improve your rankings instead. Tell the bots
> what they should have instead.
>
> rewrite rules can be really confusing and a pain in the butt to figure
> out... but they really are our friends in situations like this.

>
> Kelly
>
>
> Barrett wrote:
>
>> Ok folks after digesting this thread best I can and applying to our
>> situation
>> the first step I've taken to head off trouble (omg I hope I'm not
>> breaking the if it works don't fix it rule !!!)
>>
>> Added to the robots.txt
>>
>> User-agent: googlebot
>> Disallow: /home/
>>
>> this directory was to our old sek based site
>>
>> I did a queery at google and that showed 6,000 plus from that old
>> site and I was thinking oh gosh this is scary, but then
>> queried for url string to indicate the real site now with SFL
>> directory styles
>> that returned 24,600 results
>>
>> For probably a couple years now we had not linked from the dynamic
>> site to /home/ in any manner
>> The old /home/ was only there to not give a 404 to people hitting
>> links still indexed with the engines and most of those pages were
>> hacked up and had a great big proceed to the new site link on them.
>>
>> Our site map only includes SFL links.
>> Afaik all cats and prods for the site are all SFL directory style.
>> .htaccess at the root has the SFL rewrite strings
>> domain root pulls index.mvc and loads the SFNT with all prods and
>> cats as SFL
>>
>> How does this sound so far ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Barrett
>> http://handmade-paper.us
>> Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
>> ShipWorks by Interapptive.com
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Julie Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> Jason, I know you mentioned you were unsure if blocking the
>>> /Merchant2/ folder (or in my case, the /miva/ folder) would or
>>> wouldn't effect SFL's, but do you know where I (and I am sure many
>>> others reading this thread) can find out for sure? I don't want to
>>> open a $99.00 support ticket for this with MIVA ;-) And nor do I
>>> willy-nilly want to block the /miva/ folder only to find that all my
>>> SFL were blocked too.
>>>
>>> What I am wondering is if all the links in my store are just like
>>> this one:
>>>
>>> <A HREF ="http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/page/UN/PROD/AN/AB-001">http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/page/UN/PROD/AN/AB-001</A>
>>>
>>> Would blocking the /miva/ folder block the dynamic ones, like this
>>> one below, but not the SFL above (even though technically the SFL
>>> above is located in the /miva/ folder)?
>>>
>>> <A HREF ="http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/miva/ ">http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/miva/ </A>
>>> merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AB-001
>>>
>>> Julie <---- who is waiting for plane ticket prices to come down to
>>> confirm attending the Dallas Conference.... PHX to D/FW is $400!
>>>
>>> Jason Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Same thing. There will be what "appears" to be two different pages
>>>> with the
>>>> exact same content. Banning /Merchant2/ directory "should" not
>>>> affect
>>>> rewritten urls via .htaccess such as SFL but don't quote me on that.
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>> I tried to follow the entire thread and didn't see this asked. If
>>>>> so, I
>>>>> apologize. What happens if your site has both SFL and normal
>>>>> links to the
>>>>> same page? Will this cause issues?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

OT: Google link?



Point of clarification - you are saying dump the door way pages in favor
of the Miva Merchant generated pages?

Leslie

>> So this renders Merchant Optimizer worthless?
>
> No. If you have a server load from regular traffic or spider traffic,
> keep
> it.
>
>>And dump static "doorway"
>> pages? Use just what Miva Merchant generates? Only have static
>> informational pages? What a week to head to NYC - guess I should be a
>> the
>> conference that is going on next to the Streaming Media - Google is one
>> of
>> teh sponsors there....didn't see FindWhat listed though.
>
> Use one or the other.
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>> Leslie <-- is ready to freakin scream.
>>
>>
>

OT: Google link?



Man this becomes even more confusing...but if all the links are SFL style
they are okay? But having duplicate content from MO is not good?

