keyworduri si cratima

[too_night]

Eu cred ca sunt evident mai usor de retinut (mai ales de citit!) url-urile cu cratima, atat timp ca e vorba de 2-3 cuvinte. nuntiboteruzi .ro vs. nunti-botezuri . ro ...Sare in ochi.

Dpdv SEO, nuntibotezuri nu este vazut ca si un cuvant?
Apropos oarecum de asta, Matt Cutts vb. despre Dashes vs. underscores ; de citit si Vanessa Fox on Organic Site Review session, in care spune:

african-elephants.html is seen as two words: “African” and “elephants”. african_elephants is seen as one word: african_elephant. It’s doubtful many people will be searching for that

Am facut cu ceva timp un urma un mini-test cu 2 domenii diferite, unul cu cratima (2 cuvinte), celalalt impreunat; cel cu cratima este cu 20 de pozitii mai sus decat cel cu cuvintele legate.

[Krumel]

Underscores are now word separators, proclaims Google

One key development that Matt shared with the audience was that underscores in URLs are now (or at least very soon to be) treated as word separators by Google. That's great news, because it historically hasn't been that way. Back in 2005, Matt stated that Google did not view underscores in URLs as word separators. That meant that in a URL like http://www.mysite.com/iphone_review.html Googlebot couldn't "see" the words iphone or review. Instead it read iphone_review as one word. I wouldn't recommend targeting "iphone_review" as a keyword, as I doubt anyone will be including an underscore in their Google query.

So it used to be--until now--that any benefit that you would have gotten by having a keyword-rich URL was negated by the use of underscores separating those words. TypePad and Movable Type blogs were particularly affected by this, as by default, underscores were used instead of hyphens. This new change in the Google algorithm should make bloggers using the TypePad service or the Movable Type blog software (and anyone else using underscores in their URLs) very happy, as I anticipate their Google traffic will be going up.

A few other highlights from Matt's talk that you may find interesting:

* Matt claims that Google treats URLs with a query string the same as static URLs. Caveat: as long as there are no more than two or three parameters in the URL, that is! Put another way, you won't take a hit in your Google rankings if you have a question mark in your URL; just don't have more than two or three equals signs in the URL.
* Matt stated that the number of slashes in your URL (i.e. the number of directories deep your page is) isn't a factor in your Google rankings. He went on to say that although it doesn't matter for Google, it is rumored to matter for Yahoo and MSN (Live Search). Matt addressed this because I specifically asked the question from the audience.
* According to Matt, the file extension in your URL won't affect your rankings. So it's inconsequential whether you use .php, .html, .htm, .asp, .aspx, .jsp etc. The one extension you should avoid for your Web documents? .exe.
* Matt stated it was myth that Google uses its status as a domain registrar to access domain registration data to use it as a ranking signal. According to Matt, being a registrar doesn't grant one special access to other registrars' customer data. Note that Matt didn't state whether Google is or isn't using WHOIS data as a signal. I believe they are.
* When asked about how to get one's blog into Google News, Matt shared one of Google's requirements for inclusion: the blog must have multiple authors. So those of you wanting your blog showing up in Google News results, I hope it's a group blog!

astia/asta se joaca cu focul...

[dragoserv]

Si eu cred ca cel cu cratima e mai usor de optimizat (mai usor de citit)...in general cand am luat domenii am cumparat si cu cratima si fara, dar site-ul l-am pus online pe cel cu cratima iar celalalt redirect permanent.
Nu am facut un test cum zicea cineva mai sus sa vad care e mai usor de optimizat, dar pana la urma nu conteaza prea mult domeniul vis-a-vis de cuvantul pentru care optimizezi....
In schimb daca vrei sa faci reclama la un post de radio de exemplu, chiar am auzit o reclama in care spunea www.site "liniuta" masini.ro (exact asa spunea) ,deja suna aiurea, mult mai bine se auzea daca era un domeniu fara cratima....

[Krumel]

dragoserv, chestia asta cu dashes vs. underscores se refera la forma link-urilor interioare.

Nu la numele de domeniu.

That meant that in a URL like http://www.mysite.com/iphone_review.html Googlebot couldn't "see" the words iphone or review. Instead it read iphone_review as one word. I wouldn't recommend targeting "iphone_review" as a keyword, as I doubt anyone will be including an underscore in their Google query.

Intr-un nume de domeniu nu poti pune: stiu_seo_si_sint_tare.com , ci doar nu-am-inteles-nimic-din-ce-scrie.com
Pana acum se recomanda forma nu-am.com/dar-stiu-seo, dar acum e ok si cea de forma nu-am.com/dar_bat_campii.
Capisci?

[dragoserv]

Krumel, eu m-am referit strict la domeniu nu la link-uri interioare.....
Ce ai spus tu stiam, numai ca link-urile din cate am auzit daca sunt cu underline nu sunt vazute asa bine ca cele cu underscore.....nu stiu exact, dar eu asa am la toate site-urile, site.ro/site-ul-meu

[Krumel]

Pai, articolul nu se referea la lucrul asta.
Dar, in fine...ai dreptate.