homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.18.190
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 ( [1] 2 > >     
keywords in domain
the end of the arguement?
soapystar




msg:94206
 10:06 am on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

for years we enjoyed discussing whether Google read keywords in non-hyphenated domain names. Now that they are actually highlighting the words do we all agree? Google reads keywords in domains like keyword1keyword2.com!

 

MHes




msg:94207
 4:09 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

They may highlight them within the cache, but that does not mean the technology used to do that has anything to do with the algorithm or their spider. Two completely different processes.

alika




msg:94208
 4:17 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

otherwise, businesses that preferred to name their sites with a brand name (ebay, amazon, yahoo) that has nothing to do with the keyword of their niche will fall off the search engines. we're not seeing that.

Chicken Juggler




msg:94209
 4:22 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Keyword in domain is such a small factor anyhow. The question is kw1-kw2.com better than kw1kwd2.com or does kw1-kw2.com have some value and kw1kwd2.com has none.

steveb




msg:94210
 8:58 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Keyword in URL is an important factor in the algorithm, but the reason some people don't recognize it now is because Google is able to parse out the words in keyword1keyword2.com now. I don't think it is the end of the argument, but it is the beginning of the end.

swerve




msg:94211
 10:00 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google does not parse out the keywords in URLS. The highlighting is a display mechanism only.

Here is the proof. Do a search for allinurl:"web design" (or choose another popular two word phrase, enclosed in quotes)

If you can find a single search result that that includes "webdesign" (or the concatenation of your chosen keywords) in the URL, then, and only then, can we make the claim that Google is indeed parsing keywords out of URLs.

your_store




msg:94212
 10:10 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do a search for allinur.. then, and only then can we make the claim Google is parsing keywords

I would say you're probably going to wait awhile for that kind of proof. G's history of toying w/ the search operators leaves open the possibilty that the url keywords would only be counted for regular searches.

I think the real proof would come from ranking for a nonsense word that only appeared concatenated in your domain.

deejay




msg:94213
 10:14 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Good point swerve.

Just ran the allinurl search, and happened to run across a site that had both "bluewidgets" and "blue-widgets" in the URL (domain and directory name).

Allinurl: "blue widgets"
highlighted only "blue-widgets" in the URL.

Allinurl: "blue" "widgets"
highlighted both "bluewidgets" and "blue-widgets"

steveb




msg:94214
 11:31 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

The allinurl search obviously has nothing much to do with any issue here.

kaled




msg:94215
 11:56 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

To discover how Google reads keywords in urls :-

1) Choose two madeup words. Check that they don't exist in the Google index.
2) Put the words together in an url.
3) Submit the url, use the toolbar, whatever, but don't link to it and don't place the words on the page.
4) Wait for the page to be indexed. Remember Google can index orphaned pages.
5) Type in the two made up words and see if Google finds the page.
6) Like everyone else who has done this experiment (I'm not one of them) keep the answer to yourself.

Kaled.

PatrickDeese




msg:94216
 12:06 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

The thing I am excited about is seeing Google highlight keywords separated by underscores - it appeared that prior to this G considered KeyWord1_Keyword2 to be a single word and KeyWord1-Keyword2 and two words.

Suddenly I am seeing searches for "green widgets" highlighting URLs like this:

www.example.com/catalog_green_and_blue_widgets.html

That's good news for a site I built 5 years ago with all files separated by underscores.

willybfriendly




msg:94217
 12:08 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have searched for nonsense combinations of letters taken from existing domain names. The sites belonging to the domains do not turn up in the SERPs.

For instance, a search for ialalp returns one page, and it is totally unrelated to the domnain I lifted the letters from.

This would support the idea that it is a display funciton only.

WBF

your_store




msg:94218
 12:09 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Choose two madeup words

The more I look at it, I don't think this will work. The "de-concatenation" seems to rely heavily on words found in the index or some other entity. The AS Ontology perhaps?

kaled




msg:94219
 10:40 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

If the experiment fails (as I'm pretty sure it would), the next stage is to introduce those words into the body text of other pages. In this way, the made-up words will be introduced into the Google dictionary.