Leslie


> You need to stick with one linking style and get rid of the rest and block
> google, etc. from hitting other types of links from the one you are using.
> It was never the way to do it. Just a part of the process.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> Can someone "nutshell" this for me? I'm out of town, find these posts,
>> have a project I desperately trying to finish that uses, static pages,
>> Merchant Optimizer and the CBS SFL Suite. Bottom line, am I screwed? The
>> site has tons on links to products within the site. I thought this used
>> to
>> be the way to do this? Have the rules just changed again?
>>
>> FWIW - I have suggested more than once that the client use Jason's
> services.
>>
>> Leslie
>>
>>
>> >> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
>> >> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem. Might as well do
>> it
>> > just to be sure.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> >> ---------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Great!
>> >>
>> >> So we don't need to use a robot.txt file either? I've seen this in
>> some
>> >> other posts on this thread so I just want to be sure. :-)
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Lori
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------
>> >>
>> >> On 5/16/05 7:41 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
>> >> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jason
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> We're using Search Friendly Links, Meta Tag Generator and Search
>> > Friendly
>> >> >> Store Map all by CBS.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> After reading this thread we're wondering what we need to do...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> According to the SFL manual: "... adding the .htaccess rewrite
>> rule
>> > will
>> >> >> take the ' directory' link and rewrite the request to meet the SFL
>> > style
>> >> >> on-the-fly as requests come in. Search engines will only see the
>> >> static
>> >> >> link, not the rewritten link as this process is handled within
>> your
>> >> web
>> >> >> server"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If this is true than the URLs created by SFL and SF Store Map
>> should
>> >> be
>> > OK
>> >> >> as Google won't see the Miva dynamic URLs, (along with the SFL and
> SF
>> >> > Store
>> >> >> Map URLs), and penalize us for duplicate sites... right????????
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks!
>> >> >> Lori
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 5/16/05 6:44 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Same thing. There will be what "appears" to be two different
>> pages
>> > with
>> >> > the
>> >> >>> exact same content. Banning /Merchant2/ directory "should" not
>> >> affect
>> >> >>> rewritten urls via .htaccess such as SFL but don't quote me on
> that.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Jason
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> I tried to follow the entire thread and didn't see this asked.
>> If
>> > so,
>> >> > I
>> >> >>>> apologize. What happens if your site has both SFL and normal
> links
>> > to
>> >> > the
>> >> >>>> same page? Will this cause issues?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Paul
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> > Webmaster -
>> >> >>>> Aquariumpros.com
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:20 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Uhm, I hope there's nothing wrong with THAT! Yeesh! We have ten
>> > domains
>> >> >>> with
>> >> >>>> nothing on them pointing to aquariumpros.com.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
>> >> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> Maternity Corner
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:10 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The other URLs just re-direct to my site -- they don't actually
>> >> have
>> >> > any
>> >> >>>> pages of their own....
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >>>> Anne Cavicchi
>> >> >>>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
>> >> >>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
>> >> >>>> 250-354-2000
>> >> >>>> www.maternitycorner.com
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> > Webmaster -
>> >> >>>> Aquariumpros.com
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:03 AM
>> >> >>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The way I am given to understand it, NO. Not if the content in
>> the
>> >> > three
>> >> >>>> sites is different, but that would not be mirroring. That would
>> be
>> >> >>> linking!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> If however all three of those sites sell the same products, have
>> >> the
>> >> > same
>> >> >>>> product descriptions and the same categories (are in effect the
>> >> same
>> >> >>> store),
>> >> >>>> then yes, according to Google, that could hurt you.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The article posted in this thread also hints that Google has
>> tied
>> > into
>> >> > DNS
>> >> >>>> registration DBs and are looking at who owns sites that appear
>> to
>> > have
>> >> > the
>> >> >>>> same content.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
>> >> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> Maternity Corner
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:39 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> So, if I have anniesbaby.com and rebelmaternity.com etc pointing
> to
>> >> >>>> maternitycorner.com that's going to hurt me in google???
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >>>> Anne Cavicchi
>> >> >>>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
>> >> >>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
>> >> >>>> 250-354-2000
>> >> >>>> www.maternitycorner.com
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Aquapro
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:25 AM
>> >> >>>> To: Bill Gilligan; Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Just wanted to post this after FINALLY hearing back from Google.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> We had almost 55,000 pages in the Google index from our Search
>> >> Engine
>> >> >>> Killer
>> >> >>>> pages, CBS store map pages, plus all the static content pages
>> from
>> > the
>> >> >>>> informational side of our site.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Now down to 904 and dropping. After quite a few emails to
>> Google,
>> >> we
>> >> >>> finally
>> >> >>>> got a response. They are absolutely not indexing ANY form of
> mirror
>> > or
>> >> >>> HTML
>> >> >>>> equivalent of dynamic pages. If content on pages is identical or
>> >> even
>> >> >>> close,
>> >> >>>> forget about it!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> It's either the dynamic pages, or ONE series of HTML pages. Have
>> a
>> >> > mirror
>> >> >>> on
>> >> >>>> another domain? Google may not list your site at all unless
>> (like
>> > us),
>> >> > you
>> >> >>>> also have a fair amount of content pages.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> They would not get into algorythym specifics, but the bottom
>> line
>> >> is
>> >> > that
>> >> >>> we
>> >> >>>> had too many copies of our store in their index. Their solution
> was
>> > to
>> >> > get
>> >> >>>> rid OF ALL pages related to Merchant from our site. They said
> their
>> >> > spider
>> >> >>>> will now crawl the site starting at the index and will spider
>> any
>> > links
>> >> > it
>> >> >>>> finds until content starts looking identical, then it will stop.
> It
>> >> > will
>> >> >>> be
>> >> >>>> at least two to six months after we "clean up our site and
>> remove
>> >> all
>> >> >>> forms
>> >> >>>> of mirror html pages before Google will start indexing new html
>> >> pages
>> >> >>>> generated by our new PHP Frame solution (Sebenza Studios). As
>> that
>> >> >>> solution
>> >> >>>> also prevents the spider from seeing standard mvc product and
>> > category
>> >> >>>> pages, it will work, but only after we get rid of our SEK pages
> and
>> > CBS
>> >> >>>> Store Map.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> SEK, CBS store map and any other form of mirrored pages are a
> thing
>> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> >>>> past when it comes to Google. Either the PHP Frame solution we
> have
>> > or
>> >> >>>> Search Friendly links with dynamic Miva pages are the only way
>> to
>> > fly.
>> >> > Get
>> >> >>>> rid of anything else fast!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Thank you
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
>> >> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bill
>> >> > Gilligan
>> >> >>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:16 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Someone recently posted a link to a story about new changes at
>> > Google.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I have a client that has found his sales down, and google
>> listing
>> >> has
>> >> >>>> dropped bu thousands. Did they
>> >> >>>> drop thousands of pages?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Anyone have that link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Bill
>> >> >>>>

