| 7:12 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I doubt there is any truth to this other than the majority of sites that use "-" are spam pages. Why would you want a "-" in the domain unless you were trying to do some SE stuff with it?
| 7:46 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google state that their aim is relevant search results. Therefore Google
couldn't penalise hyphenated domains,
they couldn't penalise +50% keyword density,
they couldn't penalise singleword.com domains,
which are the statements I most disagreed with in this thread. Plus:
The theory that keywords in your domain will help you rank well for competative keywords is not proven, it slighty helps on far, far, far less important keywords is proven though.
Google aren't likely to change one very small part of an algorithm like 'hyphenated domains', they'll make several changes at once based on data accumulated for weeks/months.
If Google have lessened the importance of keywords in file-names (also mentioned in this thread) then that's the webmaster communities fault for abusing it not Google, same with domain names.
AND would everyone stop saying there's such a thing as over-optimization! It's such a cop-out! -
Boo-Hoo I was too good so Google banned me!
That's like saying:
I was too good so God sent me straight to hell
If you 'spammed' then you're a 'spammer', not an 'over-optimizer'.
| 8:10 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
to add style. it just looks better.
I have always used "-", but not for SE stuff.
I have a feeling Google takes little or no consideration in what the URL is, because its been spamed for a few years now. These types of things have more to do with anchor text side effects.
| 8:14 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I have hundreds of domains, millions of pages, all with dashes.......I don't see any difference
Same here, but it seems all that's needed is for someone to wonder aloud, and 20-30% of the webmasters run off and take it to be true. Oh well...
BTW, I've noticed lately that some of our sites with images are not doing as well as other sites. Anyone else see that?
|More Traffic Please|
| 8:45 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google has been parsing individual keywords within a domain wheather they are seperated by hyphens or all run together. Why would G penalize www.KW1-KW2-KW3.com and not www.KW1KW2KW3.com?
| 9:07 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it has a bloody thing to do with the domain name, it's just the files names.
| 10:06 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm pretty sure that it is the quality of the pictures that makes a difference in your ranking. They can't bee too blurry or they just won't get enough PictureRank, but if they are too professionally done, then they will trip the Professional Picture Penalty filter.
What you need to do to get your photography studion out of the doldrums is to add some snapshots from your vacation in Ensenada to deprofessionalize it and avoid the PPP.
| 11:16 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BigDave, I think you hit the nail on the head! Do you think it matters if the images are outdoor/nature vs. studio shots?
| 11:53 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have had quite a lot of trouble with this problem caveman. I wanted to use outdoor shots, but to avoid tripping the filter, i had to start using a photography studio.
This became very difficult when i wanted to take pictures of Niagra Falls as i had to build a makeshift photo studio in a barrel so that my picture qulity level could be up to studio standards but still show outdoor shots.
The good news is that despite nearly falling to my death over the waterfall, i have managed to maintain my page rank and SERPS for the site.
| 1:15 am on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
google cant penalize '-' in url or domain name, as this is used to make the things clearer to the customer not for SEO alone.
Google may penalize more than three '-' for some or the other reason.
| 1:33 am on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|google cant penalize '-' in url or domain name, |
Actually, they can penalize just about anything they want. I realy doubt they do, even if some webmasters decide that they should. But they certainly can.
| 6:12 am on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|AND would everyone stop saying there's such a thing as over-optimization! It's such a cop-out! - |
Boo-Hoo I was too good so Google banned me!
I don't think it's anything to do with saying "I'm too good." It's saying "I tried too hard." Trying too hard is not the same as being good. (Just ask all the cute girls I wanted to date in high school if you don't believe me.)
And there most certainly is a problem with trying too hard when it comes to SEO ... you've surely seen pages with keyword-stuffed paragraphs in small text at the top or bottom of a page?
