homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.247.22
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
Google reading underscores in URls wrong?
internetheaven




msg:3875789
 9:24 am on Mar 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

I have a URl:

www.example.com/folder/file_name.htm

and if you search for:

allinurl: file site:example.com

or

allinurl: name site:example.com

you get 0 results. Whereas if you search for:

allinurl: file_name site:example.com

the page shows up in the results fine.

I thought underscores were the same as hyphens these days?

Mike

 

Receptional Andy




msg:3875839
 12:10 pm on Mar 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

In certain cases, Google may figure out that underscore is being used as a word separator (similar to the process for conjoined words). But an underscore is not a word separator - treating it as such would at a minimum cause a lot of developers to be frustrated when using Google, as many function names etc. use underscores.

Underscores and hyphens have never been treated the same - if you want a guaranteed word separator in a URL, always use a hyphen.

rainborick




msg:3875857
 12:50 pm on Mar 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

I believe that the last time Mr. Cutts talked about it, he said that the change to the way they treated underscores was either postponed or canceled. In any case, my recollection is that it never happened.

httpwebwitch




msg:3876916
 1:26 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

The same Mr. Cutts cited (this was at least 3 years ago) that Google's handling of underscores was the way it was because the product was initially created and tested by a bunch of programmer geeks. Because many function names and techy things use underscore as a word character, it was not considered a "whitespace" character and hence not a word separator.

Hyphen is a word separator, and always has been.

Thus it's conventional to use hyphens to separate keywords in all urls and file names.

HuskyPup




msg:3876929
 2:02 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I seem to remember it being said last year by Google that if one was building a new site then to use hyphens but not to worry if you had an older site using underscores.

FWIW I have thousands of urls and images all ranking extremely well using underscores and trying to get out of typing underscores after all these years is very difficult!

g1smd




msg:3876936
 2:11 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

allinur[b]l: f[/b]ile

The error here is the space after the colon. There should be no space.

nealrodriguez




msg:3876943
 2:33 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

i don't know but the last update i read on this alluded to matt cutts wordcamp '07 talk on how google was 'working' on treating underscores just like hyphens:

[mattcutts.com...]

If you read Stephan Spencerís write-up, he says some people thought that underscores are the same as dashes to Google now, and I didnít quite say that in the talk. I said that we had someone looking at that now. So I wouldnít consider it a completely done deal at this point. But note that I also said if youíd already made your site with underscores, it probably wasnít worth trying to migrate all your urls over to dashes. If youíre starting fresh, Iíd still pick dashes.

i know some seo's are telling their clients that google publicly announced that they are officially treating them the same;

g1smd




msg:3876946
 2:38 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Check the results for [_add] and [add_] and [add] to see that isn't true.

nealrodriguez




msg:3876949
 2:44 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

yeah, i definitely advocate the use of hyphens all over; I just wanted to highlight that i haven't seen google announce anything stating that they officially treat underscores as separators.

pageoneresults




msg:3876958
 3:13 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I just wanted to highlight that i haven't seen google announce anything stating that they officially treat underscores as separators.

Ya but their documentation has been revised to include suggestions about not using underscores in URIs. They also state that you don't need to go back and change them but if you are planning a URI structure change, to nix the underscores.

One bad thing about underscores that I've picked up from Social Media and URI shortening services is that they appear to "always" trigger the URI shortener. I've managed to work a formula to where I can keep branded URIs from being shortened. Those underscored URIs don't work from a variety of perspectives.

Of course there will be many who are going to smack me for saying that. Hey, the truth hurts, I can take it. ;)

nealrodriguez




msg:3876964
 3:24 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've managed to work a formula to where I can keep branded URIs from being shortened.

if the branded url is longer than the shortened version, you may want to consider using the shortened version to facilitate retweets. the easier it is for somebody to retweet your link with your @username without chopping up the preceding words the better chance you'll have it retweeted without mistakes.

of course if the underscore is triggering the shortening app on a branded url, with the same or less characters than the shortened version, of course employ your e=mc2 evolution without hesitation ;)

g1smd




msg:3876973
 3:40 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I always try to leave 15 to 20 characters free for people to add in whatever they want when they RT.

pageoneresults




msg:3876979
 3:46 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Let's go back to underscores. Can we list the pros vs cons of using them?

Pros

Still thinking...

Cons

1. Underscores obscured in hyperlinks. IE and others tend to blend those underscores right in with the text-decoration: underline. Is that a space?