OT: Google link?



For example.. you have some kind of promotion that you put on your
category tree or right columns.
Like a buy two of this product now link. You could do it by putting in a
long link with all the name value pairs in it.
Which is what I used to do... OR you can do it with a form and a text
submit link instead of a submit button.
I've found Merchant Optimizer doesn't try to alter form POST actions
urls. BUT it does alter regular links.

Probably most stores won't be affected at all. I do some weird stuff to
make Merchant behave how I Want it to.
Kelly



Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email protected]
>>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kelly XR
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:39 PM
>>I also found that if there is an oddity... say you put a link to
>>somethign that really must stay dynamic, but MO seems to
>>fudge it up. You can often fix it by using a form with action=post to
>>get around the problem.
>>
>>
>
>Not sure what you mean by "must stay" dynamic. Optimizer is only rewriting
>category product and storefront links...however, if you want optimizer to
>ignore any content, just wrap it in IF(Optimizer) and then include
>Optimizer=1 in the page call settings. Thus, when optimizer calls the page,
>it will contain the variable Optimizer and a value of 1.
>
>-Bruce
>
>
>

OT: Google link?



One thing to add... you might not want the L
If a rule with an L on the end gets completed, the L makes your server
stop and jump out of .htaccess
for example writing .mv to .mvc...

