Somebody recently recommended that it is better to put a search word in the name of the URL. For example if you are selling carpets name the file "carpets_red.htm" instead of "cr.htm". Truth or myth?
It's better. How much better is open to argument though. Personally, I don't use keywords (intentionally at least) within my URLs. Makes them look spammy.
Hi - there is another thread on this very same subject If Google takes note of allinurl allinanchor allintext and allows you to see it, then you should satisfy that criteria first.
just because google has an allinurl feature doesn't neccesarily mean it has to be a part of the serps... I could definitely see remembering part of a url but not all of it and wanting to search for it again
I'm assuming that URL's are part of the serps from the results I've seen. For example, KW blue widgets on the listing for www.blue-widgets.com the blue and widgets is highlighted. Correct assumption? Also, for URL's - is better than _ if I remember correctly. Darren
Don't use the _ (underscore) . As of last month, the underscore does not divide keywords up into separate keywords, rather it joins both words together. Use the dash (-) instead. Hexed
"Don't use the _ (underscore) . As of last month, the underscore does not divide keywords up into separate keywords, rather it joins both words together." where are you getting that? from everything I can tell they can seperate words, so I doubt an underscore would make much difference... ie, to google it seems like searchengineoptmization.html and search-engine-optimization.html are identical
Well, on so many of these issues, the real question is "What's the potential downside?" If there isn't one readily visible, why not follow the general beliefs? If they're wrong, and you're accomplishing nothing, so what? No harm. But if any of them are right, and you don't implement them, you're losing out. What's the downside to using hyphens instead of underscores? What's the downside to using rememberable names instead of arbitrary alpha codes in file and directory names? If you see one, ponder and weigh; if you don't, ferevvins sake, just do it.
Sorry that is soooooo... wrong I was known as FoxyWeb but when I found out that my name had been hijacked by porn sites and others I changed it to z+2 and registered the site www.zplus2.com which I launched on Sunday 31st May. It was crawled by Google, MSN and WWWW on the same day and Google has been back already yesterday. Now go and do a search on "zplus2" Need I say more? Don't think so!
I'm sorry that I did not make myself clear but here is the original question by you: and I answered it using Weber bbqs but then it occurred to me that my new site for playing with [that is in the very long thread by Compar Mcdar and others and myself we intend to take these "virgin" sites and test them in various ways] would/could prove this point easily. So what I am saying here is, that I have taken a site, new, with a name that most people would not touch because of the "+" and used the alphabetical form "zplus2" as the domain name where I know that there is only minimal use, so I know that it is as unique as one could reasonably expect and registered it. What does it have at the moment? 1) a name with the term "zplus2" in the url 2) a page that has nothing else on it like zplus2 using only z+2 3) a few outgoing links 4) 2 incoming links from PR4 What doesn't it have? 1) any meaningful content What happened from registration on the DNS 1) Google visited within hours as did MSN and WWWW 2) Google revisited the day after and it was listed 3) I searched for "zplus2" and found it at No1 on that day. Meaning that the only way that google could have found this search is if it reads the search term in the url as the incoming links are actually for other phrases. The URL is the only mention of this phrase. Next, I will put down some pages with z+2.htm, and zplus2.htm, on this site [once we decide what to do in the long thread]. However, regardless of the follow on with this site, I have used hyphens and underscores for years with no discernable difference but with some considerable success eg www.xxx.com/mobile_homes/mobilehomemenu.htm and the mobile in both cases is hilited meaning that Google has read it. Does that help?
I missed this one as well! Yahoo search "zplus2" - No1 and no 4 with this forum showing clearly the url use.
This article pretty much settles the hyphen vs. dash argument. livingroom.org.au/searchengineoptimization/archives/domain_names_do_dashes_or_underscores_goose_google_rankings_more.php
No sorry, it dosnt. I love the way people create theories to fit something they want to prove, Google can pull keywords out of affordable_search_engine_placement in any order, for example for the search term "affordable placement in search engines" it can pull out keywords where as a hyphenated page name is optimised only for the specific term. That article is passing off search tips as SEO.
Are you sure about that, darksat? I tend to believe that Google treats the hyphen as a space rather than joining the words together.
This is old news, so I figured everyone had already read it. However, I haven't heard it mentioned in this thread. http://www.google.com/googleblog/2004/08/greets-from-googleguy.html
I think keywords in url are quite useful, "-" is believed to be the best format, but I saw "_" or two known words without any separator were also recognized by Google pretty well.
It seems that the hyphen is better than the underscore because of the anchor text factor. When people link back to your-great-keyword-seo.com, the bots seperate the words with hyphens, not as well with underscores.
hyphen is the preferred separator by most of webmasters (at least I believe so). I use it even my self. here is a discussion on hyphen vs underscore in webmasterworld http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/4572.htm