2. Underscores are an unnatural keystroke for many.

I'll leave Cons 3, 4, 5, 6... for others. :)

[edited by: pageoneresults at 4:40 pm (utc) on Mar. 23, 2009]

piatkow




msg:3876990
 4:04 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

The only pros that I can think of are that they are second nature to people who started out using programming languages or databases that required them.

Seb7




msg:3877025
 4:55 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Pro - There the nearest thing to a space.

(I've never used underscores in URLs)

nealrodriguez




msg:3877059
 5:51 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

2. Underscores are an unnatural keystroke for many.

unless you took typing class in high school and could type blind folded doing bench presses; my pinky could hit an underscore harder than a sledge hammer;

back to it:

3. you have to hold down the shift key to type an underscore; if you accidentally hit the ctrl key, you'll need military-issued binoculars to read the monitor.

4.
Lots of computer programming languages have stuff like _MAXINT, which may be different than MAXINT. So if you have a url like word1_word2, Google will only return that page if the user searches for word1_word2 (which almost never happens).

[mattcutts.com...]

AjiNIMC




msg:3877093
 6:35 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Check this

[google.com...]

and [google.com...]

pageoneresults




msg:3877105
 6:43 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Great example. That tells us that the hyphen is treated as white space and the underscores are not. Bravo!

nealrodriguez




msg:3877118
 7:12 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Check this

[google.com...]

and [google.com...]

interesting to note, however, after reviewing those serps, that wikipedia uses underscores to separate the keywords describing their entries; and you know much they tank on the serps ;) doesn't take from the fact that the symbols are treated differently.

AjiNIMC




msg:3877129
 7:29 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I also did notice that Wikipedia uses underscores. Wikipedia tanking on the SERP is a total different thing, (I have written about it many times. My recent post highlighted a very important fact about it, "How commercial businesses are not afraid of linking to wikipedia", I was many pages that were better than wikipedia to link to for a topic but I was scared to loose my prospect customer to another business. Wikipedia is tooooooo SE friendly.)

Coming back to the topic, consider this
[google.com...]

it did not tigger any URL that has _Bowery, only with the "-" (dashes) are coming in the list.

internetheaven




msg:3877164
 8:25 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

allinurl: file

The error here is the space after the colon. There should be no space.

Google put the space there.

Anyway, it still doesn't show if you take the space out.

Like many, I was sure I'd heard Matt Cutts say something along the lines of "we treat underscores the same as hyphens in URls". A URl re-write is going to be a pain! But looks like this problem may be a permanent one so I'll probably stick to hyphens from here on in.

Alcoholico




msg:3877230
 10:08 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

So, this is not true: [news.cnet.com...]

tedster




msg:3877241
 10:16 pm on Mar 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Matt directly addressed that article in his blog:

If you read Stephan Spencerís write-up, [he says] some people thought that underscores are the same as dashes to Google now, and I didnít quite say that in the talk. I said that we had someone looking at that now. So I wouldnít consider it a completely done deal at this point. But note that I also said if youíd already made your site with underscores, it probably wasnít worth trying to migrate all your urls over to dashes. If youíre starting fresh, Iíd still pick dashes.

[mattcutts.com...]


ecmedia




msg:3877596
 1:44 pm on Mar 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Underscores are for geeks; my grandma does not even know how to insert one. Hyphens make sense to everyone.

loudspeaker




msg:3877631
 2:26 pm on Mar 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Linguists would probably say it should be the other way around. Underscores don't exist in written English - a perfect "white space" alternative! Hyphens do exist in many words: well-fed, gas-fired, pick-me-up, tear-off, and so on, to give a few random examples, so using them as a space is ambiguous and confusing.

nealrodriguez




msg:3877763
 5:18 pm on Mar 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

well considering the time it takes for google to enhance their search engine, so they can say they can 'officially' do something, to the time it takes for us to see google do half of what they say they can do, based on our experimentation, since they are merely 'working' on treating them the same, i'd say to stick with the hyphens; at least until 5pm ;)

Alcoholico




msg:3877841
 6:53 pm on Mar 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Underscores are for geeks; my grandma does not even know how to insert one.

That's the best reason for using underscores as separators, they do not belong to any natural language and "normal" users (SE users and grandmas) won't type them so easily in queries.

Thanks tedster for clarifying.

g1smd




msg:3877851
 7:15 pm on Mar 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Surely you mean " ... for not using underscores ... " here?

Alcoholico




msg:3877936
 9:27 pm on Mar 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

No, but I'm sorry, I should've said "For ME, that's the best reason for using underscores as separators", certainly not for google at this point.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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