L is good most of the time... but just be aware there might be instances
where you don't want it.

Kelly

David Hubbard wrote:

>From: [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>>So, my ever so amazing host (dotCOM designers) figured out a
>>way to give a 301 header on any url containing
>>www. ultimatenourishment .com to
>>www.ultimate-weight-products.com Meaning if there is a url out there
>>like www. ultimatenourishment .com /page/UN/CTGY/strainer and someone
>>clicks on it (or Google's spider follows it), it will give a 301 and
>>take the visitor to
>>http://www.ultimate-weight-products..../CTGY/strainer
>>
>>I am unsure exactly how the 301 is written to achieve this, but I am
>>sure David (your host) knows as well.
>>
>>
>
>That is quite easy actually, just need three lines of text
>in a .htaccess file for the site in question:
>
>RewriteEngine On
>RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com$ [NC]
>RewriteRule ^(.*) <A HREF ="http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]">http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]</A>
>
>
>That will cause a 301 redirect to www.domain.com for any
>incoming request that came in on any domain other than
>www.domain.com keeping the rest of the URL the same.
>
>For websites that use shared SSL certificates and need
>to avoid having that rewrite break the SSL because of
>the name being different, it requires one extra line
>which is explained here:
>
><A HREF ="http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=0&cmd=view&id=45">http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=0&cmd=view&id=45</A>
>
>David
>
>

OT: Google link?



Bruce,

I think it's a good idea to head off trouble. But can I suggest you
rewrite those urls instead of banning them via the robots file.
You've got the urls in the serch engine... just to notify the bot to
dump them ... not allow them... seems like wasting gold being handed to you.
Instead 'correct' those sek results and permanently redirect them to the
ones you want listed in teh search engine.
That way also anyone who has those old links to you (that get followed
by the spiders) will still be of value for inbound links (and will help
the spiders update their search engines at the same time).

I feel that just blocking those older urls... is like cutting off your
nose in spite of your face... we fight for rankings and work so hard to
get them..
any inbound link to our sites is a treasure... a potentential revenue
source... use them to improve your rankings instead. Tell the bots what
they should have instead.

rewrite rules can be really confusing and a pain in the butt to figure
out... but they really are our friends in situations like this.


Kelly



Barrett wrote:

> I did some testing today and found some of our results containing the
> sek url as the indented item, but then just as I did figured that
> would be consistent; the SFL styles can in as indented. Continuing my
> not so scientific analysis it looks as though some of our results that
> I'm pretty sure that used have indented sek urls are now single SFL
> results.
> Today I disallowd on the sek directory since our SFL links out number
> the SEk results by 4 to 1 - hope I am heading off trouble and not in
> to it.
> Should be ok I think as it is in keeping with what google is really
> trying to do.
>
> For now we'll just live with the slow down when the spider feeds.
> I'm not about to completely change horses in midstream at this point.
>
> Thanks,
> -Barrett
> http://handmade-paper.us
> Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
> ShipWorks by Interapptive.com
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 02:26 PM, mivalist wrote:
>
>> I'm far from an expert on Google so I'm just making an educated guess
>> here
>> but I know that when I do a Google search I'll sometimes see a
>> listing from
>> one domain followed by an indention and then a second listing from
>> the same
>> domain. I don't know under what circumstances Google chooses to do
>> that but
>> I would have to guess it's due to their algorithm deciding that two
>> pages
>> from the same domain qualify for the same ranking (based on the search
>> terms) and would therefore get the #1 & 2 (9&10, 10063 & 10064, etc.)
>> position but it adds the indention to shows that both listings are
>> from the
>> same domain.
>>
>> If we assume that to be the logic, pages on the same domain with
>> duplicate
>> content would naturally have the same ranking and would always
>> display that
>> way giving such stores an advantage over their competition.
>>
>> Again, I don't know if any of this is the case but it's the only
>> thing I can
>> think of that makes Google's new policy make any sense.
>>
>> Dan
>> Impulse Creations
>>
>> For low priced back issue comics and the very best in service visit
>> us at
>> www.impulsecreations.net and be sure to look for information on our
>> discounted subscription service with free bags and free shipping!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bruce Golub -
>> Phosphormedia.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:05 PM
>> To: 'Miva Merchant Users'
>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>>> Jason Henderson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:58 AM
>>> To: Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com
>>> Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
>>> Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>
>>>> Also, I think some are confusing "mirror" sites with
>>>
>>> "mirror" pages.
>>>
>>>> I'm
>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>> certain, but pretty sure that Google, or any search engine for that
>>>
>>> matter,
>>>
>>>> does not penelize for duplicate "pages" under the same
>>>
>>> domain...that
>>>
>>>> would just be silly. What they are penalizing are duplicate pages,
>>>> under
>>>
>>> different
>>>
>>>> domains. For example, www.ThisIsTheRealSite.com/rankme.html being
>>>> exactly the same as www.ThisIsAnotherSite.com/rankthis.html.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce,
>>>
>>> Did you miss Dave's post yesterday? Google indeed is now
>>> penalizing for duplicate content on the same domain.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>
>>
>> I didn't have time to read the article, however, if they are doing this,
>> then I'm selling my shares in Google, cause it shows they are just being
>> stupid. There is no benefit from having duplicate content under the same
>> domain, so why invoke a penelty.
>>
>> -Bruce
>>
>
>