Having done this, unless a positive result occurs, a negative result cannot be assumed until at least 2 updates have taken place, or, say, 10 weeks have passed.

Of course, you can run the second stage experiment concurrently with the first stage provided that different made-up words are used.

Kaled.

Antonsen




msg:94220
 11:30 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Redicolous tread....

Why bother? If the Google use the keyword in URL as a factor in the algo, they sure aint putting much weight into it - from my experiences!
If you aren't doing good in the SERPS - it most likely has nothing to with keyword in the URL or not!

Example: What is Google? It's mainly a search engine... Does the URL contain the keywords search engine? No..
Does Google.com rank high for the quiry 'search engine'? Yes... (as we know, ironically they're not first in Google for that term)

tigger




msg:94221
 11:34 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Redicolous tread....

well we have to discuss these silly ideas somewhere! BTW I'm being sarcastic!

kaled




msg:94222
 1:46 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

From my own observations, weighting to keywords in urls is still significant, though the bias may have dropped a little recently.

Why bother with this thread? Why post if you don't care?

I have no particular interest in the inner workings of Google, but other people do. If there is an easy experiment that can be carried out I'll suggest it but I'm not about to bother conducting it myself.

Kaled.

soapystar




msg:94223
 3:17 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Redicolous tread....

most people find if they sing the words they lose their lisp :-)

The point of the thread was the time old question of whether keywords in non hyphenated domains can be read by google. Google highlighting keywords in urls was new. You might not like the thread but it is not rediculous. There was no mention of its importance on ranking. However even if its significance was .01% of the algo or less then any SEO would be interested.

John_Caius




msg:94224
 3:53 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

The thing I am excited about is seeing Google highlight keywords separated by underscores - it appeared that prior to this G considered KeyWord1_Keyword2 to be a single word and KeyWord1-Keyword2 and two words.
Suddenly I am seeing searches for "green widgets" highlighting URLs like this:

www.example.com/catalog_green_and_blue_widgets.html

That's good news for a site I built 5 years ago with all files separated by underscores.

Shame it only does it for non-capitalised terms! That should be easy for Google to fix. *hint* :)

MikeBeverley




msg:94225
 4:00 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Personally, I think any boost in ranking you may see from having keywords in your domain name is probably attributed to the fact that some directories, other sites and robot-created links pages (the ones we all keep getting spammed by) will link to you using your domain name as the title which counts as anchor text.

Google was one of the last to work out that company's often give themselves names that don't always describe what they do. In Britain 'Camelot' is the lottery gaming commission, so a search for this brings up lottery information rather than medieval chat rooms or whatever.
Obviously if Google gave weight to domain names they are using a very risky piece of information that isn't always telling the full story.

Recent results have shown that Google gives more weight to keywords in file names rather than domain names but I expect now that we know this they will lower the weighting given to that aswell ...

Harwich




msg:94226
 7:33 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have domain I just threw online recently just to play with. The name is an abreviation of a company name. xx-****x I searched for it in quotes "xx-xxxx" and the results pulled up 2 sites 1 that had the letters xx and the letters xxxx but not together and without the dash. The second site it pulled was mine, so it does seem to read the url but how much it counts for is anyones guess. My site has 0 PR and almost no text on it yet. Anyone that is really interested and wants the term I searched for can sticky me.

Thanks
Harwich

your_store




msg:94227
 8:17 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

the next stage is to introduce those words into the body text of other pages. In this way, the made-up words will be introduced into the Google dictionary

Now we're getting somewhere. In the small bit of research I've done, you would have to have the term on a ton pages to get the term introduced into the "dictionary". I've been looking at some domain fragments, and they are only bolded when the fragment appears in the body of the page w/ the concatenated url.

