Length of URL has long been a critera considered in any SEO process, albeit a very minor one. If all other things were exactly even, google will normally list the shorter URL before a longer URL. What SEO world have you come from that you had not heard this before? Any why is it you continually miss the post of people's posts?
You happen to be wrong. In and of itself, length of URL has never been a factor. You may have heard this, or you may be misinterpreting something else you heard, but it's not a factor. How did I miss the "post of your post"? -Michael
We'll have to agree to disagree then, becasue IMO you happen to be wrong. I'll see if I can dig it up, but I've got a direct quote form googleguy himself indicating that length of URL has a slight significance in index position. Regardless of where we stand on the debate of whether length of url is a factor in SEO, I think we can both agree that .html is not better than .php. That, was the point of the post. And please forgive my post of the typo. I apologize if you were unable to decipher it's meaning.
By GG, do you mean Matt on his blog? You talking about when site: command showed by length of URL? That was brief, if so, and not related to SEO actually. That I agree with. And there are other factors in forming the url, that can have an effect on length (spammy kwd stuffing, etc)... it's just that length alone is not a factor in se rankings. Shorter is better for memorability though, by all means. -Michael