OT: Google link?



I will vouch for that! True on my sites.

Kelly


Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com wrote:

>>
>
>Because when a crawler hits, you will have a server load<G>. Also, MO page,
>even though they are the exact duplicates, still place higher in SE such as
>google...not much, but still higher.
>
>-Bruce
>
>
>

OT: Google link?



Why don't you also do a rewrite rule to directly anything from /home/ to
your new storefront?
That would update any bots (ones that respect 301s anyway) like
googlebot. And means that links listed that way won't just be thrown
away by the search engine... they'll be updated to the new location.

RewriteRule ^/home/$ http://yourdomain/ [NC,R=301,L]

Maybe even send them to your sitemap! If it's a spider... that would
help it index your new pages.
RewriteRule ^/home/$ http://yourdomain/sitemap.html [NC,R=301,L]

FYI
NC means no case (upper lower case of the url doesn't matter)
R=301 means permanently redirect this link to the new one I'm giving you.
L means stop right here... quit htaccess... don't do anything else.
If you need more stuff done to the url you just rewrote.. then leave off
the L


Kelly


Barrett wrote:

> Ok folks after digesting this thread best I can and applying to our
> situation
> the first step I've taken to head off trouble (omg I hope I'm not
> breaking the if it works don't fix it rule !!!)
>
> Added to the robots.txt
>
> User-agent: googlebot
> Disallow: /home/
>
> this directory was to our old sek based site
>
> I did a queery at google and that showed 6,000 plus from that old
> site and I was thinking oh gosh this is scary, but then
> queried for url string to indicate the real site now with SFL
> directory styles
> that returned 24,600 results
>
> For probably a couple years now we had not linked from the dynamic
> site to /home/ in any manner
> The old /home/ was only there to not give a 404 to people hitting
> links still indexed with the engines and most of those pages were
> hacked up and had a great big proceed to the new site link on them.
>
> Our site map only includes SFL links.
> Afaik all cats and prods for the site are all SFL directory style.
> .htaccess at the root has the SFL rewrite strings
> domain root pulls index.mvc and loads the SFNT with all prods and
> cats as SFL
>
> How does this sound so far ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Barrett
> http://handmade-paper.us
> Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
> ShipWorks by Interapptive.com
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Julie Thompson wrote:
>
>> Jason, I know you mentioned you were unsure if blocking the
>> /Merchant2/ folder (or in my case, the /miva/ folder) would or
>> wouldn't effect SFL's, but do you know where I (and I am sure many
>> others reading this thread) can find out for sure? I don't want to
>> open a $99.00 support ticket for this with MIVA ;-) And nor do I
>> willy-nilly want to block the /miva/ folder only to find that all my
>> SFL were blocked too.
>>
>> What I am wondering is if all the links in my store are just like
>> this one:
>>
>> <A HREF ="http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/page/UN/PROD/AN/AB-001">http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/page/UN/PROD/AN/AB-001</A>
>>
>> Would blocking the /miva/ folder block the dynamic ones, like this
>> one below, but not the SFL above (even though technically the SFL
>> above is located in the /miva/ folder)?
>>
>> <A HREF ="http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/miva/ ">http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/miva/ </A>
>> merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AB-001
>>
>> Julie <---- who is waiting for plane ticket prices to come down to
>> confirm attending the Dallas Conference.... PHX to D/FW is $400!
>>
>> Jason Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> Same thing. There will be what "appears" to be two different pages
>>> with the
>>> exact same content. Banning /Merchant2/ directory "should" not affect
>>> rewritten urls via .htaccess such as SFL but don't quote me on that.
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>> I tried to follow the entire thread and didn't see this asked. If
>>>> so, I
>>>> apologize. What happens if your site has both SFL and normal
>>>> links to the
>>>> same page? Will this cause issues?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