Thanks goes out to whomever is making thousands of pages of only domain typos. It was the only place I could find url fragments in the text of the page

steveb




msg:94228
 9:03 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Any search engine worth more than a penny will consider domain name in its algorithm. A site called widgets.com is likely relevant to widgets, and only a moron-engine would ignore that. Domain name isn't the be-all and end-all of relevancy determination, but it is just one more thing a search engine will use... the same with file names and anchor text. All these can be manipulated, but it is a certainty that an engine considers them in their calculations.

kaled




msg:94229
 9:50 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

In the small bit of research I've done, you would have to have the term on a ton pages to get the term introduced into the "dictionary".

I haven't researched this, however, I placed a madeup word on a critical page of my site when first published simply so that I could tell if it had been indexed (by searching for it). This worked perfectly suggesting that Google's dictionary only requires the word to appear on a single page. However, it is possible that two dictionaries operate, and that a word has to exist on perhaps thousands of pages before it enters the second dictionary and only words in that second dictionary can be used usefully (non-hyphenated) in urls.

I can see no reason for operating a two-dictionary system, but perhaps if I gave the matter more thought I might come up with one.

Kaled.

your_store




msg:94230
 11:54 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

I placed a madeup word on a critical page of my site

I'm not sure, but it seems finding a "word" by itself in content would be a lot simpler than parsing a word from a concatenated string of characters.

I can see no reason for operating a two-dictionary system, but perhaps if I gave the matter more thought I might come up with one.

My hypothesis.. The first dictionary is simply the index. A listing of every string of characters Google has found. These aren't neccessarily words. The second dictionary would be a listing of known words. Google could then spend it's processor time trying to parse out a limited number of known words, rather than trying to look for every string ever written on the web.

MikeBeverley




msg:94231
 8:53 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

steveb - That's a very rude tone you have. I don't consider myself a moron and neither do the other search engine owners I work with who also do not use the domain as part of their ranking algorithm. We're not as big as Google but as Google's results are under so much criticism lately maybe being the biggest doesn't necessarily mean the best ...

If you think logically, a company will generally buy a domain with their company name in it which may have nothing to do with their services (like the name of a solicitors firm), the only people who will generally buy a domain name full of keywords are spammers and affiliate marketers. Therefore only a 'moron' would use the domain name as a ranking feature anymore.

steveb




msg:94232
 9:00 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Don't hold your breath about getting to be the biggest.

If you don't think widgets.com/red/ is more likely to be about red widgets than shshts.com/tsref/ then that's your choice. But I'm going to consider that an extremely bad one.

And what does a company have to do with it? We are talking about websites. If your search engine doesn't seek to rank web pages or websites, that speaks for itself.

MikeBeverley




msg:94233
 10:06 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you don't think widgets.com/red/ is more likely to be about red widgets than shshts.com/tsref/ then that's your choice. But I'm going to consider that an extremely bad one.

Grow up. It think that widgets.com/red/ that doesn't mention red widgets is less important than shshts.com/tsref that does. And if both were to mention red widgets then it would turn to anchor text, themes and so on.

These days the chances are the widgets.com/red/ is an affiliate spam site pointing to shshts.com/tsref/

And what does a company have to do with it? We are talking about websites. If your search engine doesn't seek to rank websites, that speaks for itself.

You do realise how ridiculous that sounds don't you?

trillianjedi




msg:94234
 10:25 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

It think that widgets.com/red/ that doesn't mention red widgets is less important than shshts.com/tsref that does.

That's a very sensible and correct statement.

Google is looking at what your site represents and not what it's called. Other SE's should (and in the main are) doing the same.

However, from a user perspective, I agree with SteveB. The former weidgets.com/red/ is going to look far more enticing to a user looking at a page of results than shts.com/tsref.

TJ

kaled




msg:94235
 10:30 am on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think there is some confusion here. It is almost certain that Keywords in urls are recognised and rightly so.

Just to keep the algo simple, I imagine keywords in domain names are equally valid, however, the argument that domain names are often unrelated to products is a good one and Google may take the same view.

The issue of highlighting is interesting, but it may simply be that the highlighting algo it not word-orientated. It may simply highlight string occurrences. In any case, the highlighting algo is likely to be unconnected with search/filter algos.

Kaled.

This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved