Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Matt Cutts just blogged a clarification about dashes and underscores - looks like the reporting was not quite accurate:
If you read Stephan Spencer’s write-up, he says that underscores are the same as dashes to Google now, and I didn’t quite say that in the talk. I said that we had someone looking at that now. So I wouldn’t consider it a completely done deal at this point. But note that I also said if you’d already made your site with underscores, it probably wasn’t worth trying to migrate all your urls over to dashes. If you’re starting fresh, I’d still pick dashes.
In contrast the dash is used to join words not to seperate them.
Why search engines do it the other way round has always been beyond my understanding.
So for example there is a difference between this two urls for a picture:
One would show an "american football player" the other an "american-football player".
However Google does it just the other way as it is intended, using the underscore to join the words, and the dash to seperate them. Does not make sense to me.
Google may be rectifying this, but who knows about all the other SEs? It's still best to stick with dashes.
Did everyone here try allinanchor: before messing up their sites? Or any kind of search that'd be unique to their URLs?
The report wasn't inaccurate it said exactly what it meant to say that Google is looking into the possibility of underscores being a word separator. Hearing it I felt somewhat sad, that I could be moved by a promise like that, ( all the hobby sites we do with friends, all the sites I really like are using them ) and that was the first thing I did. Went over to Google and checked allinanchor: ...
And checked again after 4 days.
Then again after two weeks or so.
Nope, still not a word separator.
At least not in URLs it ain't.
Completely out of context, a site I saw ( gathering intelligence ) with major accessibility and dupe content problems, AND in the -950 zone redirected its perfectly OK most important page to a URL with an underscore the NEXT DAY the reports came in. Of course the old URL fell out of the index, and the new never got in.
SEOs, Webmasters the message of the day is:
Don't haste things, tread carefully...
News aren't there to tell you what you should do.
News are to confirm what you've been seeing.
Jecasc I agree 100%. I never used dashes as separators because some words are hyphenated in the English language... not underscore joined.
Having seen %20 once too often, I doubt you'll get much support. M$ desktop programs allow that (even encourage it), and it drives me to drink.
The underscore really has no place in the English language - or on a screen - except as, er, an underscore; ie a method of underlining words left over from the days of the typewriter.
Underlining, on the web, by convention means a link. Again, I doubt you'll find much support in calling for that to change; waaay too late.
Google is not doing this because Google is incompetent and becuase of technical legacy stuff (and their laziness and/or unwillingness to take care of problems).
Google is *well known* for ignoring Web standards, using "headers" made out of <font> and <b> instead of <hx> on their own pages (please! are we supposed to think they know anything about SEO if they can't even use real headers themselves?!), aggressively caching everything to the point where it becomes unreliable and confusing (AdSense, YouTube, their index, PR, etc.), and just generally not having a clue about anything but tricking people into thinking they "do no evil" (nothing could be further from the actual truth).
Just a "small" thing like their Copyright typo on Google.com (the (C) character is stuck to the year) amazes me. They really have no interest in doing anything other than making more money. They just don't care. This is why they want these stupid dashes.
Google is the new Microsoft.
I called myself lazy for believing what I read without bothering to check the SERPs, not you.
But frankly, your post title "It's Not Just Google That Treats Underscores Like Dashes" already assumes Google treats underscores like dashes. In the same article, you also write "Now Google treats underscores the same way as hyphens." Compelling, but those statements are false.
Don't get me wrong, I respect your reporting - which is why I want to be able to trust everything you write.
[edited by: Halfdeck at 4:31 pm (utc) on Aug. 10, 2007]
No one's calling for underscores to be used in everyday language, just in internet addresses and other situations where spaces aren't easily available.
Ideally we could use spaces instead, but that just isn't going to happen, so the nearest human-readable substitute is the underscore.
If someone says "red_car" in an address, they clearly intend that as "red car" and not "redcar". If Google is interested in accuracy, they'd treat underscores as spaces. Apparently they're not interested in accuracy, however.
Underscores are not, never have been and never will be a sensible way to separate words, especially in URLs.
For what it's worth, spaces are even worse (if that's possible). Hyphens are not ideal, but are a common sense compromise, as the English language alternative would be a space.
For obvious reasons. :) In fact it's all so obvious really, isn't it?
And that's my last word, you'll be pleased to hear ;)
So when I see example1-example2 I read it as a variable named example1 being subtracted from example2.
A dash really isn't a delimiter in my opinion. Not when compared to the underscore especially. To me it is funny that a bunch of programmers decided that a math operator was a good text delimiter. Must make for some interesting code in places.
That being said I don't like the underscore as a delimiter in domain names... but for file names... the dash is just wrong. You bring that file name into a programming name space and it will start trying to do math operations on names.
[edited by: Demaestro at 7:30 pm (utc) on Aug. 10, 2007]
It's 2007 and I can't hardly believe so basic an issue (that potentially affects 99.99% of websites) hasn't been sorted out yet (once and for all).
I never use hyphens or underscores for separation unless I have to and that's about never. I assume Google's engine has enough experience by now to parse joinedwords.
(It always seems to put searched words in bold for both the page title and URL, so I take that as a clue it's on the ball and doesn't get confused easily.)
Given the amount of documentation still in existence that dates back to DOS origins, it would not be a surprise if the search engines treated underscores in file names as they were originally intended.... as word separators.
Hyphens on the other hand link two associated words together (often unnecessarily)... the opposite of being a separator.
When it comes to establishing the theme and relevance of a web page, its logical to associate widgets_red and widgets-red as both being about red widgets. Both should be included in the results for a matching search.
I assume Google's engine has enough experience by now to parse joinedwords.
Hyphens (-) were allowed but it was uncool to name files with them because (in my opinion) they didn't seperate/distinguish each of the words prominently enough, so the underscore meme won.
I recall adopting the underscore approach in the early 90's when I moved from the Midwest to Silicon Valley (maybe they don't call it that anymore). I felt like I had learned the *real* naming convention used by the real professionals, and how it beat the mishmash of dashes and scrunchy words.
I think Windows first started allowing files to be named with a space around 95, plus or minus. But even today, I use an underscore for most of my file names. (strong meme).
Does google recognize the underscore? no.
Should Google recognize underscores? Should God save the polar bear?
[edited by: tedster at 9:15 pm (utc) on Aug. 11, 2007]