OT: Google link?



Leslie...
Do it the other way around...MO is worth it!
Use the static pages.. definitely...
On one of my site I even got rid of CBS site map and use oui tokens to
generate a site map...(within a category header)
MO converts it to a static page... and even though if person did manage
to find the dynamic category that holds the site map code... and it
takes 10s for it to load dynamically... as a static page it's
lightening fast... and a human will never find it anyway... they can't
get to it via a search... (it's a category screen) and there are no
links to it that MO hasn't converted to static links to point to the
static pages..


Kelly


Leslie Nord - Webs Your Way wrote:

>So this renders Merchant Optimizer worthless???? And dump static "doorway"
>pages? Use just what Miva Merchant generates? Only have static
>informational pages? What a week to head to NYC - guess I should be a the
>conference that is going on next to the Streaming Media - Google is one of
>teh sponsors there....didn't see FindWhat listed though.
>
>Leslie <-- is ready to freakin scream.
>
>
>
>
>>Just wanted to post this after FINALLY hearing back from Google.
>>
>>We had almost 55,000 pages in the Google index from our Search Engine
>>Killer
>>pages, CBS store map pages, plus all the static content pages from the
>>informational side of our site.
>>
>>Now down to 904 and dropping. After quite a few emails to Google, we
>>finally
>>got a response. They are absolutely not indexing ANY form of mirror or
>>HTML
>>equivalent of dynamic pages. If content on pages is identical or even
>>close,
>>forget about it!
>>
>>It's either the dynamic pages, or ONE series of HTML pages. Have a mirror
>>on
>>another domain? Google may not list your site at all unless (like us), you
>>also have a fair amount of content pages.
>>
>>They would not get into algorythym specifics, but the bottom line is that
>>we
>>had too many copies of our store in their index. Their solution was to get
>>rid OF ALL pages related to Merchant from our site. They said their spider
>>will now crawl the site starting at the index and will spider any links it
>>finds until content starts looking identical, then it will stop. It will
>>be
>>at least two to six months after we "clean up our site and remove all
>>forms
>>of mirror html pages before Google will start indexing new html pages
>>generated by our new PHP Frame solution (Sebenza Studios). As that
>>solution
>>also prevents the spider from seeing standard mvc product and category
>>pages, it will work, but only after we get rid of our SEK pages and CBS
>>Store Map.
>>
>>SEK, CBS store map and any other form of mirrored pages are a thing of the
>>past when it comes to Google. Either the PHP Frame solution we have or
>>Search Friendly links with dynamic Miva pages are the only way to fly. Get
>>rid of anything else fast!
>>
>>
>>Thank you
>>
>>Dave Hauser, President
>>Aquarium Professionals Group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Someone recently posted a link to a story about new changes at Google.
>>
>>I have a client that has found his sales down, and google listing has
>>dropped bu thousands. Did they
>>drop thousands of pages?
>>
>>Anyone have that link?
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>