Sorry. I would've replied to this earlier but I just now finished pulling all the JPGs off our sites. Can't wait for our photography studio client to call in the morning. I know he'll be pleased to see his site at the top of the SERPs! You guys rock! ;)
| 10:53 am on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I happen to have an image that's doing pretty well with Google Images, and it has a hyphenated-keyword filename (seriously).
| 11:19 am on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
well I'm seeing completely the opposite I've got a few keyword-keyword URLs and they are pulling in good traffic and most are ranking within the top 3 for the main keywords which also happen to be the keywords within keyword-keyword url
| 12:16 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
More Traffic please - Why would G penalize www.KW1-KW2-KW3.com and not www.KW1KW2KW3.com?
You assume that although in the cache results you see words being picked out in urls like www.KW1KW2KW3.com that they are also being picked out as part of the ranking process..... different technology and probably unrelated to the ranking process. However, www.KW1-KW2-KW3.com, when used as anchor text, the seperated words will be easily identifyed and be part of the ranking process.
| 1:35 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Plus, with respect to performance in the SERP's, let's not confuse site elements that create:
--imporvement in rankings
--zero benefit in rankings
--problems with rankings
In hyphenated domains and hyphenated filenames, how the kw's between hyphens are treated, and how the hyphens themselves are treated, are two different matters.
| 1:47 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Google state that their aim is relevant search results. Therefore Google .... |
Actually, Google's goal is to provide relevant search results. But their goal is not to provide the most relevant search results without wiping out any "innocents."
The surveys on relevance almost always look at the top 10 results for any SERP and get a % of them that is relevant. Google could afford to wipe out a lot of "innocents" in order to make sure that the top 10 are all relevant, and I believe they have incorporated this into their core philosophy.
I believe they would rather have 10/10 relevant on the first page with XX% of the good sites wiped out than have 8/10 relevant and not wipe out any "innocents." This appears to be a major philosophical shift since the Florida update.
| 2:11 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I believe they would rather have 10/10 relevant on the first page with XX%
Wouldn’t that imply that (G) is an expert on every topic and subject in the entire world? In order for them to know which sites are the most relevant, they would have to have an expert for each and every topic. What a billion possible topics? And with a lot of topics an expert is considered someone who has been doing something no less than 10 years. (G) and their people may be the smartest in the world, but I doubt they are experts on every possible topic in the world.
|More Traffic Please|
| 4:19 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You assume that although in the cache results you see words being picked out in urls like www.KW1KW2KW3.com that they are also being picked out as part of the ranking process..... different technology and probably unrelated to the ranking process. |
Yes, I thought of that after making my post. I am wondering now if GoogleGuy has ever touched on the subject. I'm not quite ready to discount the chances that keywords in a url or file name play no role in Google's algo just because they are not hyphenated.
| 4:24 am on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We are beginning to really wonder about this hyphen thing. Since last week our G hits have gone down dramatically, really really dramatically, even though PR and backward links have increased. If GoogleGuy is out
there we would love to hear from him on this one. Other
than this we have no idea as to why our site began to
suffer so quickly.
Don and Cherie
| 4:35 am on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We use "-" on about 95% of our addresses, and have had no trouble with search engine listings.
| 4:50 am on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Listings are not the problem here with us, its the SERPS since last week and a possible penalty imposed because of the -, we have decent PR and good backlinks and get spidered deeply each day, yet results have dropped dramtically.
| 4:52 am on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"GoogleGuy is out there"
| 5:03 am on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Meanwhile, I'm pulling down anything with .png because I think that's the next big thing.
You guys worrying about .jpg stuff is so '90's!
| 7:27 am on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Regarding GoogleGuy [webmasterworld.com]
| 7:30 am on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have thousands of pages with "-". No porblems.
| 2:03 pm on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 2:39 pm on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think maybe a shift in topic:
If the issue is that you have dropped in rankings because of a (theoretical) drop in importance of keyword-hyphenated domains then I think you need to take a long hard look at your SEO priorities.
I have several hyphenated domains, if Google have lessened the importance of this then I haven't noticed. If your keyword-hyphenated domain was the only thing keeping you at the top of the results then do you really think you belong there?
| 2:49 pm on Jun 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>>>>>>>If your keyword-hyphenated domain was the only thing keeping you at the top of the results then do you really think you belong there?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It should not have an effect either positive or negative on our position. If it's having a negative effect "penalty" than that is wrong.
| This 59 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 59 ( 1  ) |