Thread: Google Base - Product Type fix?

searched all over the forum and never found an answer for what to do about product types in Google Base feeds. Manually editing isn't a viable option really.

Does anyone have an idea or is there an add-on to fix this?

ML 8.0.1.2

anyone have any ideas? I was thinking extension data, but not sure what to do to make the product's extension data show up in the feed.

I too had the same issue of no product types being in any Google Base feed.

This is what I did for my situation, it should help you with version 8 too....

Modify the file "feed.googlebase.xml.config" in the admin/XmlPackages directory (make a backup copy first)

Change this:

select p.productid, p.name, isnull(pv.name, '') VariantName, p.description, p.sename, p.ImageFileNameOverride, p.SKU, isnull(p.FroogleDescription, '') ProductFroogleDescription, p.SEKeywords,
p.ManufacturerPartNumber, pv.price, isnull(pv.saleprice, 0) saleprice, isnull(pv.FroogleDescription, '') VariantFroogleDescription, isnull(pv.description, '') VariantDescr, pv.Condition,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY p.productid) AS ROW
from dbo.product p
join dbo.productvariant pv on p.productid = pv.productid
left join (select variantid, sum(quan) inventory from dbo.inventory group by variantid) i on pv.variantid = i.variantid

to this:

select p.productid, p.name, isnull(pv.name, '') VariantName, p.description, p.sename, p.ImageFileNameOverride, p.SKU, isnull(p.FroogleDescription, '') ProductFroogleDescription, p.SEKeywords,
p.ManufacturerPartNumber, pv.price, isnull(pv.saleprice, 0) saleprice, isnull(pv.FroogleDescription, '') VariantFroogleDescription, isnull(pv.description, '') VariantDescr, pv.Condition,
pc.CategoryID,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY p.productid) AS ROW
from dbo.product p
join dbo.productvariant pv on p.productid = pv.productid
left join (select variantid, sum(quan) inventory from dbo.inventory group by variantid) i on pv.variantid = i.variantid
left join dbo.productcategory pc on p.productid = pc.productid

(you added the line 'pc.CategoryID,' and the last line 'left join dbo.productcategory pc on p.productid = pc.productid')

Then add the following line further down in the file:

<xsl:param name="ProductName" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(name)"></xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="ProductVariantName" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(VariantName)"></xsl:param>

<!-- added next line -->
<xsl:param name="CategoryId" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(CategoryId)"></xsl:param>

] <xsl:param name="ProductDescr" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(description)"></xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="VariantDescr" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(VariantDescr)"></xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="ProductFroogleDescription" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(ProductFroogleDescripti on)"></xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="VariantFroogleDescription" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(VariantFroogleDescripti on)"></xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="ItemImage" select="aspdnsf:ProductImageUrl(productid, ImageFileNameOverride, SKU, 'medium', 1)"></xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="ManufacturerPartNumber" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(ManufacturerPartNumber) "></xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="StoreURL" select="/root/StoreSite/Store/ProductionURI"></xsl:param>

(you added: '<!-- added next line -->
<xsl:param name="CategoryId" select="aspdnsf:GetMLValue(CategoryId)"></xsl:param>')

Then after this next section of code...

<item>
<title>
<xsl:value-of select="$ProductName" />
</title>


add something like this:

<g:product_type>
<xsl:choose>
<xsl:when test="number(CategoryID) = 1">
Animals &gt; Pet Supplies &gt; Dog Supplies
</xsl:when>
<xsl:when test="number(CategoryID) = 2">
Animals &gt; Pet Supplies &gt; Cat Supplies
</xsl:when>
<xsl:otherwise>
Animals &gt; Pet Supplies
</xsl:otherwise>
</xsl:choose>
</g:product_type>


Where the CategoryID numbers mean something relevant to the Google product types that relate you your Category types from the Category table. (in my case 1 = dog products = google base product type of 'Animals &gt; Pet Supplies &gt; Dog Supplies' and 2 = cat products = Animals &gt; Pet Supplies &gt; Cat Supplies. You can see what your category numbers relate to from the admin interface, manage categories, and the number and Name will be right there.

Obviously look them up from google (below the intro on this page http://www.google.com/support/mercha...&answer=160081)

So you replace the ' Animals &gt; Pet Supplies &gt; Dog Supplies', ' Animals &gt; Pet Supplies &gt; Cat Supplies' and 'Animals &gt; Pet Supplies' with 'Vehicles &amp; Parts &gt; Land Vehicles &gt; Snowmobiles ' or whatever your product types are... You can expand the section as much as you need to match all your product types, I only have two to deal with.

The result should be the Product types should show up in your xml feed, below the title as:

<title>Duragate Pet Gate</title>
<g:product_type>Animals > Pet Supplies > Dog Supplies</g:product_type>

Hope that helps, if not copy the backup original file back, and call for ADNSF support help.

- Charlie

Thank you. I am still waiting for Google to tell me if they like it or not, but it's working.

The only odd issue: If you have products mapped to more than one category, the item will show up in as many categories as it is mapped and Google will remove the extras, but that can make for a BIG feed.

Think the sql script needs to be the mechanism to handle how to set google product types where there are more than one category.... I think that the CategoryID should be forced to be a unique number (ie, 999, or some other obvious categoryID so that it can then be caught in the xsl choose section of the code. I will try and look at that later on, but maybe someone else can chime in and help on that aspect. I am not too clear on how Google treats a single product with two product types...

Google likes the new type. No error from google, other than the repeated items. But I can live with that for now.

I will look into the SQL statements,

If there are multiple cats with the same Google taxonomy, is something like this possible?

C#/VB.NET Code:

<xsl:when test="number(CategoryID) = 2,3"> 


EDIT: the above does not work

or is it better to declare each cat regardless?

I am not sure I think it depends on Google's intent, and they defined their google/froogle syntax...

I was only suggesting that you could using sql, substitute on the input side a unique and different category code, and have only one result coming back from sql for that product, use the different category code just for use with the feed xml code, to catch any product that has the conditions you are looking for (ie., two or more category id's) then catch that temporary category code, with whatever preselected google product type value that suits that multi category product. That is the only way I see handling multi product values.

But I must admit I am a newbie on google base, and perhaps a listing that shows up with more than one product type might be accepted into multiple categories???

If not, I would rather select my own single product type value, rather than google choosing on the fly so to speak.

When you used the term "cats" it threw me for a loop, I am in the pet supply business!

when you add

C#/VB.NET Code:

and pc.CategoryID <> XX 


where XX = the categoryId number you want to exclude from your feed (Featured products, etc..)

after

C#/VB.NET Code:

where p.IsSystem=0 
                and p.deleted = 0 


That category will not be in the feed. This will help remove a few of the duplicated items in the feed and doesn't seem to have much of an impact on time to execute

I don't know SQL, but this works for now...

Originally Posted by cengen

a listing that shows up with more than one product type might be accepted into multiple categories?

Google Base will not accept multiple categories of the same item and having multiples decreases the overall "quality" of the feed.

the data feed "quality" is a debatable issue and it's hard to quantify what weight google places on data feed quality. In a not very competitive market (just a few stores), the feed quality doesn't seem to matter as much as it does when the items are readily available by hundreds of stores. I have no hard data to back up that claim and any 'evidence' is circumstantial at best, but it does seem to be the case, if that makes any sense.

I would suggest using Google's suggested taxonmy for product types though.